C'
ED

1 Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Kelly M. Dennody (SBN 171716)
2 Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice)
3 Jahan C. Sagafi (SBN 224887) Nirej S. Sekhon (SBN 213358)
4 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
5 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
6 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
7 Thomas A. Saenz (SBN 159430)
8 Shaheena Ahmad Simons (SBN 225520) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
9 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street
10. Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512
11 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
12 Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D'Urso
13 Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
14 One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107
15 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
16 Jack W. Lee, Esq. (SBN 071626)
17 Lisa Duarte, Esq. (SBN 169750) John Ota, Esq. (SBN 195532)
18 MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor
19 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000
20 Facsimile: Fax (415) 398-3887

Douglas R. Young Sandra A. Kearney FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4481
Thomas Brennan Ridgley Jonathan M. Nonnan Sandra J. Anderson Mark A. Knueve VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: 614-464-6400 Facsimile: 614-464-6350
Anna Y. Park (SBN 164242) Peter F. Laura (SBN 116426) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
John C. Hendrickson(IL SBN 1187589) Gregory M. Gochanour (IL SBN 6210804) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661

21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants [Additional counsel listed on signature page]

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23

24 EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY OCAMPO, ENCARNACION GUTIERREZ,
25 JOHAN MONTOYA, JUANCARLOS GOMEZMONTEJANO, JENNIFERLU, AUSTIN CHU,
26 IVY NGUYEN, ANGELINE WU, ERIC FIGHT, CARLA GRUBB, DAVID CULPEPPER,
27 PATRICE DOUGLASS, and ROBAIR SHERROD, BRANDY HAWK and ANDRE
28

Case Nos. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 and 04-4731
CONSENT DECREE

426266.1

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 04-4730 & 04-473

·' . \l
C.. ")

1 STEELE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
2
Plaintiffs,
3 v.
4 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F
5 CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT
6 CO.,

7

Defendants.

8 ELIZABETH WEST and JENNIFER LU,
9 Plaintiffs,
10 v.
11 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F
12 CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT
13 CO.,

14

Defendants.

15
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 16 COMMISSION,

17

v.

18 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and
19 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT
CO.
20
Defendants. 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

426266.1

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

4 II. III.
5 IV.

PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE ...................................................................... .1 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2 LITIGATION BACKGROUND .........................................................................................4

6

A. The Gonzalez Litigation ..........................................................................................4

7
8 v.

B. The EEOC Litigation ...............................................................................................6 C. The West Litigation .................................................................................................7 JURISDICTION................................................................................................................... 8

9 VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF THE DECREE............................................ 8

10 VII. SETTLEMENT CLASS ......................................................................................................9 VIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS IN PRIVATE ACTIONS AND EEOC ACTION ..................... 10

11

A. Release of Claims by Settlement Class.................................................................. 10

12

B. Release of Claims by Plaintiffs .............................................................................. 11

13

C. Unknown Claims ................................................................................................... 12

D. EEOC Release........................................................................................................ 12

14

E. No Tolling of Harassment Claims ......................................................................... 13

15

F. No Bar to Future Claims ........................................................................................ 13

16 IX. 17

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.................................................................................. 13 A. No Admission of Liability ..................................................................................... 13 B. Modification and Severability of the Consent Decree ........................................... 14

18

C. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree ............................................................... .15

19
x.
20

D. Execution In Counterparts ..................................................................................... 15 GENERAL EQUITABLE PROVISIONS ......................................................................... 15 A. General Injunctive Provisions ................................................................................ 15

21

B. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Procedures .................................................. 16

22
XI. 23

C. Marketing ............................................................................................................... 19
ABERCROMBIE'S INTERNAL PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DIVERSITY PRACTICES ...........................................20

24

A. Creation of Office of Diversity.,............................................................................20

B. Notice and Posting .................................................................................................22

25

C. EEO and Diversity Training ..................................................................................23

26

D. Internal Complaint Procedure ................................................................................25

E. Performance Evaluations .......................................................................................28

27

XII. JOB ANALYSIS, MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, JOB

28

CRITERIA, RECRUITMENT, HIRING, JOB ASSIGNMENTS AND

MANAGERIAL PROMOTION AND STAFFING ..........................................................28

426266.1

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 Sl, 044730 & 04-473

r~.·.·)·.·\

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

2

Page

3

A. Job Analysis and Job Criteria ................................................................................28

4

B. Recruitment and Hiring..........................................................................................29

C. Managerial Promotions ..........................................................................................31

5 XIII. AFFIRMATIVE RECRUITING EFFORTS .....................................................................31

6

A. Diversity Recruiters ...............................................................................................31

7

B. Advertisements .......................................................................................................32

C. Recruiting Events ...................................................................................................32

8

D. Diversity Consultant ..............................................................................................32

9

E. Documentation.......................................................................................................32

10 XIV. BENCHMARKS ................................................................................................................33 A. General Principles ..................................................................................................33

11

B. Interim Hiring Goals ........................................................ ~ .....................................34

12

C. Applicant Rate Goals .............................................................................................38

xv. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING, AND COMPLIANCE MEETINGS .......................39
13 A. Documents To Be Preserved For The Duration of The Decree ............................ .39

14

B. Documents to Be Maintained for Two Years ........................................................39

15

C. Access to Documents .............................................................................................39

16

D. Reporting Schedule ................................................................................................40

E. Contents of the Semi- Annual Progress Reports .................................................... .40

17

F. Compliance Meetings ............................................................................................42

18

G. Status Conference with Court ............................................................................... .43

XVI. MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... ..43 19
A. Court-Appointed Monitor ..................................................................................... .43
20 XVII. MONETARY RELIEF, NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE ...................................47

21

A. Establishment of Settlement Fund .........................................................................47

22

B. Distribution of Settlement Fund ............................................................................ .49

1. Class Representatives and EEOC Charging Parties .................................. .49

23

2. Settlement Class .........................................................................................49

24

C. Notice .....................................................................................................................49

25

1. Mailed Notice .............................................................................................49

2. Published Notice ........................................................................................50

26

D. Objections and Exclusions .....................................................................................50

27

1. Objections ..................................................................................................50

28
426266.1

2. Exclusions .................................................................................................. 51

3. Rescission of Class Member Opt-Outs ......................................................51

- 11-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 044731

c'
c."..··.-.·.···J."·'·\

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

2

Page

3

4. Opt-Out Credits..........................................................................................52

4

5. Defendant's Rescission of Agreement .......................................................52

E. Claims Administration ...........................................................................................53

5

F. Submission of Claim Forms ...................................................................................53

6

G. Deceased Claimants ...........................................,...................................................54

7

H. Determining Eligibility ..........................................................................................54

I.

Late-Filed Claims ...................................................................................................55

8

1.

Appeals of Claims Eligibility.................................................................................55

9

K. Claimant Information Provided by Abercrombie ..................................................55

10

L. Allocation Plan.......................................................................................................56

M. Distribution of the Monetary Awards ....................................................................56

11

N. Allocation of Monetary Awards ............................................................................57

12

O. Cy Pres Fund ..........................................................................................................57

P. Report from Claims Administrator ........................................................................58 13
XVIII. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES .........................................................58

14

A. Basis for Award of Fees, Costs and Expenses .......................................................58

15

B. Payment of Award .................................................................................................59

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

426266.1

- 111 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

This Consent Decree ("Decree") has been voluntarily entered into by the parties for the

3 purpose of finally resolving the litigation between them.

4

This Consent Decree includes a joint statement of the purposes of the Decree, a

5 description of the history of the litigation, and various substantive provisions agreed upon by the

6 parties. As a result of negotiations supervised by a mediator, the parties have reached a voluntary

7 agreement that is contained in this Decree.

8 II. PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE

9

The parties have entered into this Consent Decree for the following purposes:

10

A. To resolve all disputes covered by this Consent Decree in such a way as to avoid

11 further expensive and protracted litigation.

12

B. To ensure equal employment opportunity for African Americans, Asian

13 Americans, Latinos, and women applying to, and working within, stores operated by defendants.

Utf7',

14

C. To ensure equal employment opportunity for African American women, Latino

15 women and Asian American women applying to, and working within, stores operated by

16 defendants.

17

D. To provide for the implementation of recruitment, selection and personnel systems

18 that will ensure that African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women are considered for

19 recruitment, hire, job assignment and managerial promotion for which they are interested and

20 qualified on a non-discriminatory basis.

21

E. To provide for implementation of recruitment, selection and personnel systems

22 that will ensure that African American women, Latino women, and Asian American women are

23 considered for recruitment, hire, job assignment and mana gerial promotion for which they are

24 interested and qualified on a non-discriminatory basis.

25

F. To create an expedited and efficient procedure for implementing equitable relief

26 pursuant to the terms of this Decree; and

27

G. To provide finality to the resolution ofall claims and defenses asserted in these

28 civil actions.

426266.1

- 1-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1 III. DEFINITIONS

2

A. "Abercrombie" or the "Company" means Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.; A&F

3 California, LLC; A&F Ohio, Inc.; and Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., as well as each of

4 their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, management, successors and

5 assigns and those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them. The tenns of this

6 Decree cover all stores operated by Abercrombie whether under the name Abercrombie & Fitch,

7 Hollister, abercrombie, or any other concept operated by Abercrombie.

8

B. "Adverse impact" shall be defined in a manner consistent with Title VII law.

9

C. "African American" means all persons having origins in any of the black racial

10 groups ofAfrica.

11

D. "Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court signs this Decree, having

12 determined that it is fair, adequate and reasonable after: (i) notice to the Settlement Class; (ii)

13 opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class with respect to monetary relief; (iii) opportunity to

14 submit timely objection to the Decree; (iv) appropriate discovery of the specifics of any such

15 timely objections; and (v) a hearing on the fairness of the settlement.

16

E. "Asian American" means all persons having origins in any of the original peoples

17 of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area

18 includes, but is not limited to, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

19

F. "Associates" means all in-store hourly or managerial employees.

20

G. "Benchmark Positions" means Brand Representative and Manager-in-Training

21 positions.

22

H. "Best Efforts" means implementing and adequately funding a plan reasonably

23 designed to comply with all the specific objectives to which the best efforts are directed.

24

1.

"Charging Party" means Lekisha Bondurant, Torrey Dickson, Stanley Elmore,

25 Timothy Greer, Eric Jason and Jason Noel.

26

1.

"Class Counsel" means all counsel of record for the Class Representatives in the

27 Private Civil Actions.

28

426266.1

-2-

CONSENT DECREE
CASE NOS. 03-2817 sr, 044730 & 044731

1

K. "Class Representatives" or "Plaintiffs" means Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony

2 Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Brandy Hawk, lohan Montoya, luancarlos Gomez-Montejano,

3 lennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angeline Wu, Eric Fight, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper,

4 Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Andre Steele, and Elizabeth West.

5

L. "Consolidated Litigation" means the Private Civil Actions and the EEOC Civil

6 Action that the parties stipulate they will move, or have already moved, to consolidate before

7 ludge Susan Illston for purposes of approval and oversight of this settlement.

8

M. "Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of

9 California.

10

N. "EEOC Civil Action" means EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal.

11 Case No. 04-4731.

12

O. "Final Approval" means the entry of this Decree on the Approval Date by the

13 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and either: (1) the expiration

14 of the time for filing of a direct appeal from the Court's approval of the Decree without the filing

15 of a notice of appeal, or (2) if a timely direct appeal is filed, the final resolution of the appeal

16 (including any requests for rehearing and/or petitions for a writ of certiorari), resulting in final

17 judicial approval of the Consent Decree.

18

P. "Good Faith Offer" means an offer of employment -- under the same terms and

19 conditions of employment (e.g., hours, shifts or locations offered) offered to similarly situated

20 individuals who receive employment offers -- that is made to an individual who has submitted a

21 written or electronic application for ajob.

22

Q. "Latino" means all persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American,

23 South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

24

R "Lead Counsel" means Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; the Mexican

25 American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); and Kohn, Swift & Graf

26 representing the Gonzalez Minority class; and Minami, Lew & Tamaki representing the West

27 gender class.
28

426266.1

-3-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c~ )
~

1

S. "Minority" means all African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos.

2 "Minority Group" means each of these three groups.

3

T. "Minority Women" means African American females, Latina females, and Asian

4 American females.

5

u. "Preliminary Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court enters an

6 Order preliminarily approving this Decree, pending notice (an opportunity to opt out of the

7 notice), an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class or submit objections to the Decree, and

8 a fairness hearing thereon.

9

v. "Private Civil Actions" means Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., N.D.

10 Cal. Case No. 03-2817-SI and West v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 04-

11 4730.

12

w. "Release" means the Release of Claims set forth in Section VIII of the Decree.

13

x. "Settlement Class" means those persons described in Section VII of the Decree.

14 "Settlement Class Members" means each and every person described in Section VII of the

15 Decree.

16

y.

"Term of the Decree," "Period of the Decree" or "Duration of the Decree" is the

17 period from the Approval Date until the expiration of the Decree under Section VI.

18 IV. LITIGATION BACKGROUND

19

A. The Gonzalez Litigation

20

On June 16, 2003, Plaintiffs filed the Gonzalez case in the Northern District of California,

21 alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

22 and providing notice of Plaintiffs' intent to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

23 1964. The Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of minority individuals who

24 alleged that Defendants discriminate against minorities on the basis ofrace, color, arrllor national

25 origin, with respect to hiring, firing, job assignment, compensation and other terms and conditions

26 of employment, by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy ofpreferring white employees for

27 sales positions, desirable job assignments, and fa vorable work schedules in its stores throughout

28 the United States.

426266.1

-4-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

~

1

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on August 18,2003, which alleged

2 substantially the same facts and legal claims. This complaint added three named plaintiffs and

3 three defendants, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, and A&F Ohio, Inc.

·4 On September 11, 2003, Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint, denying Plaintiffs'

5 allegations.

6

On January 9, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, which again alleged

7 substantially the same facts and legal claims, this time converting the notice of intent to file Title

8 VII claims into actual Title VII claims. This complaint added two named plaintiffs and removed

9 one defendant, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. This complaint also included as exlnbits Right-to-Sue

10 letters from the EEOC issued to 13 of the 14 named plaintiffs who brought Title VII and FEHA

11 claims. Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint, denying Plaintiffs' allegations, on

12 January 26, 2004.

13

Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on June 10,2004, which again alleged

14 substantially the same facts and legal claims. This complaint added individual causes of action

15. for gender discrimination, brought only on behalf of named plaintiffs Ivy Nguyen and Angeline

16 Wu. On June 21, 2004, Defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint, denying Plaintiffs'

17 allegations.

18

On November 8, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint naming two

19 additional Plaintiffs and an additional defendant, Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., as well

20 as adding claims of discrimination in hiring ofManagers-in- Training positions and promotion to

21 in-store managerial positions.

22

On October 10,2003, Plaintiffs served their first set of requests for discovery. On

23 February 19,2004, Plaintiffs served their second set of requests for discovery. Defendants

24 responded by producing roughly 17,000 pages of documents, as well as files from Abercrombie's

25 computerized personnel databases.

26

Defendants served their first set of requests for discovery in November 2003 and took the

27 depositions of seven class representatives in February 2004. Plaintiffs took six days of

28 depositions of Abercrombie officials and managers under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) in March 2004.

426266.1

- 5-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

~

Plaintiffs and Defendants have obtained numerous declarations from putative class members and

2 witnesses, including managers, concerning alleged discrimination, or lack of discrimination, that

3 they would testify to if called.

4

On April 13, 2004, and on several dates subsequently, the parties conducted mediation

5 discussions in an attempt to resolve the Consolidated Litigation. These discussions have

6 culminated in this settlement agreement.

7

B. The EEOC Litigation

8

Between December 21, 1999 and January 29,2004, the EEOC received charges of

9 discrimination alleging discrimination in hiring, assignment, layoff, constructive discharge,

10 discharge, terms and conditions of employment, and failure to promote into manager positions

11 due to race, national origin, and/or gender.

12

Specific ally, on or about December 21, 1999, a charging party filed an individual charge

13 alleging national origin discrimination and wrongful termination. The charge was later amended

14 on or about March 21,2001 alleging that the charging party was not hired into a sales position or

15 a Brand Representative position due to his national origin. Class allegations were included,

16 alleging that Abercrombie failed to recruit, hire, and assign Latinos into Brand Representative

17 positions and that Latinos were terminated due to their national origin.

18

On or about September 13,2001, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding

19 probable cause that the charging party was denied a permanent sales or Brand Representative

20 position, denied assignments, and terminated due to his national origin. The EEOC also found

21 probable cause that Latinos and African Americans as a class were not recruited, hired, or

22 assigned permanent positions or given assignments due to their race and national origin. The

23 Commission further found probable cause that Abercrombie failed to maintain records as required

24 by federal law.

25

EEOC received additional charges against Abercrombie nationwide and issued additional

26 Letters of Determination on or about September 30, 2004 and November 1,2004 finding probable

27 cause that Abercrombie violated Title VII by discriminating against minority individuals on the 28 basis of national origin, color, race, and/or gender (female including minority women) in hiring,

426266.1

-6-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

',. ··,-" '.

\.

c ·.... j

1 staffing, constructive discharge, failing to promote into manager positions, steering, and

2 discharge, on an individual basis and also on a nationwide class basis. The EEOC also found

3 probable cause that Abercrombie violated Title VII by discriminating against a class of

4 individuals nationwide by deterring minority applicants from applying for sales, stock, overnight,

5 manager-in-training, and manager positions because of their race, color, and/or national origin;

6 failing or refusing to recruit minority and female applicants for sales, stock, overnight, manager-

7 in-training, and manager positions because oftheir race, color, and/or national origin; failing and

8 refusing to hire and to assign minorities and females into sales, stock, overnight, manager- in

9 training, and manager positions because of their race, color, national origin and/or gender; failing

10 and refusing to promote minorities and females into manager-in-training and manager positions

11 because of their race, color, national origin, and/or gender; terminating minority and female

12 employees because of their race, color, national origin, and/or sex; and segregating its workforce

13 on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, and/or gender. The EEOC again found probable cause

14 that Abercrombie failed to maintain records as required by federal law.

15

After meeting·all the conditions precedent, the EEOC filed a federal lawsuit in the matter

16 ofEEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal., Case No. 04-4731, on November 8,

17 2004 ("EEOC Litigation") encompassing all the claims set forth in the Letters of Determination

18 as described above. The EEOC's pre- filing investigation involved analysis of hard copy

19 documents, statistical compilations and computer-readable files, and investigative interviews of

20 employees and company officials.

21

c. The West Litigation

22

Counsel for the gender class became involved in this case in February 2004 after being

23 contacted by one of the named plaintiffs in Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch. This named

24 plaintiff sought separate counsel to file a gender class action against Abercrombie.

25

Putative counsel for the gender class thereafter conducted an independent, on-going

26 investigation to determine the merits of a possible class gender discrimination claim against

27 Abercrombie. Counsel for the gender class contacted scores of class members and witnesses,

28 collected dec1aratiQns from many class members regarding their experiences at Abercrombie,

426266.1

-7-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c~)"

1 reviewed statistical reports produced in the course of the Gonzalez litigation and conducted a

2 separate analysis of the workforce by gender.

3

After infonning defendant of its intent to file a gender complaint, counsel for the gender

4 class was invited to participate in the initial April 2004 mediation sessions with the Gonzales

5 parties and EEOC in an effort to resolve this case without further litigation.

6

During the mediation, which lasted over fifteen days over the course ofeight months, all

7 parties engaged in extensive discussions regarding the merits of the race and gender claims, relief

8 for class members, and procedures to be put into place to ensure equal employment opportunity

9 for minorities and women in the future.

10

The gen:ier class action, West v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal., Case No.

11 04-4730 was filed on November 8, 2004.

12 v. JURISDICTION

13

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter ofthe Private Civil Actions

14 and EEOC Civil Action. The parties agree that they will seek, or have already sought

15 consolidation of the Private Civil Actions and the EEOC Civil Action before Judge Susan Illston

16 for purposes of approval of this settlement. If the claims asserted in the complaints filed in these

17 civil actions were proven, the Court would have the authority to grant the equitable and monetary

18 relief set forth in this Consent Decree. Venue is proper in this District. This Court shall retain 19 jurisdiction of these civil actions during the duration of the Decree solely for the purposes of 20 entering all orders, authorized hereunder, that may be necessary to implement the relief provided.

21 VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF THE DECREE

22

A. Unless provided otherwise, the equitable provisions in this Decree are effective

23 immediately upon the Approval Date.

24

B. The provisions of this Decree shall remain in effect for a period of six years (72

25 months). Abercrombie may file a motion to be relieved of fre provisions of the decree at any

26 point following the expiration of 54 months from the effective date of the decree. The parties subject to Court appro al
27 may stipulate that Abercrombie should be relieved ofthe provisions of the Decree.I\Absent such

28 agreement, in order to be relieved of the provisions of the Decree before the full period of72

426266.1

- 8-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

i)

1 months, Abercrombie must demonstrate that: 1) it has satisfied its duty to use Best Efforts with

2 respect to its obligations under the Decree; 2) it has implemented and maintained all programs 3 mandated by the Decree; 3) it has satisfied, without use of standard deviations, each of the 4 benchmarks established by the Decree during the preceding 24 months; and 4) it has satisfied all

5 monetary provisions of the Decree. Abercrombie bears the burden of demonstrating its 6 satisfaction of these conditions to the Court. Lead Counsel and EEOC may oppose any motion to

7 be relieved on grounds that any of these conditions have not been met and on the grounds set 8 forth in Section X.C.1.b. Unless and until tm court issues an order granting the motion to be

9 relieved, all provisions of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect.

10

c. Abercrombie shall provide 30 days notice to the Special Master, Lead Counsel,

11 and EEOC of any motion to be relieved of the provisions of the decree before the full period of 72

12 months. Abercrombie shall then provide its briefing and other support for its motion to the

13 Special Master, Lead Counsel, and EEOC. Lead Counsel and the EEOC shall have 30 days to

14 provide any opposition to the motion to the Special Master and Abercrombie. Abercrombie shall

15 have 15 days to provide any reply materials to the Special Master, Lead Counsel, and EEOC.

16 The Special Master shall then have 30 days to prepare a written recommendation to the court as to

17 the resolution of the motion to be relieved. The parties shall then jointly file with the court all of 18 the briefmg and the Special Master's recommendation, and set a hearing for 28 days from the 19 filing. Each party may file and serve a response to tm Special Master's recommendation, not to

20 exceed ten pages, not later than 14 days before the scheduled hearing.

21 Vll. SETTLEMENT CLASS

22

A. For purposes of the monetary relief provided in this Decree, the Settlement Class

23 is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and consists of:

24

1. All Minority andlor female applicants who applied for employment as

25 Associates in Abercrombie stores, or attempted to apply and were discouraged from applying for

26 employment, between February 24, 1999 and the Preliminary Approval Date and who were not

27 hired, except those who file a timely request to opt out of the monetary relief provisions.

28

426266.1

-9-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

CJ

1

2. All Minority and/or female Associates of Abercrombie who are or were

2 employed in an Abercrombie store, for any length of time, between February 24, 1999, and the

3 Preliminary Approval Date, except those who file a timely request to opt out of the monetary

4 relief provisions.

5

B. For purposes of the equitable and declaratory relief provided in this Decree, the

6 Settlement Class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and consists of:

7

1. All Minority and/or female applicants who applied for employment as

8 Associates in Abercrombie stores, or attempted to apply and were discouraged from applying for

9 employment, between February 24, 1999 and the Preliminary Approval Date and who were not

10 hired.

11

2. All Minority and/or female Associates of Abercrombie who are or were

12 employed in an Abercrombie store, for any length of time, between February 24, 1999, and the

13 Preliminary Approval Date.

14

C. Settlement Class Members who have filed a timely request to opt out ofthe

15 monetary relief provisions shall not be held to release any claims for individual relief.

16

D. In the event that Final Approval is not obtained, nothing in this Decree shall be

17 deemed to waive Abercrombie's objections and defenses to class certification, liability, or

18 entitlement to monetary or equitable relief, or any other issue in the Consolidated Litigation, the

19 Private Civil Actions, or the EEOC Civil Action, and this Decree shall then be deemed null and

20 void and not admissible in any court regarding the propriety of class certification, liability, or

21 entitlement to monetary or equitable relief, or any other issue in the Consolidated Litigation, the

22 Private Civil Actions, or the EEOC Civil Action.

23 YIll. RELEASE OF CLAIMS IN PRIVATE ACTIONS AND EEOC ACTION

24

A. Release of Claims by Settlement Class.

25

Upon Final Approval of the Decree, Abercrombie and its employees, managers, insurers

26 and attorneys shall be fully released and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or

27 class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known

28 or unknown, by the Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, Charging Parties, the Settlement Class, each

426266.1

- 10-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 S1, 044730 & 044731

c· ·.'·'-.-

:;J

i- J

~

1 member of the Settlement Class (hereafter "Releasers"), and by the Releasers' estates, whether

2 seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of conduct within the

3 liability period of February 24, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date constituting alleged

4 race, color, national origin or gender discrimination in recruitment, the application process

5 (including claims of individuals who attempted to apply for and were discouraged from applying

6 for employment), hiring, job channeling or assignment, tennination of emp loyment, any terms

7 and conditions of employment that were or could have been raised in the Consolidated Litigation

8 and/or managerial promotion under Title VII, 42 U.S.c. Section 1981, the California FEHA or

9 any other federal, state, or local law prohibiting race, color, national origin or gender

10 discrimination, whether statutory, regulatory, pursuant to local ordinance, or at common law,

11 excepting solely claims of Class members other than Plaintiffs and Charging Parties for alleged

12 harassment (including constructive discharge allegedly caused by such harassment). This Release

13 is final and shall survive expiration of the Decree's terms.

14

B. Release of Claims by Plaintiffs.

15

Upon Final Approval of the Decree, for and in consideration of the mutual promises,

16 terms and conditions by and between Plaintiffs and Charging Parties, and Defen~ants set forth

17 herein, the sufficiency of which consideration is expressly acknowledged, the Plaintiffs and

18 Charging Parties do hereby fully, finally and forever release and discharge Abercrombie and its

19 employees, managers, insurers and attorneys from any and all past and/or present claims,

20 demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, liabilities, assessments, judgments, costs,

21 losses, debts, obligations and expenses, of any an:l every nature whatsoever, whether or not

22 known, that they have had, now have, or may have from the beginning of time to the Preliminary

23 Approval Date, including without limitation those arising in any way out of the alleged facts,

24 circumstances and occurrences underlying those allegations of violations of Title VII, Section

25 1981 and the California FEHA that were asserted or that might have been asserted by or on behalf

26 of the Plaintiffs against Defendants either in Plaintiffs' complaints in the Gonzalez and West

27 actions, or in any and all charges of discrimination filed against Abercrombie by some or all of

28 the Plaintiffs and Charging Parties with the EEOC and/or DFEH. This Release does not include

426266.1

- 11 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 workers' compensation chims, if any, of the Plaintiffs or Charging Parties. This Release is final

2 and shall survive the expiration of the Term of the Decree. Prior to receiving any monetary relief

3 under this Decree, ipcluding any enhanced or service payment, each Plaintiff and Charging Party

4 will be required to execute a full and final general release of all claims against Abercrombie,

5 whether or not asserted in the Consolidated Litigation, in the form attached as Exhibit A.

6

c. Unknown Claims.

7

Plaintiffs and Charging Parties acknowledge that they may not now know fully the

8 number or magnitude of the claims they may have, and that they may suffer some further loss or

9 damage in some way connected with the subject matter of the Consolidated Litigation, but which

10 is unknown or unanticipated at this time. Plaintiffs and Charging Parties have taken these risks

11 and possibilities into account and accept that, nevertheless, this Consent Decree covers all claims

12 arising out of or related to the subject matter of the Consolidated Litigation, which, although

13 unknown at the time of the execution of this Consent Decree, may be discovered later. Plaintiffs

14 and Charging Parties understand and assume these risks and expressly waive the provisions of

15 California Civil Code § 1542, or any comparable federal or other state statute, which states:

16

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO

17

EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE

RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE

18

MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE

DEBTOR. 19

20 Plaintiffs and Charging Parties expressly waive any right to assert hereafter that any claim was

21 excluded from this Consent Decree through ignorance, oversight, or error. It is expressly

22 understood and agreed that this waiver of Civil Code § 1542 and the release and vvaiver set forth

23 in this Consent Decree are material terms of the agreement and were separately negotiated

24 between the parties. This Section VIII.C. does not waive any rights of Settlement Class members

25 other than Plaintiffs and Charging Parties.

26

D. EEOC Release.

27

Upon Final Approval, this Decree shall fully and finally resolve any and all claims,

28 demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown,

426266.1

- 12-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1 asserted by EEOC in its Complaint arising from incidents occurring prior to the Preliminary

2 Approval Date. It is the intention of Abercrombie and the EEOC that this release terminates all

3 investigations relating to claims of Settlement Class Members which were asserted by EEOC in

4 its Complaint. This Release shall survive the termination of this Decree.

5

E. No Tolling of Harassment Claims.

6

Any claims of Settlement Class Members (other than the Plaintiffs) for alleged harassment

7 based upon race, color, national origin or gender (including constructive discharge allegedly

8 caused by such harassment), or for the alleged retaliation for opposing or complaining about such

9 purported harassment, are not released hereunder because such claims are not and have never

10 been asserted on a class-wide basis as a part of the Private Civil Actions or the EEOC Civil

11 Action. Hence, there also has been no tolling of the statute of limitations for asserting any such

12 claims against Abercrombie and its employees, managers, insurers and attorneys by operation of

13 these civil actions or any of the Plaintiffs' individual EEOC or DFEH charges.

14

F. No Bar to Future Claims.

15

Nothing in the Decree shall be construed to bar any claims of members of.the Settlement

16 Class or Plaintiffs that arise after the Preliminary Approval Date.

17 IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

18

A. No Admission ofLiaHlity.

19

This Consent Decree does not constitute and shall not be deemed to be a finding or

20 determination by the Court, nor an admission by any party, regarding the merits, validity or

21 accuracy of any of the allegations, claims or defenses. This Decree represents the compromise of

22 disputed claims that the parties recognize would require protracted and costly litigation to

23 determine. Abercrombie denies that it has engaged in any policy or pattern or practice of

24 unlawful discrimination, or that it has engaged in any other unlawful conduct as alleged in the

25 Consolidated Litigation, and Abercrombie's entry into this Decree is not and may not be used by

26 any person in any proceeding as an admission or evidence that Abercrombie and/or its employees,

27 managers, and/or attorneys have on any occasion engaged in discriminatory employment

28 practices or any other unlawful conduct, such being expressly denied. Abercrombie has

426266.1

- l3 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 044730 & 044731

o

voluntarily entered into this Decree because it believes the actions it has agreed to undertake

2 demonstrate its strong commitment to diversity and equal employment opportunity. Neither the 3 Decree nor any compliance reports, filings, data, or other compliance information arising out of

4 or related to the Decree shall be discoverable, admissible or used as evidence of liability or non-

5 liability for unlawful discrimination in any proceeding other than one relating to the enforcement

6 of this Decree.

7

B. Modification and Severability ofthe Consent Decree.

8

1. Whenever possible, each provision and term of this Decree shall be

9 interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event

10 that after Final Approval hereof any provision or term of this Decree should be determined to be

11 or rendered unenforceable on collateral review, all other provisions and terms of this Decree and

12 the application thereof to all persons and circumstances subject thereto shall remain unaffected to

13 the extent permitted by law. If any application of any provisions or term of this Decree to any

14 specific person or circumstance should be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the

15 application of such provision or term to other persons or circumstances shall remain unaffected to

16 the extent permitted by law.

17

2. Lead Counsel, Abercrombie and the EEOC may jointly agree in writing to

18 modify the Decree. In the event that changed or other circumstances make a modification of the

19 Decree necessary to ensure its purposes are fully effectuated, but good faith negotiations seeking

20 such modifications are unsuccessful, any party to the Decree shall have the right to move the

21 Court to modify this Decree. Such motion shall be granted only upon the movant proving to the

22 Court by clear and convincing evidence that changed or other circumstances make such

23 modification necessary. In determining the specific modification to order, the Court shall

24 consider whether there is an equally effective modification that would not materially increase the

25 burden of compliance and/or cost to Abercrombie of compliance (out-of-pocket or otherwise).

26 Any such modification to this Decree by the Court shall be ordered in such a fashion as will limit

27 the burden of compliance and/or the cost to Abercrombie (out-of-pocket or otherwise) to the 28 e~tent possible consistent with effectuating the purposes of this Decree. The procedures for

426266.1

- 14-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 negotiations to modify this Decree (and, if necessary, for resolution of disputes) shall be the same

2 as those set forth in Section X.B, regarding Decree enforcement.

3

c. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree.

4

Class Representatives, Class Counsel, EEOC and Abercrombie each agree to abide by all

5 of the terms of this Decree in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use Best Efforts to

6 defend this Decree from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack.

7

D. Execution In Counterparts

8

The parties agree that the Decree may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be

9 deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be part of the same Decree.

10 X. 11 12

GENERAL EQUITABLE PROVISIONS A. General Injunctive Provisions.
1. Abercrombie is hereby enjoined from enacting, maintaining or

13 implementing any policy or engaging in any practice or procedure that discriminates against

14 African Americans, Asian Americans, or Latinos on the basis of race, color and/or national

15 ongm.

16

2. Abercrombie is hereby enjoined from enacting, maintaining or

17 implementing any policy or engaging in any practice or procedure that discriminates against

18 women on the basis of gender.

19

3. Abercrombie is hereby enjoined from enacting, maintaining or

20 implementing any policy or engaging in any practice, conduct or procedure that retaliates or has

21 the purpose of retaliating against any future, current or former employee or applicant of

22 Abercrombie because he or she opposed discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin

23 or gender; filed a charge of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin or gender;

24 testified, furnished information or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or

25 hearing in connection with any charge or complaint of discrimination on the basis of race, color,

26 national origin or gender; testified, furnished information or participated in any manner in

@

27 connection with the monitoring or implementation ofthis Decree; or sought and/or received any

28 monetary and/or non-monetll:ry relief pursuant to this Consent Decree.

426266.1

- 15 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1

4. Abercrombie will implement or maintain non-discrimination and non-

2 harassment policies and an internal complaint procedure designed to assure equal employment

3 opportunity.

4

5.

Abercrombie will make available to Minority and female associates and

5 applicants the same employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment,

6 including but not limited to recruitment, hiring, job assignments, and managerial promotions, as

7 Abercrombie affords similarly-situated white male employees.

8

B. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Procedures.

9

1. The parties agree to the appointment of Hunter Hughes as Special Master.

10 The Special Master may be removed at the joint written request of Lead Counsel, EEOC, and

11 Abercrombie, or by order of the Court upon motion of any party and a showing of good cause that

12 Mr. Hughes should no longer serve as Special Master. In the event that Mr. Hughes becomes

13 unavailable to serve as Special Master for any reason, Lead Counsel, EEOC and Abercrombie

14 will make a good faith effort to select on a joint basis a new Special Master. If Lead Counsel,

15 EEOC and Abercrombie are unable to reach agreement as to a successor Special Master within

16 forty- five (45) days following the date Mr. Hughes becomes unavailable to serve as Special

17 Master, the Court shall appoint a successor Special Master upon motion of Lead Counsel, EEOC

18 or Abercrombie. Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie may nominate to the Court persons for

19 consideration as a successor Special Master. Lead Counsel, EEOC and Abercrombie shall each

20 have the right to interview any nominated person, and to present argument and evidence to the

21 Court regarding the selection of the successor Special Master.

22

2. The Special Master shall have authority to resolve all disputes arising

23 under the Decree, subject to limitations and standards set forth in the Decree.

24

3. At the request of Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie, the parties shall

25 use Best Efforts to resolve promptly any differences or any disputes regprding the interpretation

26 or implementation of the Consent Decree.

27

28

426266.1

- 16 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

~)

1

4. Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie shall have the right to initiate steps

2 to resolve any dispute or issue of compliance regarding any provision of the Decree subject to

3 limitations and standards set forth in the Decree.

4

a. If Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie has good reason to believe

5 that a legitimate dispute exists, the initiating party shall first promptly give written notice to the

6 other parties, including: (a) a reference to all specific provisions of the Decree that are involved;

7 (b) a statement of the issue; (c) a statement of the remedial action sought by the initiating party;

8 and (d) a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances and any other arguments supporting

9 the position of the initiating party;

10

b. Within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice, the non-

11 initiating party shall respond in writing to the statement of facts and arguments set forth in the

12 notice and shall provide its written position, including the facts and arguments upon which it

13 relies in support of its position;

14

c. Lead Counsel, EEOC and Abercrombie shall undertake good-faith

15 negotiations, including meeting or conferring by telephone or in person and exchanging relevant

16 documents .and/or other information, to attempt to resolve the issues in dispute or alleged

17 noncompliance;

18

d. The Special Master, upon motion, may permit Lead Counsel,

19 EEOC or Abercrombie to take post-settlement discovery as provided by the Federal Rules of

20 Civil Procedure, but only as to matters relevant to the underlying claim of breach, if the Special

21 Master determines that the informal exchange of documents or information has not been

22 sufficient to allow Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie to present the dispute upon a factual

23 record adequate for a fair determination of the issue;

24

e. If the parties' good-faith efforts to resolve the matter have failed,

25 and after written notice of an impasse by the moving party to the non- initiating party or parties,

26 Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie may file a motion with the Special Master, with a

27 supporting brief, requesting resolution of the dispute or the issues of non-compliance, provided,

28

426266.1

- 17 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c·..· '.,\1
~

1 however, that such motion shall be limited to the dispute(s) and/or issue(s) as to which the parties

2 have met and conferred as described in this Section XBA.;

3

f

The non- moving parties will have fifteen (15) days to respond to

4 any such motion;

5

g. The Special Master shall attempt within fifteen (15) days after

6 filing of the final brief to resolve the dispute and may schedule a hearing or other proceeding,

7 including an evidentiary hearing, to resolve the matter; and

8

h. Within thirty (30) days of any hearing, the Special Master shall

9 issue a written determination, including findings of fact if requested by any party.

10

5. The provisions of this Section do not prevent Lead Counsel, EEOC or

11 Abercrombie from promptly bringing an issue directly before the Court when exigent facts or

12 circumstances require immediate Court action to prevent a serious violation of the terms of this

13 Decree, which otherwise would be without meaningful remedy. The moving papers shall explain

14 the facts and circumstances that allegedly necessitate immediate action by the Court. Absent a

15 showing of exigent facts or circumstances, the Court shall refer the matter to the Special Master

16 to resolve in accordance with p~ocedures set forth above. If any such matter is brought before the

17 Court requesting immediate action, the other parties shall be provided with appropriate actual

18 notice, and an opportunity to be heard on the motKm, under the Local Rules of the Court and the

19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court in its discretion may set such procedures for

20 emergency consideration as are appropriate to the particular facts or circumstances, but no such

21 matter may be heard or considered on an ex parte basis.

22

6. All fees and expenses of the Special Master shall be paid by Abercrombie.

23

7. Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie may appeal a decision of the Special

24 Master to the Court provided that such an appeal is made within fourteen (14) days ofreceipt of

25 notice of the decision by the Special Master. Any such appeal shall be brought by motion under

26 the Local Rules of the Court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision rendered by the

27 Special Master shall be affirmed unless the Court determines that the Special Master made clearly

28 erroneous findings of fact or wrongly interpreted or applied the Consent Decree. A party may

426266.1

- 18 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1 seek on appeal any remedy provided by law, provided that such remedy is consistent with the

2 provisions of this Decree.

3

8. Only Lead Counsel, EEOC or Abercrombie shall have standing to move

4 the Court to enforce, apply, or modify this Decree. Any individual concerned about

5 Abercrombie's compliance with this Decree may so notify Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC and

6 request that they examine Abercrombie's compliance and seek such relief, if any, as may be

7 appropriate.

8

9. In the event that any party seeks to utilize the dispute resolution procedure

9 set forth in Section X.B, then each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses for

10 all work performed through resolution by the Special Master. In the event that any party seeks to

11 appeal any decision of the Special Master, then the prevailing party in such matter shall be

12 entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in such appeal from the

13 other party, consistent with applicable standards under Title VII. Whether and to what extent any

14 party is a prevailing party and awarded fees and expenses shall be determined in the sole and

15 absolute discretion of the Court. This provision shall not apply to the EEOC, as Abercrombie and

16 the EEOC mutually agree not to seek fees under thi~ Section from each other.

17

c. Marketing.

18

1. Abercrombie beljeves that the artistic aspect of its marketing materials is a

19 critical factor driving the success of Abercrombie and its brand. As a company committed to

20 achieving diversity in its store associates, as reflected in the other terms of this Decree,

21 Abercrombie will reflect diversity, as reflected by the major racial/ethnic minority populations of

22 the United States, in its marketing materials (taken as a whole). Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC

23 may assert that Abercrombie has not met its commitment under this paragraph for the following

24 purposes only:

25

a. In the eve nt that, at the end of the twenty- four (24) month period

26 following the Approval Date, the Applicant Rate for any Minority group is lower than such

27 group's interim Benchmark for the fourth six-month period, Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC may

28 assert that this was caused by a chilling of applicant flow caused in part by not meeting the

426266.1

- 19-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 commitment in paragraph 1 of this Section. Any such assertion, and Abercrombie's response

2 thereto, may be considered by the Special Master. If the Special Master accepts the assertion of

3 Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC, then the sole remedy shall be that the applicable interim

4 Benchmark shall remain in effect unless and until the applicable Applicant Rate exceeds the

5 applicable interim Benchmark.

6

b. In the event that Abercrombie seeks to obtain early termination of

7 this Decree, under Section VI.B. hereof, and in the event that Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC

8 seeks to challenge such early termination, Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC may assert that

9 Abercrombie has not met its commitment in paragraph 1 of this Section. Any such assertion, and

10 Abercrombie's response thereto, may be considered by the Special Master and/or the Court, along

11 with Abercrombie's meeting or failing to meet other provisions of the Decree, in deciding

12 whether to grant Ab ercrombie's request for early termination of the Decree.

13

2. Nothing in this Section shall limit the scope of the Monitor's discretion

14 under Section XVI.A.2. of this Decree in evaluating compliance (including barriers to

15 compliance) with any ofthe objectives of the ~cree. However, nothing in this Section or

16 otherwise in this Decree shall be deemed to provide Lead Counsel, the E;EOC, the Monitor, the

17 Special Master, or the Court with the authority or ability to contest, challenge, alter, or seek to

18 alter Abercrombie's marketing materials or the selection of photographs or models therefor.

19

3. Marketing materials include specifically, but not exclusively: quarterly

20 magazines and similar materials, shopping bags, store posters and video, website, A&F TV, and

21 purchased advertising.

22 XI. ABERCROMBIE'S INTERNAL PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DIVERSITY PRACTICES
23
A. Creation of Office of Diversity.
24

25

1. If Abercrombie has not already done so, then within thirty (30) days of the

26 Approval Date, Abercrombie shall create an Office of Diversity headed by a corporate executive

27 with the title of Vice President ("Diversity VP"). The Diversity VP shall report directly to the

28 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Abercrombie.

426266.1

- 20-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1

2. Abercrombie shall appoint a person to serve as Diversity VP no later than

2 sixty (60) days after the Approval Date. In the event that the position of Diversity VP becomes

3 vacant, Abercrombie shall appoint a successor as soon as practicable after the position becomes

4 vacant, and in any event, if the position remains vacant for sixty (60) days, Abercrombie will

5 retain a search firm to search for a successor, and will appoint an interim Diversity VP who will

6 be charged with temporarily performing the functions of the position. The following procedures

7 shall apply in selecting the Diversity VP:

8

a. Abercrombie shall use Best Efforts to appoint an individual who

9 will be effective in carrying out the duties and responsibilities set forth in Section XI.A.3.

10

b. Abercrombie will use a minority-owned search firm, or a minority

11 from a majority-owned search firm, to identifY potential candidates for the Diversity VP position.

12 Abercrombie will identifY the search firm or individual to Lead Counsel and the EEOC. Prior to

13 appointing an individual for the Diversity VP position, Abercrombie shall provide Lead Counsel

14 and EEOC with a resume of the individual whom Abercrombie intends to appoint to the position.

15 Within ten (10) days of receiving the resume, Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC may provide their

16 views to Abercrombie as to the individual's qualifications and suitability for the Diversity VP

17 position. The decision as to which individual to select for the position shall be solely 18 Abercrombie's and is ~ot subject to further review under Section X.

19

3. The Diversity VP shall use Best Efforts to ensure Abercrombie's

20 implementation and compliance with the provisions of this Decree, including the following:

21

a. Monitoring and implementation of any required changes to human

22 resources systems;

23

b.

Monitoring and implementation of the Benchmarks provided for

24 under the Decree;

25

c.

Overseeing the development and implementation of all training and

26 education programs to be provided under the Decree;

27

d. Submitting progress reports and other monitoring and reporting

28 material provided for in the Decree;

426266.1

- 21 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

©

1

e.

Overseeing the investigation, collection, tracking, and appropriate

2 resolution of complaints of unlawful discrimination submitted under Abercrombie's Internal

3 Complaint Procedure (described herein, in SectionXLD.); and

4

f

Overseeing the development of all recruiting programs to be

5 provided under this Decree and monitoring the implementation of such programs.

6

4. Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to provide such staff, funds, and other

7 resources to the Diversity VP as are necessary to discharge Abercrombie's obligations under the

8 Decree.

9

5. Upon completion of the Internal Complaint Procedure investigation, the

10 Diversity VP shall have the authority to recommend appropriate action to be taken and/or

11 monetary payment to be made to any individual who has submitted a complaint of unlawful

12 discrimination or of a violation of the Decree.

13

B. Notice and Posting.

14

1. Within ten (10) days of the Approval Date, Abercrombie shall post in

15 conspicuous places where employee notices are posted in each of its stores and corporate offices,

16 the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Notice shall remain posted in each such location

17 (and in any new stores or corporate offices) for the duration of this Consent Decree. In addition,

18 the Notice shall be published every four (4) months with the HR 411 Bulletin for the duration of

19 this Consent Decree. In connection with each Semi-Annual Progress Report, Abercrombie shall

20 certify that the Notice has been posted and remained posted as required above during the

21 preceding six (6) month period.

22

2. Abercrombie shall also include within its Employee Handbook or

23 otherwise provide to each new employee, the following statement or its equivalent: "In 2004,

24 Abercrombie voluntarily entered into a Decree, agreeing to undertake actions that demonstrate its

25 strong commitment to diversity and equal employment opportunity. Each store has a posted

26 notice regarding this decree, and a summary and copy of the Consent Decree are available at

27 [domain name]."
28

426266.1

- 22-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

C)

1

c. EEO and Diversity Training.

2

1. During the Tenn of the Decree, Abercrombie shall provide training on

3 equal employment opportunity and compliance with the provisions of the Decree to Managers-In-

4 Training, Assistant Managers, Store Managers and General Managers, to include the following

5 topics: (1) compliance with the Decree; (2) equal employment opportunity; (3) federal, state and

6 Company prohibitions of unlawful discrimination and retaliation; (4) diversity issues; and

7 (5) other topics that will encourage equal employment in recruiting, hiring, assigning, promoting,

8 and retaining minorities and females. Such training may be delivered by computer program, live

9 "discussion" fonnat, video fonnat, written materials, or any combination of these or other fonnats

10 tailored to be effective in communicating the material, provided, however, that such training as

11 occurs within the first twelve months following the Approval Date shall not be provided to

12 participants solely through written materials. No less than two hours shall be devoted to training

13 on these topics for each participant within four months following (a) the Approval Date, or (b) the

14 date of the participant's hiring as a Manager in Training, or promotion to an Assistant Manager,

15 Store Manager, or General Manager position, whichever occurs la ter. In addition, during the

16 Tenn of the Decree, Abercrombie shall provide (on a group or individual basis) at least two hours

17 of additional training described above to Assistant Managers, Store Managers, and General

18 Managers every twelve months after the Assistant Managers, Store Managers, and General

19 Managers last received such training (on a group or individual basis).

20

2. During the Tenn of the Decree, Abercrombie shall provide training on

21 equal employment opportunity and compliance with the provisions of the Decree to all District

22 Managers, Regional Managers, and salaried exempt employees in the departments of Store

23 Administration, Store Communications, Security, Stores HR, Store Operations, and Store

24 Control, to include the following topics: (1) complian::e with the Decree; (2) equal employment

25 opportunity; (3) federal, state, and Company prohibitions of unlawful discrimination and

26 retaliation; (4) diversity issues; and (5) other topics that will encourage equal employment

27 recruiting, hiring, training, promoting, and retaining minorities and females. Such training may

28 be delivered by computer program, live "discussion" fonnat, video fonnat, written materials, or

426266.1

- 23-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c'
~

1 any combination of these or other formats tailored to be effective in communicating the material,

2 provided, however, that such training as occurs within the first twelve months following the

3 Approval Date shall not be provided to participants solely through written materials. No less than

4 two hours shall be devoted to the training on these topics :lOr each participant within four months

5 following (a) the Approval Date, or (b) the date of the participant's promotion to District

6 Manager or Regional Manager position, whichever occurs later. In addition, during the Term of

7 the Decree, Abercrombie shall provide (on a group or individual basis) at least two hours of

8 additional training as described above to District Managers, Regional Managers, and salaried

9 exempt employees in the departments of Store Administration, Store Communications, Security,

10 Stores HR, Store Operations, and Store Control, every twelve months after the District Managers,

11 Regional Managers, and corporate employees last received such training. Provided further that if

12 Abercrombie holds a meeting of District and/or Regional Managers in order to conduct training,

13 then at least one hour of the training described above shall be done in live "discussion" format at

14 such meeting.

15

3. Within thirty (30) days following the Approval Date, Abercrombie will

16 train its human resources associates who have substantive responsibilities related to compliance

17 with fair employment laws, and the practices and procedures established by this Decree. New

18 human resources associates shall receive such training within thirty (30) days of their date of

19 entry into such positions. Such training shall include, but not be limited to: (a) federal and state

20 equal employment opportunity laws, including but not limited to the general provisions of these

21 laws, the bases on which discrimination is prohibited under these laws, the identity, roles and

22 responsibilities of agencies established to enforce these laws, and the principles and objectives

23 underlying these laws; (b) the application of equal employment opportunity to typical

24 employment situations, including but not limited to recruiting, hiring, job assignment, managerial

25 promotion, and other career advancement opportunities, and general recruiting, hiring and

26 supervision without engaging in racial, ethnic or gender stereotyping; (c) the provisions and

27 requirements of the Decree; (d) the Internal Complaint Procedure; (e) the role and responsibility

28 of the human resources staff; and (f) following up EEO complaints. and investigations (including,

426266.l

- 24-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03·2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

. 1 but not limited to, addressing potential or alleged retaliation, working with tre complainant, and

2 appropriate discipline and other remedial measures).

3

4. The training described in this section may be held in conjunction with other

4 Company business, at Abercrombie's discretion, and may be organized geographically in such

5 fashion as Abercrombie deems appropriate.

6

5. Abercrombie will provide Lead Counsel and the EEOC with the proposed

7 plan for training discussed in Sections XI.C. 2, 3 and 4 in order to provide an opportunity for

8 comment. Lead Counsel and the EEOC will provide comments, if any, within twenty-one (21)

9 days of receipt. Abercrombie shall respond to such comments within fifteen (15) days of receipt.

10 If the parties cannot agree on the proposed plan for training, any disputes will be submitted to the

11 Special Master for resolution. The proposed plan for training will be presumed to be acceptable

12 unless Lead Counsel and/or EEOC demonstrate that the proposed plan for training is improper.

13

D. Internal Complaint Procedure.

14

1. If Abercrombie has not already done so, then within thirty (30) days ofthe

15 Approval Date, Abercrombie shall develop an Internal Complaint Procedure to provide for the

16 filing, investigation and, if appropriate, remedying of complaints of discrimination or retaliation

17 by associates or applicants for employment on the basis of race, color, national origin or gender,

18 or where a violation of this Decree has occurred or is alleged. Abercrombie will implement the

19 Internal Complaint Procedure within sixty (60) days of the Approval Date. Abercrombie will

20 provide Lead Counsel and EEOC with the proposed Internal Complaint Procedure in order to

21 provide an opportunity for comment regarding the proposed procedure. Lead Counsel and the

22 EEOC will provide comments, if any, within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Internal

23 Complaint Procedure. Abercrombie shall respond to such comments within fifteen (15) days of

24 receipt. If the parties cannot agree on the Internal Complaint Procedure, any disputes will be

25 submitted to the Special Master for resolution. The Internal Complaint Procedure will be

26 presumed to be acceptable unless Lead Counsel and EEOC demonstrate that the proposed Internal

~

27 Complaint Procedure is improper. Any decision of the Special Master is [mal and not subject to

28 appeal.

426266.1

- 25-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 044731

C·--.'":/ "-"

1

2. The Diversity VP shall be responsible for oversight of:

2

a.

publicizing the availability of this Internal Complaint Procedure;

3

b. tracking and collecting all complaints filed thereunder;

4

c.

investigating and resolving such complaints in a timely and

5 effective manner; and

6

d. retaining records regarding the resolution of all such complaints.

7

3. The internal complaint procedure shall incorporate the following elements:

8

a.

A policy describing how investigations will be conducted, to be

9 included in the Associate Handbook;

10

b. A prompt commencement and thorough investigation by a person

11 trained to conduct such investigations who is not connected with the complaint;

12

c.

A statement that an investigation should include interviews of all

13 relevant witnesses, including the complainant, and reviews of all relevant documents;

14

d. A written record of all investigatory steps, and any findings and

15 conclusions, and any actions taken;

16

e.

Provision for the reasonably prompt resolution of such complaints;

17

f

An opportunity for the complainant to review and respond to

18 tentative findings, except in tho se circumstances in which it is necessary to take immediate

19 action;
20

g.

Confidentiality of the complaint and investigation to the extent

21 possible; 22

11.

Appropriate communication of the final conclusions of the

23 investigation provided to the complainant;

24

1.

An appeal procedure to the Vice President of Human Resources, or

25 other appropriate Abercrombie representative, should the complainant be dissatisfied with the

26 results of the investigation; and

27

J.

A notice that employees or applicants complaining of

28 discrimination may use the company's internal complaint procedure and/or may file charges with

426266.1

- 26-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c'
~

1 the EEOC or state or local Fair Employment Practice (FEP) agencies. The notice shall also state

2 that filing an internal complaint does not relieve the complainant of meeting any applicable

3 deadline for the filing of a charge or complaint with EEOC or state or local FEP agencies.

4

4. Abercrombie may encourage resolution of internal complaints at a local

5 level prior to investigation, but not require such informal resolution. A complainant shall not be

6 required to first report the complaint to a person who is accused of the inappropriate conduct to

7 invoke the Internal Complaint Procedure.

8

5. The Internal Complaint Procedure will permit, but not require, an

9 employee to initiate the complaint process by submitting a written complaint on a fonn designed

10 for that purpose. Abercrombie shall also set up or maintain a toll- free telephone number to

11 receive complaints and shall designate additional persons at the district level who will be

12 authorized to accept such complaints on behalf of the Company.

13

6. The Internal Complaint Procedure shall be incorporated into the Associate

14 Handbook. Abercrombie shall continue to issue the Associate Handbook to all new store

15 associates.

16

7. Abercrombie will maintain a policy of nondiscrimination and equal

17 treatment, including a policy of zero tolerance for unlawful discrimination, in all of its

18 employment practices.

19

8. The Internal Complaint Procedure is not intended to supplant the right of

20 any employee to file a charge or complaint of discrimination or retaliation under any available

21 municipal, state, or federal law.

22

9. Abercrombie shall publish with the Internal Complaint Procedure the

23 following elements that will be included in the procedure:

24

a. A statement that it is unacceptable to retaliate against any associate

25 for use of the Internal Complaint Procedure, for assisting in the investigation of a complaint, or

26 for otherwise assisting in the utilization of the procedure. Abercrombie reserves the right to take

27 disciplinary action against an associate who intentionally provides false information in connection

28 with the procedure.

426266.1

- 27-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 04-4730 &044731

1

b. A statement that if an allegation of discrimination or retaliation

2 against a manager or other associate is substantiated, then such conduct will result in appropriate

3 discipline, up to and including discharge.

4

E. Performance Evaluations.

5

1. If Abercrombie has not already done so prior to the Approval Date, it shall

6 revise its performance evaluation forms for Assistant Managers, Store Managers, General

7 Managers, Dis trict Managers, and Regional Managers in order to include as measures of

8 performance: (1) compliance with Abercrombie's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and

9 Discrimination and Harassment Policy; (2) attainment and management of diversity in the

10 workplace; and (3) efforts to meet Benchmarks and to comply with other provisions of the

11 Decree. The results of such evaluation factors shall have a meaningful impact upon

12 compensation and/or bonus calculation.

13

2. At least thirty (30) days prior to implementation ofthe performance

14 evaluation forms described in Section XI.D.1, Abercrombie will provide Lead Counsel and the

15 EEOC with the· proposed revisions in order to provide an opportunity for comment regarding the

16 revisions. Lead Counsel and the EEOC will provide comments, if any, within twenty-one (21)

17 days of receipt of the proposed revisions. Abercrombie shall respond to such comments within

18 fifteen (15) days of receipt. If the parties cannot agree on the proposed revisions, any disputes

19 will be submitted to the Special Master for resolution. The proposed revisions will be presumed

20 to be acceptable unless Lead Counsel and/or EEOC demonstrate that the proposed revisions are

21 improper. Any decision of the Special Master is final and not subject to appeal.

22 XII. JOB ANALYSIS, MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, JOB CRITERIA,

RECRUITMENT, HIRING, JOB ASSIGNMENTS AND MANAGERIAL

23

PROMOTION AND STAFFING

24

A. Job Analysis and Job Criteria.

25

1. The parties stipulate and agree upon Abercrombie's retention of Kathleen

26 Lundquist, a professioml industrial organizational psychologist, to develop a written job analysis

27 and job-related criteria for each in-store store position.

28

426266.1

- 28-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 044730 & 044731

C·,·;\

1

2. No later than four (4) months after the Approval Date, in consultation with

2 the industrial organizational psychologist, Abercrombie shall develop selection criteria for in-

3 store positions, including Minimum Eligibility Requirements that are job related and consistent

4 with business necessity to the extent required by Title VII. Selection criteria shall be subject to

5 challenge under Section X of this Decree only if a particular position's selection criteria, taken

6 collectively, cause adverse impact in selection rate for African Americans, Asian Americans,

7 Latinos, or women. If the selection criteria cause such adverse impact and are challenged under

8 Section X of this Decree, the selection criteria shall be affirmed if Abercrombie shows that it has

9 used Best Efforts to determine whether alternative job-related selection criteria or whether an

10 alternative use ofjob-related selection criteria has less adverse impact and would be equally

11 predictive ofjob performance.

12

3. Abercrombie will not use as a criterion for store positions any of the

13 following: enrollment in a target college, participation in college fraternity or sorority activities

14 generally, participation in particular fraternities or sororities, participation in particular athletic

15 activities, or gender. Abercrombie will not use enrollment in college as a Minimum Eligibility

16 Requirement for non- management store position:;.

17

4. Abercrombie will provide Lead Counsel and the EEOC with the job

18 analyses, including Minimum Eligibility Requirements, and job-related criteria in order to

19 provide an opportunity for comment. The content of the job analyses and job-related criteria

20 prepared pursuant to Section XII.A.I. will not be subject to review under Section X of this

21 Decree.

22

B. Recruitment and Hiring.

23

1. No later than four months after the Approval Date, Abercrombie, in

24 consultation with the industrial organizational psychologist, shall develop and implement a

25 written Recruitment and Hiring Protocol to recruit and hire job applicants for all hourly in-store

26 positions and the Manager-in-Training position. The Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall

27 require that Abercrombie affirmatively seek out applications from qualified African Americans,

28 Asian Americans, and Latinos of both genders.

426266.1

- 29-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

()

1

2. Abercrombie's recruitment and operations materials will reflect diversity in

2 race, color, national origin and gender in the United States, including the lEe ofAfrican

3 Americans, Asian Americans and Latino models of both genders.

4

3. The Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall prohibit Abercrombie from

5 discouraging the submission of an application by any qualified person, or discarding or otherwise

6 diverting any application submitted. In addition, the Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall

7 instruct Managers to make available and accept applications for Manager-in-Training at all ofthe 8 places and through all of the means that applications for Brand Representative are made available

9 and received.

10

4. The Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall require clear and concise

11 written job descriptions for each in-store non-managerial position and the Manager-in- Training

12 position.

13

5. Job descriptions will be made available to anyore who requests them, and

14 non- management job descriptions will be made available in a single package so thatpotential

15 applicants are made aware of the differences among positions.

16

6. The Recruitment and Hiring Protocol will c<?ntain instructions for

17 dissemination of applications, the conduct of structured interviews, programs to train involved

18 staff, hiring decisions, documentation, and the hiring process generally.

19

7. The Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall instruct Managers that Minority

20 associates shall rot be disproportionately assigned involuntarily to any particular positions on the

21 basis of race or national origin.

22

8. Within sixty (60) days of the adoption of the Recruitment and Hiring

23 Protocol and continuing every twelve (12) months thereafter, Abercrombie will use Best Efforts

24 to train all involved staff in the conduct of structured interviews and other elements of the

25 Recruitment and Hiring Protocol.

26

9. Abercrombie will provide Lead Counsel and the EEOC with the

27 Recruitment and Hiring Protocol and the job descriptions in order to provide an opportunity for

28 comment regarding the qdequacy of the Recruiting and Hiring Protocol. If the parties cannot

426266.1

- 30-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c
c···'·'" - .-~
~: - /'

1 agree on the Recruitment and Hiring Protocol, any disputes will be submitted to the Special

2 Master for resolution and the Recruitment and Hiring Protocol shall be affirmed by the Special

3 Master unless Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC demonstrate that said protocol is clearly improper

4 and not in accordance with accepted industrial organizational psychologist professioml standards.

5 Any decision of the Special Master is final and not subject to appeal.

6

c. Managerial Promotions.

7

1. Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to promote African Americans, Latinos,

8 Asian Americans and women at the following rates: Beginning in the second six- month period,

9 Abercrombie shall use its Best Efforts to promote women and members of each Minority Group

10 to positions of Assistant Manager and Store Manager/General Manager in a proportion that is no

11 less than the specific group's proportion of the available feeder pool. The appropriate available

12 feeder pool for Assistant Managers consists of all incumbent Managers-in- Training. The

13 appropriate available feeder pool for Store Manager/General Manager consists of all incumbent

14 Assistant Managers. The :rreasuring date of incumbents in the available feeder pool shall be the

15 last day of the preceding six-month period. For this set ofBenchmarks only, if Abercrombie

16 promotes women and African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans to such positions in a

17 proportion that deviates by no more than two standard deviations from the specific group's

18 proportion of the available feeder pool, Abercrombie shall be deemed to have achieved its

19 promotion Benchmarks.

20 XIII. AFFIRMATIVE RECRUITING EFFORTS

21

A. Diversity Recruiters.

22

In the first six months of the Decree, if not before, Abercrombie will hire and maintain at

23 least ten (10) full- time diversity recruiters who will be based in major metropolitan areas and will

24 be charged with recruiting Minority applicants, including female applicants of each Minority,

25 who meet Minimal Eligibility Requirements, into in-store positions. No later than twelve months

26 after the Approval Date, Abercrombie will hire and maintain an additional fifteen (15) full-time

27 diversity recruiters. Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to ensure that its recruiters themselves

28 reflect diversity in race/national origin and gender._ Abercrombie will consider both external and

426266.1

- 31 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 044731

c)
~

I internal candidates for recruiter positions. Abercrombie will provide the resumes of the diversity

2 recruiters to Lead Counsel and the EEOC. If Abercrombie has met the Benchmarks set forth in

3 Section XIV for the first thirty (30) months of the term of this Decree, Abercrombie shall have

4 the right to petition the Special Master, and if necessary the Court, for modification of this

5 provIsIOn.

6

B. Advertisements.

7

During the Term oftre Decree, Abercrombie will advertise for in-store employment

8 opportunities in periodicals or other media that target African Americans, Asian Americans,

9 and/or Latinos of both genders. Abercrombie will provide a list of media publications in which

10 advertisements were placed to Lead Counsel and the EEOC on an annual basis.

11

c. Recruiting Events.

12

During the Term oftre Decree, Abercrombie will attend Minority job fairs and Minority

13 recruiting events that are attended by African Americans, Asian Americans, and/or Latinos of

14 both genders.

15

D. Diversity Consultant.

16

During the Term of tre Decree, Abercrombie will utilize a diversity consultant whose

17 identity will be made known to Lead Counsel and the EEOC. The diversity consultant will

18 conduct diversitylinclusion training for all field based managers and selected home office

19 personnel. The diversity consultant will also, in conjunction with the VP of Diversity, aid in

20 identifYing sources of qualified Minority candidates. Abercrombie will ensure that its diversity

21 consultant, or any subcontracted consultant, has familiarity with and experience in providing

22 diversity training as to all three of the minority groups - African American, Asian American and

23 Latinos - and gender.

24

E. Documentation.

25

Abercrombie will ensure that its recruiters document their recruiting efforts and that such

26 records are retained for review by the Vice President of Diversity and are available to the

27 monitor. Such documentation shall include, specifically but not exclusively: 1) a description of

28

426266.1

- 32-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 S1, 044730 & 044731

1 the placement of advertisements (publication, size, time, duration, targeted audience) and 2) a

2 description of events/fairs attended (place, date, targeted audience).

3 XIV. BENCHMARKS

4

A. General Principles

5

1. Abercrombie shall use Best Efforts to meet the selection benchmarks set

6 forth in this section. These Benchmarks do not establish maximum or minimum rates for the

7 selection of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans or women; rather these Benchmarks

8 establish selection rates that Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to achieve.

9

2. In attempting to meet these Benchmarks, Abercrombie shall not be

10 required to select unqualified persons or to displace any incumbent associate from his or her

11 position. These Benchmarks are not quotas; rather, they are Benchmarks designed to afford

12 guidance as to whether Abercrombie is making selection decisions in such a way as to afford

13 equal employment opportunity.

14

3. Abercrombie's failure to achieve a Benchmark for a particular position or

15 period will not be considered a violation of this Decree unless Abercrombie has failed to use Best

16 Efforts to meet the Benchmark. Should Abercrombie demonstrate that the proportion of good

17 faith offers made to applicaJi:s of a particular group as compared to all applicants was at least as

18 high as the Benchmark percentage, such evidence will conclusively establish that the Benchmark

19 was met.

20

4. Unless otherwise specified, achievement of the Benchmarks will be

21 calculated on a semi-annual basis and based on companywide employment data.

22

5. Failure to achieve a Benchmark by a fraction of a person shall not be

23 deemed to constitute a failure to achieve a Benchmark under the Decree.

24

6. Abercrombie shall use voluntary self- identification to identify the race and

25 gender of applicants and employees. No party shall influence an applicant's or employee's self-

26 identification. Absent clear applicant or employee error, no applicant or employee shall be

27 permitted to change his or her identified race or ethnicity.
28

426266.1

- 33 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731
I

1

B. Interim Hiring Goals

2

1. Interim hiring Benchmarks shall be established for Benchmark Positions.

3

2. Abercrombie shall monitor, by applicant self- identification, applicant flow

4 of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women.

5

3. "Applicant Rate" shall be the actual applicant flow rate of a group as

6 measured on a six- month basis.

7

4. "Maintenance Level" shall be the proportion of Asian Americans hired

8 compared to all groups hired in a position as of the Preliminary Approval Date of this Decree.

9

5. "Percentage Level" for African-Americans shall be six-and-a-halfpercent

10 (6.5%) for the second six-month period, seven-and-a-halfpercent (7.5%) for the third six-month

11 period, and nine percent (9%) for the fourth six- month period.

12

6. "Percentage Level" for Latinos shall be seven percent (7%) for the second

13 six-month period, eight percent (8%) for the third six-month period, and nine percent (9%) for the

14 fourth six- month period.

15

7. "Percentage Level" for women shall be fifty-three percent (53%) for the

16 second six-month period, fifty-three percent (53%) for the third six-month period, and fifty-three

17 percent (53%) for the fourth six-month period.

18

8. The first six- month period begins at the beginning of the month following

19 the Approval Date.

20

9. Brand Representative Position

21

Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to meet the following interim hiring

22 goals:

23

a. First six-month period:

24

African American: five percent (5%);

25

Latinos: six percent (6%);

26

Asian Americans: Maintenance Level; and

27

Women: fifty-three percent (53%).

28

426266.1

- 34-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 &044731

1

h. Second six-month period:

2

African American: the greater of Percentage Level of six-and-a-half

3

percent (6.5%) or Applicant Rate, as adjusted; I

4

Latinos: the greater of Percentage Level of seven percent (7%) or

5

Applicant Rate, as adjusted;2

6

Asian Americans: the greater of Maintenance Level or Applicant

7

Rate; and

8

Women: the greater of Percentage Level of fifty- three percent

9

(53%) or Applicant Rate;

10

c.

Third six- month period:

11

African Americans: the greater of Percentage Level of seven- and-

12

a-halfpercent (7.5%) or Applicant Rate, as adjusted;3

13

Latinos: the greater of Percentage Level of eight percent (8%) or

14

Applicant Rate, as adjusted;4

15

Asian Americans: the greater of Maintenance Level or Applicant

.16

Rate; and

17

Women: the greater of Percentage Level of fifty- three percent

18

(53%) or Applicant Rate;

19

d. Fourth six-month period:

20

African Americans: the greater of Percentage Level of nine percent

21

(9%) or Applicant Rate in the third six-month period;

22
J "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by multiplying by three percent
23 (3%) the proportion of African Americans hired into the Brand Representative position compared to all Minority
individuals hired into that position in the first six-month period.
24 2 "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by multiplying by three percent
(3%) the proportion of Latinos hired into the Brand Representative position compared to all Minority individuals
25 hired into that position in the first six-month period.

26

3 "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by multiplying by one-and-a-half percent (1.5%) the proportion of African Americans hired into the Brand Representative position compared to all

27 Minority individuals hired into that position in the second six-month period.
4 "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by multiplying by one-and-a-half

28 percent (1.5%) the proportion of Latinos hired into the Brand Representative position compared to all Minority
individuals hired into that position in the second six-month period.

426266.1

- 35-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

c 2

Latinos: the greater of Percentage Level of nine percert (9%) or Applicant Rate in the third six- month period;

3

Asian Americans: the greater of Maintenance Level or Applicant

4

Rate in the third six-month period; and

5

Women: the greater of Percentage Rate of fifty- three percent

6

(53%) or Applicant Rate.

7

10. Minority Female Goal

8

In addition to the interim hiring goals set forth in Section XIV.B.9,

9 Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to meet the following interim hiring goals for African

10 American women for the Brand Representative position:

11

a. First six- month period:

12

4.25 percent of all women hired;

13

b. Second six-month period:

14

the greater of 5.5 percent of all women hired or Applicant Rate, as

15

adjusted;5

16

c.

Third six-month period:

17

the greater of 6.4 percent of all women hired or Applicant Rate, as

18

adjusted;6

19

d. Fourth six-month period:

20

the greater of7.6 percent of all women hired or Applicant Rate.

21

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Abercrombie shall be deemed to have

22 achieved this Benchmark if Abercrombie achieves its Benchmark for African Americans and if

23 Abercrombie hires or extends good faith offers to AfricanAmerican women at the greater of the

24 following rates: (1) 45% of Abercrombie's total African American hires; or (2) the Applicant

25

26

5 "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by mUltiplying by three percent (3%) the proportion of African American women hired into the Brand Representative position compared to all

27 minority women hired into that position in the first six-month period.
6 "As adjusted" means Applicant Rate supplemented by a percentage determined by mUltiplying by one-and-a-half

28 percent (1.5%) the proportion of African American women hired into the Brand Representative position compared to
all minority women hired into that position in the second six-month period.

426266.1

- 36-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 S1, 044730 & 044731

C·'•.... /1

1 Rate of African American women. In addition, Abercrombie shall report the number of all Latina 2 and Asian American women hired in the Brand Representative position If, in two consecutive

3 six-month periods, the number of Latina women or Asian American women hired as a proportion

4 of all women hired into that position is lower to a statistically significant degree than the number

5 of Latina women or Asian American women as a proportion of all women employed in that

6 particular position at the time this Decree takes effect, the parties shall meet and confer regarding

7 the matter. 8 9

11. Manager- in-Training Position
Abercrombie will use Best Efforts to meet the following interim hiring

10 goals: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

a.

First six-month period:

African American: three-and-a-halfpercent (3.5%);

Latinos: three-and-a-halfpercent (3.5%);

Asian Americans: three and four-tenths percent (3.4%); and

Women: fifty-three (53) percent.

b. Second six-month period:

African American: four-and-a-half percent (4.5%) or Applicant

18

Rate;

19

Latinos: four-and-a-halfpercent (4.5%) or Applicant Rate;

20

Asian Americans: three and six-tenths percent (3.6%) or Applicant

21

Rate; and

22

Women: fifty-three percent (53%) or Applicant Rate.

23

c.

Third six-month period:

24

African American: five-and-a-halfpercent (5.5%) or Applicant

25

Rate;

26

Latinos: five-and-a-halfpercent (5.5%) or Applicant Rate;

27

Asian A.rrericans: three and eight-tenths percent (3.8%) or

28

Applicant Rate; and

426266.1

- 37 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 Sl, 04-4730 & 04-4731

C', ',,

1

Women: fifty-three percent (53%) or Applicant Rate.

2

d. Fourth six- month period:

3

African American: seven percent (7%) or Applicant Rate;

4

Latinos: seven percent (7%) or Applicant Rate;

5

Asian Americans: four percent (4%) or Applicant Rate; and

6

Women: fifty-three percent (53%) or Applicant Rate.

7

12. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions XIY.B.9.-11., a rebuttable

8 presumption shall arise that Abercrombie has exercised its Best Efforts to meet the Minority

9 interim hiring goals for a particular six-month period if (i) Abercrombie is then in compliance

10 with its obligations under the Decree and (ii) Abercrombie has met Percentage Level interim

11 goals for two of the three Minority groups. However, the rebuttable presumption shall not be

12 deemed to arise if Abercrombie has missed an interim goal for the same group for a second

13 consecutive period. Nor would a rebuttable presumption arise if the interim goal Abercrombie

14 has missed is based upon the Applicant Rate. Ifthe presumption is deemed to arise, and if Lead

15 Counsel and/or the EEOC seek to challenge whether Abercrombie has used Best Efforts to meet

16 the Minority interim hiring goals, Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC shall have the burden of

17 proving Abercrombie's failure to use Best Efforts by a preponderance of the evidence.

18

c. Applicant Rate Goals

19

After the period when Interim Hiring Goals, described in Part B above, will be used,

20 Abercrombie shall use Applicant Rate in the preceding six-month period as a goal for Benchmark

21 Positions during the remaining term of the Decree. Abercrombie will identify the applicable 22 Applicant Rate to the Monitor, Lead Counse~ and the EEOC within thirty (30) days of the

23 beginning of each six- month period. If Abercrombie has been found to have failed to use Best

24 Efforts to implement Benchmarks, the parties shall meet and confer under the direction of the

25 Special Master to determine when and under what conditions Abercrombie may proceed to use of

26 Applicant Rate goals.

27

28

426266.1

- 38 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 xv. REPOR TING, RECORDKEEPING, AND COMPLIANCE MEETINGS

2

A. Documents To Be Preserved For The Duration of The Decree.

3

Abercrombie shall retain the following employment-related records for the Duration of the

4 Decree or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

5

l. Internal Complaint Procedure;

6

2. Job Analyses for Benchmark Positions;

7

3. Minimum Eligibility Requirements and job-related criteria for Benchmark

8 Positions;

9

4. Recruitment and Hiring Protocol;

10

5. Job descriptions for Benchmark Positions;

11

6. Training plans;

12

7. Semi- Annual Progress Reports; and

13

8. Monitor's Reports and Executive Summaries.

14

B. Documents to Be Maintained for Two Years.

15

The following documents shall be maintained for two years from the date the document is

16 created, or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

17

l. Performance Evaluations of Managers;

18

2. Training Program Materials.;

19

3. Internal Complaints;

20

4. Recruiting Documentation described in Section XIILE; and

21

5. Marketing Materials.

22

c. Access to Documents.

23

1. The Monitor shall, upon reasonable notice, be entitled to review all

24 documents, including electronic data in machine-readable form, that are required to be maintained

25 or created by the express terms of this Decree or that are used or referred to by Abercrombie to

26 prepare Semi- Annual Progress Reports, except, ho wever, that the Monitor shall not be entitled to

27 review any such documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work

28 product doctrine ("privileged documents").

426266.1

- 39-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

·-· -·\- - J
. .j
C., ."./

1

2. Lead Counsel and the EEOC may seek access to non-privileged documents

2 described in C.l above by requesting, with notice to Abercrombie, copies of such documents

3 from the Monitor. Upon request, and notice to Abercrombie, the Monitor shall provide Lead

4 Counsel and the EEOC with access to documents described in Section XV.C.l unless

5 Abercrombie objects within five (5) days of receipt of notice. If Abercrombie timely objects, the

6 objection shall be resolved by the Monitor. The Monitor shall detemiine any matter in dispute by

7 requiring that Lead Counsel and the EEOC demonstrate tre access requested is relevant to a claim

8 of breach of the Decree.

9

3. All documents required to be maintained by the express terms of the

10 Decree, and all documents that are provided to the Monitor, Lead Counsel, or the EEOC under

11 the terms of the Decree, are and shall be treated as confidential business records. Neither Lead

12 Counsel, the EEOC nor the Monitor shall divulge any such documents to any third party unless so

13 ordered by the Court after notice to Abercrombie and an opportunity for Abercrombie to object to

14 such disclosure and be heard. Upon expiration of this Decree, Lead Counsel, the EEOC and the

15 Monitor shall promptly return to Abercrombie or destroy any and all documents Abercrombie

16 furnished under this Decree. This provision shall not prevent a party from filing otherwis~

17 confidential documents with the Court, provided that, either: (a) such documents are filed under

18 seal; or (b) Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC give ten (10) days advance notice to Abercrombie, to

19 pennit opportunity to seek a protective order sealing such documents.

20

D. Reporting Schedule.

21

Within sixty (60) days of completion of the initial Benchmark period, and at six (6) month

22 intervals thereafter through the Tenn of the Decree, Abercrombie shall provide Semi- Annual

23 Progress Reports to the Monitor, Lead Counsel and EEOC on Abercrombie's compliance with the

24 Decree's requirements. All such Reports shall be subject to the same confidentiality restrictions

25 described in Section XV.C.3. above.

26

E. Contents ofthe Semi-Annual Progress Reports.

27

Abercrombie's Semi-Annual Progress Reports shall include information regarding the

28 following:

426266.1

- 40-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

c.,;.,::\~ } -; ...,
@

1

1. Progress in achieving each of the Benchmarks described above in

2 Section XIV. This report will include the applicable goal proportion and the actual achieved

3 proportion. Abercrombie will indicate any shortfalls in achieving Benchmarks for the preceding

4 six-month period, will analyze the possible reasons for such shortfall, and will identify plans to

5 facilitate achievement of the Benchmark not met. If applicable, Abercrombie will analyze

6 possible reasons if any division reflects shortfalls (i.e., less then 80 percent of companywide

7 level) even if companywide Benchmarks are satisfied. (Division is defined as Abercrombie &

8 Fitch, Hollister, abercrombie, or any other corcept adopted by Abercrombie during the period of

9 this Decree). In addition, if applicable, Abercrombie will analyze possible reasons that any

10 Benchmark was met through good faith offers only.

11

2. Number and proportion of persons companywide in the preceding six

12 months by race/ethnicity and gender (i.e., African American men, African American women,

13 Asian American men, Asian American women, Latino men, Latina women, white men, white

14 women) extended a good faith offer, hired or promoted (each of which shall be separately

15 reported) into (a) each in-store non-managerial position (e.g., Brand Representative, stocker,

16 overnight); (b) Manager- In-Training; (c) Assistant Manager; (d) Store Manager; and (e) General

17 Manager.

18

3. Number and proportion of persons in the preceding six months extended a

19 good faith offer, hired or promoted (each of which shall be separately reported) by store, state and

20 division by race/ethnicity and gender (i.e. African American men, African American women,

21 Asian American men, Asian American women, Latino men, Latina women, white men, white

22 women) for (a) each in-store non-managerial position (e.g., Brand Representative, stocker,

23 overnight); (b) Manager-In-Training; (c) Assistant Manager; (d) Store Manager; and (e) General

24 Manager.

25

4. Composition ofincumbent associates by each store position and by race,

26 ethnicity and gender within each store, state, division and company-wide at the end of the

27 preceding six month period. 28

426266.1

- 41 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

-'-". 1 C.......i./
~

1

5. Number and proportion of associates in each in-store non-managerial

2 position (e.g., Brand Representative, stocker, overnight) by race/ethnicity and gender and by

3 store, state, division, and companywide in the preceding six months;

4

6. Attrition or tennination of associates from each store position by race,

5 ethnicity and gender and by reason for leaving within each store, state, and division during the

6 preceding six month period;

7

7. Confinnation by District Managers that the poster required by Section XLB

8 is posted, with copies attached;

9

8. Summary of activity of Diversity V.P. in implementing affinnative

10 recruitment efforts, diversity training and Internal Complaint Procedure, with copies of materials

11 attached;

12

9. Copies of Company materials depicting persons referred to in Section

13 XII.B.2 and an indication of which persons used are or have been Abercrombie associates;

14

10. Copies of posting and publication ofjob descriptions of in-store positions

15 as required in Section XII.B.5;

16

11. Copies of recruitment documentation referred to in Section XIII.

17

12. The number of hourly in-store employees by race/gender that have been

18 tenninated in the preceding six-month reporting period at the direction of home office

19 management excluding human resources.

20

13. Copies of all marketing materials used by the Company in the preceding

21 six months (e.g., print, television or internet advertising; quarterly magazines, store catalogs, and

22 similar materials; store posters; videos; A&F television; shopping bags; etc.).

23

F. Compliance Meetings.

24

1. Within three months of the Approval Date, representatives of Abercrombie,

25 Lead Counsel, and the EEOC, shall confer with the Monitor in order to review the initial

26 implementation of the Decree, Abercrombie's compliance with the requirements, and other

27 related topics. Thereafter, representatives of Abercrombie, Lead Counsel, and the EEOC, shall 28 confer with the Monitor every six months to review the Semi-Annual Progress Reports required

426266.1

- 42-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

by Section XV.E above. Within one month ofthe initial Progress Report and after each such
2 Report submitted thereafter representatives of Abercrombie, Lead Counsel and the EEOC shall

3 confer with the Monitor in order to review the matters described above. Such meetings shall be

4 in person if requested by Lead Counsel, EEOC, or Abercrombie, except that if, after three years

5 after the Approval Date, Abercrombie has met the Berchmarks, then only one compliance

6 meeting each year need be in person.

7

2. The parties will discuss, among other things, identifying any goal not

8 achieved and an analysis of the reasons that the goal was not achieved and plans that would

9 facilitate achievement of the goal. In addition, if applicable, the parties will discuss possible

10 reasons that any Benchmark was met through good faith offers only.

11

3. The Diversity VP shall attend each Compliance Meeting. Other officers,

12 managers, and associates of Abercrombie, whose presence will assist the attainment of the

13 purpose of the Compliance Meetings, may attend as appropriate. Compliance Meetings shall take

14 place in San Francisco (or another mutually agreeable location).

15

G. Status Conference with Court.

16

1. The parties sffill conduct an annual status conference with the Court to

17 discuss the status of implementation of the Decree. Abercrombie, Lead Counsel, and the EEOC

18 may be represented at the status conference. No party shall file any document with the Court in

19 conjunction with the status conference, unless directed to do so by the Court.

20 XVI. MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION

21

A. Court-Appointed Monitor.

22

1. The parties have stipulated to Fred AIvare~ Esq. of Palo Alto, California

23 for the Court to appoint as a Monitor.

24

2. The Monitor will prepare an Annual Compliance Report ("Report") on the

25 status of implementation and Abercrombie's compliance with the terms and objectives of the

26 Decree, as well as an "Executive Summary" of such Report. The Monitor's Report will include

27 (a) a summary of the requirements of the Decree; and (b) an assessment of Abercrombie's 28 semiannual compliance reports. The Monitor will review and evaluate Abercrombie's

426266.1

- 43-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 compliance with the specific terms of this Decree, and identify any barriers to fulfillment of its

2 objectives. The Monitor will also review and assess the responsibilities and performance of the

3 VP of Diversity.

4

3. The Executive Summary shall set forth the substance of the Monitor's

5 findings for the applicable reporting period. The parties contemplate that the Executive Summary

6 will reflect the Monitor's general findings in areas such as, but not limited to, training,

7 recruitment, creation ofjob analyses and descriptions, and attainment of Benchmarks, all as more

8 specifically covered by the Report, and the parties also contemplate that the Executive Summary

9 will not include specific findings as to, inter alia, the numbers of applications, hires, promotions,

10 or specific occurrences or events. By way of example, the Executive Summary's discussion of

11 the Company's training could generally set out the Monitor's [mdings relative to whether the

12 Company had or had not met its overall training objectives under the Decree over the subject

13 reporting period and, if not, a general statement of matters with respect to which there had been

14 non-compliance and any steps the Company is to take to resolve such matters. The EEOC may

15 respond to any legitimate inquiries by the public, media, or the government, with information

16 contained in the Summary or a copy thereof Other than this exception to the EEOC, the

17 Executive Summary and information contained therein would be subject to the confidentiality

18 provisions of Section XV.C.3 of this Decree.

19

4. The Monitor will provide the Special Master, Abercrombie, Lead Counse~

20 and the EEOC with copies of the Report and Executive Summary within ninety (90) days ofthe

21 anniversary date of the Decree. The Report shall be subject to the confidentiality restrictions

22 described in Section XV.C.3.

23

5. The Monitor shall have reasonable and timely access to relevant books,

24 data (including databases), documents, and other sources of information necessary or appropriate

25 to the exercise ofhislher authority, in whatever form they are maintained in the ordinary course of

26 business. This will include, but not be limited to, access to the following insofar as they relate to

27 compliance with equal employment opportunity law and/or the terms of this Decree: (a)

28 applications and related documents; (b) guidelines or training on recruitment, hiring, job

426266.1

- 44-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

~

1 assignment, and managerial promotion; (c) EEO complaints, and any internal complaints; (d)

2 managerial performance evaluations; (e) records of employee discipline; (f) records of attrition

3 and terminations; (g) recruitment materials; and (h) marketing materials.

4

6. The Monitor shall address compliance issues that may arise as follows:

5

a. The Monitor shall categorize compliance issues as Low Level,

6 Intermediate Level, or High Level and treat them as follows:

7

1.

Low Level means non-systemic matters, such as compliance

8 issues arising at a single store. Low Level issues may be resolved by Abercrombie and the

9 Monitor without consulting Lead Counselor the EEOC. Low Level issues that are not resolved

10 by Abercrombie after notice from the Monitor and a reasonable opportunity to cure become

11 Intermediate Level issues. Low Level issues that are resolved shall only be reported by the

12 number of such issues in each region of Abercrombie in a confidential addendum to the Monitor's

13 report that shall be provided to the parties. In addition, the Monitor shall maintain a log of all

14 resolved Low Level issues that includes, as to each issue, identification of the store involved and

15 a brief description of the nature of the issue and resolution. The Monitor shall provide the Special

16 Master with such log on an annual basis. Neither the Monitor nor the Special Master shall

17 produce such log to Lead Counselor the EEOC unless and until Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC

18 undertake an enforcement procedure under the Decree in which such information would be

19 relevant, at which point Lead Counsel and/or the EEOC may seek such log through discovery

20 under the standards set forth in Section X.BA.d above.

21

11. Intermediate Level means either Low Level issues that the

22 Monitor and Abercrombie are unable to resolve after notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure,

23 or systemic issues that arise out of policy or implementation concerns that affect a significant

24 number of individuals. Prior to reporting Intermediate Level issues, the Monitor shall provide

25 Abercrombie with notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure any Intermediate Level issues.

26 Intermediate Level issues, including any resolution of such issues, will be reported in Compliance

27 Reports and may be the topic of discussion at Section XY.F Compliance Meetings.

28
!.--
426266.1

- 45-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 Sl, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1

111. High Level means situations involving exigent facts or

2 circumstances which require immediate action to prevent a serious violation of the terms of this

3 Decree. In the event a High Level matter shall arise, the Monitor will immediately notify EEOC,

4 Lead Counsel and Abercrombie of the pressing concern. The matter shall be resolved in

5 accordance with the provisions of Section X.B.

6

b. Upon request, and notice to Abercrombie, the Monitor shall provide

7 Lead Counsel and the EEOC with access to documents described in Section XV.C.1 unless

8 Abercrombie objects within five (5) days of receipt of notice. If Abercrombie timely objects, the
9 objection shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section x.B.

10

c. The Monitor shall not report or disclose any action or matter

11 discovered in the course of the Monitor's function that does not directly relate to the terms of this

12 Decree and Abercrombie's compliance therewith.

13

7. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude the Monitor from resolving

14 matters informally between the parties.

15

8. The Monitor may audit Abercrombie data for accuracy and/or

16 completeness, or retain an independent expert(s) for this purpose, as helshe deems necessary or

17 appropriate.

18

9. The Monitor may visit Abercrombie stores, as well as corporate offices, as

19 necessary to fulfill hislher responsibilities. The Monitor may also interview and communicate

20 with class members, in-store managers, employees, or other witnesses as necessary to fulfill

21 hislher responsibilities.

22

10. The Monitor may request additional information from Abercrombie and

23 may communicate with the Diversity VP, in a manner that assists the Monitor in the exercise of

24 hislher duties. After reasonable notice, the Monitor may communicate with members of

25 Abercrombie's senior management. The Monitor may communicate with the Special Master,

26 counsel for Abercrombie, Lead Counsel and the EEOC.

27

11. All fees and expenses of the Monitor shall be paid by Abercrombie.

28

426266.1

- 46-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1 XVII. MONETARY RELIEF, NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE

2

A. Establishment of Settlement Fund.

3

1. Abercrombie shall establish a settlement fund ("Settlement Fund") in the

4 amount of $40,000,000.00 for the purpose of providing individual monetary awards to Class

5 Representatives, Charging Parties and other eligible members of the Settlement Class and funding

6 a portion of the settlement administration expenses, in accordance with the provisions of this

7 Section. The Settlement Fund will be supplemented by the amount described in Section

8 XVII.A.2.

9

2. The Settlement Fund will be supplemented by an amount calculated as

10 imputed interest on the $40,000,000.00 as follows:

11

$40,000,000.00 multiplied by .025 (2.5% imputed interest)

multiplied by a fraction (the numerator of which is the number of

12

days between the Preliminary Approval Date, and the date

Abercrombie wire transfers final payment from the Settlement Fund

13

to the Settlement Fund Account as provided in Section XVII.A.4.e.

and the denominator of which is 360 days).

14

15

3. Lead Counsel and the EEOC will select a Claims Administrator. The

16 Claims Administrator will open and administer an interest-bearing account ("Settlement Fund

17 Account") designated by Lead Counsel and with a unique Taxpayer Identification Number.

18

4. Payments will be made by Abercrombie from the Settlement Fund to the

19 Settlement Fund Account as follows:

20

a. Within seven (7) days of the Preliminary Approval Date,

21 Abercrombie will wire $350,000.00 to the Settlement Fund Account. This amount is intended to

22 cover costs of the mailed notices and expenses associated with the claims procedure.

23

b. Within seven (7) days of the Approval Date, Abercrombie will wire

24 $350,000.00 to the Settlement Fund Account. This amount is intended to cover expenses

25 associated with continued implementation of the claims procedure.

26 .

c. If there is no Final Approval of the Consent Decree, then the

27 Claims Administrator shall return to Abercrombie any funds remaining in the Settlement Fund

28 Account from the amounts described in Sections XVII.A.4.a and b.

426266.1

- 47-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 044730 & 044731

c·· l .~ _ .",01

1

d. Within seven (7) days of Final Approval, Abercrombie will wire the

2 aggregate amount set furth in Exhibit C to the Settlement Fund Account. This amount shall be

3 distributed by the Claims Administrator to the Class Representatives and Charging Parties as set

4 forth in Section XVILB.l.

5

e. After Final Approval and within seven (7) days after the Claims

6 Administrator has informed Abercrombie in writing that it is prepared to distribute the Settlement

7 Fund to the eligible members of the Settlement Class, Abercrombie will wire an amount to the

8 Settlement Fund Account calculated as follows:

9

$40,000,000.00 as supplemented by the amount calculated in

Section XVII.A.2., less amounts Abercrombie has paid to the

10

Settlement Fund Account in accordance with Sections XVII.A.4.a.,

b., and d., and less the aggregate amount of opt-out credits as

11

calculated under the provisions of Section XVILD.4.

12

f

Upon payment of the amounts set forth in Section XVII.A.4. from

13 the Settlement Fund to the Settlement Fund Account having been made, Abercrombie will have

14 no further monetary obligation hereunder to Class Representatives, Charging Parties or members

15 of the Settlement Class, including no obligation to pay any funds for distribution to Class

16 Representatives, Charging Parties or members of the Settlement Class; n.o obligation to pay costs

17 of mailed notices and expenses associated with the claims procedure; and no obligation to pay

18 any other settlement administration costs, except that Abercrombie will be responsible for paying

19 for the published notice of the Settlement Notice as specified in XVII.C.2.

20

5. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require Abercrombie to separate or

21 segregate its assets into a restricted settlement fund. The Settlement Fund Account will constitute

22 a restricted settlement fund, and it will be created, managed and disbursed by the Claims

23 Administrator under the supervision of Lead Counsel and the EEOC. Other than paying funds

24 from the Settlement Fund to the Settlement Fund Account, Abercrombie will have no

25 responsibilities or liabilities with respect to the Settlement Fund Account, its administration, or

26 distnbutions therefrom.

27

28

426266.1

- 48-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

1

B. Distribution of Settlement Fund.

2

1. Class Representatives and EEOC Charging Parties.

3

Each Class Representative and each Charging Party shall receive a liquidated amount as

4 set forth in Exhibit C. This liquidated amount will compensate the Class Representatives or

5 Charging Party for the (a) full settlement of all their claims against Abercrombie; (b) payment in

6 recognition of risks related to being Class Representative or Charging Party; and (c) payment in

7 consideration for the time and effort expended in tre Consolidated Litigation or EEOC

8 proceedings. Payment of these sums shall be made by the Claims Administrator no later than

9 seven (7) days after the receipt of the funds described in Section XVII.A4.d.

10

2. Settlement Class.

11

The remainder ofthe Settlement Fund Account will be distributed to eligible members of

12 the Settlement Class who do not opt out based on a formula set out in the allocation plan as set

13 forth in SectionL. The distribution of the Settlement Fund Account according to the allocation

14 plan will be undertaken by the Claims Administrator. Except as set forth in Section

15 XVII.C.2.below, the fees, costs and expenses of the Claims Administrator shall be paid from the

16 Settlement Fund Account, including the interest on the Settlement Fund Account. All payments

17 to the Claims Administrator shall be approved by Lead Counsel and the EEOC.

18

c. Notice.

19

1. Mailed Notice.

20

Within twenty (20) days following the Preliminary Approval Date, Abercrombie shall

21 provide the Claims Administrator with a computer disk containing the full names, social security

22 numbers, last known addresses and phone numbers, start dates, and, as applicable, end dates of

23 employment with Abercrombie for all in-store hourly and manager employees employed by

24 Abercrombie at any time from February 24, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date who are

25 potential Settlement Class members. Within twenty (20) days following the Preliminary

26 Approval Date, Lead Counsel shall provide the Claims Administrator with a computer readable

;"

27 list ofall known potential Settlement Class members and their mailing addresses. Prior to the

28 mailing of the Notices, the Claims Administrator will combine these lists of potential Settlement

426266.1

- 49-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 04-4731

m~.·.:. "J.: '.·:. .

1 Class members received from Abercrombie and Lead Counsel and update any new address

2 information for potential class members as may be available through the National Change of 3 Address system. The Claims Administrator shall determine through a computer database search

4 the most recent address that may be obtained for each person on the combined list of potential

5 Settlement Class members. Within sixty (60) days of the Preliminary Approval Date, the Claims

6 Administrator shall mail, via first class postage, Notice of Class Settlement, the Claim Form and

7 the Explanation of Claims Procedure, all in the form approved by the Court in the Preliminary

8 Approval Order, to all known potential Settlement Class members at their last known address and

9 at the most recent address that may have been obtained through the computer database search

10

2. Published Notice.

11

Abercrombie shall cause to be published the notice of the class settlement in the form

12 approved by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order, in newspapers and other media set

13 forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. Abercrombie shall pay for the cost of the published

14 notice, not to exceed $600,000.00.

15

D. Objections and Exclusions.

16

Class members may object to or opt-out of the class settlement.

17

1. Objections.

18

Class members objecting to the terms of the settlement must do so in writing at least forty

19 (40) days prior to the scheduled Fairness Hearing. The written objection must be sent to the

20 Claims Administrator on or before the date specified in the Preliminary Approval Order. The

21 Claims Administrator will record the date of receipt of the objection and forward it to both

22 Abercrombie and Lead Counsel within two (2) business days following receipt. The Claims

23 Administrator will also file the original objections with the Clerk of the Court no later than five

24 (5) days prior to the scheduled Fairness Hearing date. The Claims Administrator shall retain

25 copies of all written objections until such time as it has completed its duties and responsibilities

26 under this Decree. 27

28

426266.1

- 50-

CONSENT DECREE
CASE NOS. 03-2817 sr, 044730 & 044731

1

2. Exclusions.

2

Class members may exclude themselves, or opt-out, of the monetary relief provisions of

3 the class settlement. Any request for exclusion must be in the form of a written "Opt-out"

4 statement sent to the Claims Administrator. Information on how to opt-out of the settlement shall

5 be made available by the Claims Administrator. A person wishing to opt-out must sign a

6 statement which includes the following language:

7

I understand that I am requesting to be excluded from the class

monetary settlement and that I will receive no money from the

8

settlement fund created under tre Consent Decree entered into by

Abercrombie. I understand that if I am excluded from the class

9

monetary settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking

damages, but may receive nothing or less than what I would have

10

received if I had filed a claim under the class monetary settlement

procedure in this case. I also understand that I may not seek

11

exclusion from the class for injunctive relief and that I am bound by

the injunctive provisions of the Consent Decree entered into by

12

Abercrombie.

13

A class member SUbmitting an Opt-out statement shall sign and date the statement and

14 deliver it to the Claims Administrator at least forty (40) days prior to the scheduled Fairness

'···.···"·"I·

c..•.·J

15 Hearing, as specified in the Preliminary Approval Order.

16

The Claims Administrator shall date stamp the original of any Opt-out statement and serve

17 copies on both Abercrombie and Lead Counsel within two (2) business days of receipt of such

18 statement. The Claims Administrator will also file the original Opt-out statements with the Clerk

19 of the Court no later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled Fairness Hearing date. The Claims

20 Administrator shall retain copies of all Opt-out statements until such time as it has completed its

21 duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

22

3. Rescission of Class Member Opt-Outs

23

The parties recognize that some class members who initially submit Opt-out forms

24 seeking exclusion may, upon further reflection, wish to withdraw or rescind such Opt-out

25 statements. The parties agree that class members shall be permitted to withdraw or rescind their

26 Opt-out statements by submitting a "Rescission of Opt-out" statement to the Claims

27 Administrator. The Rescission of Opt-out statement shall include the following language:

28

426266.1

- 51 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

(>
o

1

I previously submitted an Opt-out statement seeking exclusion from

the class monetary settlement. I have reconsidered and wish to

2

withdraw my Opt-out statement. I understand that by rescinding

my Opt-out I may be eligible to receive an award from the claims

3

settlement fund and may not bring a separate legal action against

Abercrombie seeking damages.

4

5

A class member submitting such a rescission statement shall sign and date the statement

6 and cause it to be delivered to the Claims Administrator no later than the deadline for claims

.7 filing period specified in the Preliminary Approval Order.

8

The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the original of any Rescission

9 of Opt-out statement and serve copies to counsel for Abercrombie and Lead Counsel no later than

10 (2) days after receipt thereof and shall file the date-stamped originals with the Clerk of the Court

11 no later than five (5) business days prior to the date of the Fairness Hearing. The Claims 12 Administrator shall retain copies of all Rescissions of Opt-Out statements until such time as the 13 Claims Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

14

4. Opt-Out Credits.

15

In the event any Settlement Class member elects to opt-out in the time and manner set

16 forth in Section XVII. D.2, and does not rescind it, Abercrombie shall be entitled to a credit for

17 each such opt-out. The credit amount will be 125% of the average settlement award of all class

18 members eligible to participate in the monetary settlement fund as determined by the Allocation

19 Plan, Section XVII.L. The aggregate credit for each opt-out shall be calculated and deducted

20 from the Settlement Fund prior to the wire transfer of funds set forth in Section XVII.AA.e.

21

5. Defendant's Rescission of Agreement.

22

If the number of individuals who opt out of the SettlemeIt Class in the manner provided

23 in this Decree exceeds one percent (1 %) of the number of the class members who submit

24 completed claim forms, then Abercrombie, at its sole option, shall have the right to void this

25 settlement on the tenth (10th) day after the Court requires individuals to return opt out notices. If

26 Abercrombie exercises this option, all of Abercrombie's obligations under the Consent Decree

27 shall cease to be of any force and effect, and the Consent Decree and any orders entered in

28 connection therewith shall be vacated, rescinded, canceled, and annulled, and the parties shall

426266.1

- 52-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 return to the status quo in the Consolidated Litigation as if the parties had not entered into the

2 Consent Decree. In addition, in such event, the Consent Decree and all negotiations, court orders

3 and proceedings relating thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of any and all parties

4 hereto, and evidence relating to the Consent Decree and all negotiations shall not be admissible or

5 discoverable in the Consolidated Litigation or otherwise.

6

E. Claims Administration.

7

The Claims Administrator shall (l) prepare and mail settlement notices and claim forms to

8 class members; (2) establish and operate a website designed to provide information to and

9 communication with class members; (3) receive and evaluate claims eligibility; (4) seek

10 additional information from claimants, when appropriate; (5) receive and file opt-out statements

11 and objections; (6) respond to questions from potential class members; (7) implement the

12 a1locatio n plan; and (8) maintain a toll- free number for communicating with class members; and

13 (9) any other duties necessary to carry out its responsibilities set f{)rth in this Decree.

14

The Claims Administrator shall make claim forms available to potential class members

15 who submit oral, e- mail, or written requests for claim forms. The Claims Administrator shall

16 mail the requested claim form via first class postage within two (2) business days after receiving a

17 request. If Abercrombie, or its counsel, receives reqrests for claim forms or for information

18 regarding the class settlement, it shall refer such requestors to the toll- free number established by

19 the Claims Administrator for the purpose of administering this settlement. The requestors shall

20 be informed that any requests for claim forms or information should be directed to the Claims

21 Administrator. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all written requests for claim

22 forms and all records of oral or e-mail requests for claim forms until such time as it has

23 completed its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

24

F. Submission of Claim Forms.

25

Class members who seek recovery of monetary compensation must complete a claim form

26 and cause it to be filed with the Claims Administrator by the claim filing deadline set forth in the

27 Preliminary Approval Order. The claim form must be postmarked on or before such date in order 28 to be considered timely. All cl~im forms must be signed under penalty of peIjury to be

426266.1

- 53-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 Sl, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 considered. Failure to file a timely claim form, for any reason whatsoever, shall bar the potential

2 class member from having his or her claim considered and from receiving monetary

3 compensation from the Settlement Fund Account. Class members who file a claim fonn must

4 notify the Claims Administrator ofany change of address. A failure to notify the Claims

5 Administrator of a change of address may result in the forfeiture of a monetary award. The

6 Claims Administrator shall be available through the toll-free line and via e-mail through the

7 Claims Website to respond to requests from class members for assistance in completing and filing

8 claim forms. Lead Counsel shall also be available to consult with and provide assistance to

9 potential class members who request assistance in completing their claim forms.

10

G. Deceased Claimants.

11

Claims may be filed by deceased claimants through representatives of their estate if

12 appropriate documentation is provided. Any claims paid to a deceased claimant shall be made

13 payable to the estate of the deceased claimant.

14

H. Determining Eligibility.

15

The Claims Administrator shall make the determination as to whether a claim form is

16 complete. If it is not complete, the Claims Administrator shall request additional infonnation

17 from the claimant, if it appears that such additional informa tion would complete the Claim Form.

18 Such requests for information shall be in writing and shall specify the information necessary to

19 complete the claim form. The requests for information will be sent via first class mail and inform

20 the claimant that a response must be returned no later than thirty (30) days from the date the

21 request for information was mailed. The claimant must provide the requested information, signed

22 under penalty ofpeIjury, to the Claims Administrator by mail with a postmark no later than thirty

23 (30) days from the date of the mailed request for information. Such additional information shall

24 be considered part of the original claim form and will relate back to the original filing date. The

25 failure of a claimant to timely respond to the request for information may result in the denial of

26 the claim.

27

28

426266.1

- 54-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 Sl, 044730 & 044731

"'".": C"

1
2

I. Late-Filed Claims. For claims received after the filing deadline, the Claims Administrator shall notify late-

3 filing claimants that their claims are untimely and that they are not eligible for any monetary

4 award. The Claims Administrator shall also inform late- filing claimants that they may seek a 5 review of the determination that they filed untimely by requesting the Claims Administrator to

6 reconsider its determination. The Claims Administrator may reverse its determination that a

7 claim was not timely filed only if the claimant proves that the claim form was filed on or before

8 the filing deadline and that the untimeliness determination is erroneous.

9

J. Appeals of Claims Eligibility.

10

Within ninety (90) days of the close of the claims filing period, all ineligible claimants

11 shall receive written notice of their ineligibility for monetary relief. Any claimants wishing to

12 seek review of their ineligibility determinations must do so by returning a written request for

13 review to the Claims Administrator by mail with a postmark no later than twenty-one (21) days

14 from the date of the notice of claim ineligibility. Failure to file a timely request for review shall

15 bar a claimant from challenging a determination of ineligibility.

16

The Claims Administrator shall resolve the requests for review based on the written

17 requests for review and any other documentation or written information submitted by the

18 claimant, or deemed necessary by the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator may seek

19 further written information from the claimant as to the basis of their request and may consider the

20 written arguments of Lead Counselor Abercrombie.

21

The Claims Administrator shall attempt to expeditiously resolve any requests for review

22 within sixty (60) days after the filing of the request for review. The Claims Administrator's

23 decisions shall be communicated to the claimant in writing and shall be binding and non-

24 appealable.

25

K. Claimant Information Provided by Abercrombie.

26

The parties understand and agree that Abercrombie may possess information that may

27 assist in the determination of eligibility of potential class members for monetary compensation.

28 Abercrombie shall reasonably cooperate in providing such information which Lead Counsel, the

426266.1

- 55 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

1 EEOC or the Claims Administrator deems reasonably necessary to assist in determining the

2 eligibility of any class member for monetary relief. Abercrombie shall attempt to provide such

3 information within fourteen (14) days of any written requests for the information.

4

L. Allocation Plan.

5

Other than the Class Representatives whose monetary awards are separately determined,

6 the disbursement of the Settlement Fund Account to eligible class members shall follow the

7 allocation plan described in this section.

8

Each class member who seeks to receive an award must fill out the claim form and supply

9 information related to his or her claim. On the basis of a review of the information supplied, the

10 Claims Administrator shall allocate a certain number ofpoints based upon specific factors related

11 to the claims. The specific factors include length of service with Abercrombie; discrimination

12 claims based on race, national origin or gender in promotion, assignment, hire or termination; any

13 personal injury, such as emotional distress, suffered as a result of the discrimination; and any time

14 or effort devoted to the litigation. The Claims Administrator shall total the points applicable to all

15 eligible claiman!s, determine each eligible claimant's proportionate share of the total points, and

16 allocate each eligible claimant's proportionate share of the Settlement Fund Account.

17

For example, if the amount available for distribution from the Settlement Fund Account to

18 eligible class members is $1,000,000.00, and tre Claims Administrator has awarded 10,000 points

19 to eligible class members and if an eligible class member were awarded 10 points, then that class

20 member would receive an award of $1,000.00 since each point would be worth $100.00

21 ($1,000,000.00 + 10,000).

22

M. Distribution of the Monetary Awards.

23

As soon as practicable after making the calculations required by the allocation plan set

24 forth in Section XVII.L, the Claims Administrator shall distribute the monetary awards to eligible

25 class members via first class mail. The Claims Administrator shall only issue the checks in the

26 name of the eligible class members unless Section XVII. G. is applicable. Included with the check

27 due to the eligible claimant will be a statement showing the gross amount of the payment and an

28 itemized statement of all deductions made. Flat rate deductions from gross amounts that are

426266.1

- 56-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

C'J
0·. · ·.' · '... .. -.

1 detennined to be wage payments will be made for federal and state income taxes, the employee's

2 share of social security and medicare tax, and any local income or payroll tax that applies. The

3 Claims Administrator will inform Abercrombie of the employer's share of all taxes or

4 contributions (i.e., matching social security and medicare tax) required to be paid by Abercrombie

5 and Abercrombie shall timely remit all such payments to the Claims Administrator for payment to

6 appropriate taxing authorities.

7

Any amounts designated as interest shall not be subject to withholding and shall be

8 reported, if required, to the IRS on Fonn 1099-INT. The amounts paid for emotional distress

9 shall not be subject to withholding and shall be reported to the IRS on Fonn 1099-MISe.

10

The Claims Administrator will be responsible for preparing and filing all appropriate tax

11 filings and reports (except for any unemployment compensation taxes that may be due, which will

12 be the sole responsibility of Abercrombie to calculate and pay), including, but not limited to, W-2

13 and 1099 forms for all eligible claimants and Class Representatives for their payments from the

14 Settlement Fund, as well as any required for the Settlement Fund. The Claims Administrator will 15 also be responsible for reporting anc~ remitting to the appropriate taxing authorities the employer's

16 share of taxes or contributions required to be paid by Abercrombie in a timely manner after

17 receipt of the amount due for those payments from Abercrombie.

18

N. Allocation of Monetary Awards.

i 9

The monetary awards shall be allocated 15% to lost wages and 85% to compensatory

20 damages.

21

o. Cy Pres Fund.

22

It is the intention of the parties to completely distribute the funds in the Settlement Fund

23 Account. In the event that checks are returned and the Settlement Fund is not completely

24 distributed for any reason, the remaining sum shall become part of a cy pres fund to be distributed

25 to a non-profit organization or organizations designated by Lead Counsel that assist Minorities or

26 women to obtain equal employment opportunity.

27

28

426266.1

- 57 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

r\
~)

1

P. Report from Claims Administrator.

2

Within thirty (30) days of the distribution of the monies from the Settlement Fund, the

3 Claims Administrator shall furnish an accounting of all distributions from the Settlement Fund to

4 the Court with copies to Lead Counsel, the EEOC and Abercrombie.

5 XVIII. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

6

A. Basis for Award of Fees, Costs and Expenses.

7

1. The parties have agreed tlnt it is appropriate as part of the settlement

8 underlying this Consent Decree for Abercrombie to pay to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Class

9 Representatives and the Settlement Class, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and

10 costs in this case.

11

2. The Company has agreed to pay Class Counsel an award of reasonable

12 attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $7,250,000.00 for work performed

13 and costs and expenses incurred through and including the Approval Date. Included in this

14 amount is approximately $540,000.00 for litigation costs and expenses incurred by Class Counsel.

15 This amount fully satisfies any arguable obligation the Company may have to pay attorneys' fees, 16 litigation expenses, and costs for and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Class Representatives and the

17 Settlement Class for any and all work performed and costs and expenses incurred through and

18 including the Approval Date.

19

The Company also has agreed to pay Class Counsel an amount of

20 reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs for work required to be performed by

21 Class Counsel after the Approval Date pursuant to this Decree. The Company agrees that Class

22 Counsel shall be paid such attorneys' fees, expenses and costs in the amount of $600,000.00 for

23 work performed and costs and expenses incurred after the Approval Date relating to defense of

24 the Decree, monitoring, administration and implementation, including, without limitation,

25 evaluating possible compliance with this Decree, including the retention of experts to assist in

26 such evaluation, and defense of the Decree. Except as provided in Section X.B.9 for appeals of

27 decisions of the Special Master, this amount satisfies any arguable obligation the Company may

28 have to pay attorneys' fees, expenses and costs to Class Counsel for any and all work performed

426266.1

- 58 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

C~~

1 and costs and expenses incurred after the Approval Date ofthe Decree for the monitoring,

2 administration, implementation and defense of the Decree.

3

4. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude Abercrombie from seeking

4 attorneys' fees, expenses and costs incurred in litigating enforcement matters according to Title

5 VII law applicable to a prevailing defendant under Section X.B.9. for appeals of decisions of the

6 Special Master.

7

B. Payment of Award.

8

1. Within fourteen (14) days following the Approval Date, Abercrombie shall

9 pay to Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP one half (Yz) of the $7,250,000.00 or

10 $3,625,000.00, for litigation-related attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as set forth in Section

11 XVlII.A.2. Abercrombie shall pay Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP the remaining

12 amount within fourteen (14) days following the Final Approval Date. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann

13 & Bernstein, LLP shall have sole responsibility to distribute attorneys' fees, expenses and costs to

14 other Class Counsel, and if Abercrombie makes such payments to Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &

15 Bernstein, LLP, no Class Counsel may assert any claim for such payments fr?m Abercrombie. In

16 the event that Final Approval of the Decree is not attained, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,

17 LLP shall return to Abercrombie the initial payment of $3,625,000.00 within fifteen (15) days

18 after the non- approval of the Decree becomes final.

19

2. The attorneys' fees, expenses and costs awarded and agreed to be paid by

20 the Company pursuant to Section XVIII.A.3. shall be paid to Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &

21 Bernstein, LLP according to the following schedule:

22

Date

Amount

23

Thirty (30) days after the Approval Date

$150,000

24

March 15,2006

25

March 15, 2007

26

March 15,2008

27

March 15, 2009

28

March 15,2010

$125,000 $100,000 $100,000 $ 75,000 $ 50,000

426266.1

- 59-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 & 04-4731

C:
·.-... ··-).-.\ c·

1 If the Decree is terminated prior to March 15,2011 pursuant to Section VLB., Abercrombie shall

2 pay to Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP all attorneys' fees listed above that are unpaid

3 as of the date of the Decree is terminated. Such payment shall be made no later than fourteen

4 (14) days after the date the Decree is terminated.

5 6 April

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this -:1Ath- day of ,2005.

7

s/Susan IIlston

8

SUSAN ILLSTON

9

United States District Judge Northern District of California

10

11

Respectfully submitted,

12

13 Thomas A. Saenz

Bill Lann Lee

Shaheena Ahmad Simons

Kelly M. Dermody

14 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE Eve H. Cervantez

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice)

15 634 South Spring Street, 11 th Floor

Jahan C. Sagafi

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Nirej S. Sekhon

16

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

17

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

18 Julie Su

19 Minah Park ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL

20

CENTER

1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor

21 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D'Urso Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107

22 Kimberly West-Faulcon

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND

23

- EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480

24 Los Angeles, CA 90017

25 Sidney L. Gold
26 Traci M. Greenberg SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
28

Bryan L. Clobes Melody Forrester Jeffrey D. Lerner MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Cleo Fields THE FIELDS LAW FIRM, L.L.c. 2147 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA

426266.1

- 60-

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

C"

8....•........

\
)

..

•

1 James F. Keller Zachary Gottesman
2 GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES 2121 URS Center
3 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OB 45202
4
5 6 7 April 11, 2005
8 9 April 11, 2005 10 11 12 13 14 April 11, 2005 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 April 11, 2005 25 26 27 28
426266.1

Barry L. Goldstein GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,
BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Avenue Oakland, CA 94612

lsi Bill Lann Lee Bill Lann Lee
lsi Thomas A. Saenz Thomas A. Saenz MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014
lsiMartin J. D'Urso Martin J. D'Urso KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorneysfor PlaintiffGonzalez, et al.
Jack W. Lee, Esq. (SBN 071626) Lisa Duarte, Esq. (SBN 169750) John Ota, Esq. (SBN 195532) MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108
lsiJack W Lee Jack W. Lee
Attorneysfor Plaintiff West, et al.

- 61 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SJ, 044730 & 044731

1
C; 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 April 11, 2005

9

10

11

12 April 11, 2005
13

C\:.<- )

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
• 27 28

426266.1

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
By: /s/ Anna Y. Park ANNA Y.PARK Regional Attorney
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
By: /s/ Gregorv M. Gochanour
JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney GREGORY M.GOCHANOUR Supervisory Trial Attorney
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicag:>, IL 60661

- 62 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 044731

Douglas R. Young Sandra A. Kearney FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104
Thomas Brennan Ridgley Jonathan M. Norman Sandra J. Anderson Mark A. Knue ve VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008
/s/ Thomas Brennan Ridgley Thomas Brennan Ridgley
Attorneysfor Defendants

- 63 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NOS. 03-2817 SI, 044730 & 04-4731

 
 1 Thomas A. Saenz (SBN 159430) Shaheena Ahmad Simons (SBN 225520)
2 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
3 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014
4 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
5 Julie Su (SBN 174279)
6 Minah Park (SBN 225374) ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL
7 CENTER 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor
8 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-7500
9 Facsimile: (213) 977-7595
10 Kimberly West-Faulcon (SBN 199501) Jyoti Nanda (SBN 217284)
11 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
12 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017
13 Telephone: (213) 975-0211 Facsimile: (213) 202-5773
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya,
16 luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu
17

;

-. , ,r . ~~::-;. (. ... ,.'!I
..."'. t' _-:;. ~~

, (
i,-"""'"

l' :::,....,
Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) ";. ---'

Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)

Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709)

lahan C. Sagafi (SBN 224887)

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

BERNSTEIN, LLP

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Telephone: (415) 956-1000

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

MEJ

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19 20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

'Ii SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION

'fIi'I

1.'~"1 2 § . EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY

CasA .Q

I

OCAMPO, ENCARNACION

U U

21 GUTIERREZ, lOHAN MONTOYA,

lUANCARLOS GOMEZ-MONTEJANO, 22 JENNIFER LU, AUSTIN CHU, IVY

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY

NGUYEN, and ANGELINE WU, on 23 behalf of themselves and all others

RELIEF AND DAMAGES, FOR VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.c. § 1981;

similarly situated, 24

CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

Plaintiffs,

25

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

v. 26

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., 27

Defendant. 28
~------'-----------'
- - _....._--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_..---_...

260294.9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo,

2 Encarnacion Gutierrez, 10han Montoya, luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, lennifer Lu, Austin Chu,

3 Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu (collectively "Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and all others

4 similarly situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and information and belief

5 as to other matters, as follows:

6

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

7

1. Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Company ("A&F," "Abercrombie," or

8 "the Company") is a national retail clothing seller that discriminates against minority individuals,

9 including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans (hereinafter, collectively,

10 "minorities") on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin, with respect to hiring, firing, job

11 assignment, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment by enforcing a

12 nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable job

13 assignments, and favorable work schedules in its stores throughout the United States.

14

2. Abercrombie recruits, hires, and maintains a disproportionately white sales

15 force (called Brand Representatives) who act as salespeople and recruiters of other potential

16 Brand Representatives.

17

3. Abercrombie systematically refuses to hire qualified minority applicants as

18 Brand Representatives to work on the sales floor and discourages applications from minority

19 applicants. To the extent that it hires minorities, it channels them to stock room and overnight

20 shift positions and away from visible sales positions, keeping them out of the public eye. In

21 addition, Abercrombie systematically fires qualified minority Brand Representatives in

22 furtherance of its discriminatory policies or practices.

23

4. Abercrombie implements its discriminatory employment policies and

24 practices in part through a detailed and rigorous "Appearance Policy," which requires that all

25 Brand Representatives must exhibit the "A&F Look." The "A&F Look" is a virtually all-white

26 image that Abercrombie uses not only to market its clothing, but also to implement its

27 discriminatory employment policies or practices.

28

5. When people who do not fit the "A&F Look" inquire about employment,

260294.9

- 1-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 managers sometimes tell them that the store is not hiring, or may provide them with applications

2 even though they have no intention of considering them for employment. If applicants who do

3 not fit the "A&F Look" submit applications, managers and/or Brand Representatives acting at

4 their direction sometimes throw them away without reviewing them.

5

6. Abercrombie publishes and distributes to its employees a "Look Book" that

6 explains the importance of the Appearance Policy and the "A&F Look," and that closely regulates

7 the Brand Representatives' appearance. The Company requires its managers to hire and continue

8 to employ only Brand Representatives who fit within the narrow confines of the "Look Book,"

9 resulting in a disproportionately white Brand Representative workforce.

10

7. Abercrombie' also uses visual media to reinforce to managers responsible

11 for recruitment, hiring, assignment, compensation, termination, and other terms and conditions of

12 employment of Brand Representatives the importance of adhering to the virtually all-white A&F

13 image in employment decisions. Each store prominently posts large photographs of models -

14 virtually all of whom are white. In addition, the Company publishes and sells A&F Quarterly, a

15 magazine/catalog featuring almost exclusively white models. Some stores also display A&F TV,

16 a television program played on a loop featuring Brand Representatives who fit the "A&F Look."

17 Again, almost every Brand Representative shown is white. Abercrombie corporate

18 representatives and managers use these displays and publications to portray and promote the

19 "A&F Look" to employees, customers, applicants, and potential applicants, to discourage and

20 deter minority applicants, and to justify terminating minority employees.

21

8. The Company rigorously maintains the "A&F Look" by careful scrutiny

22 and monitoring of its stores by regional and district managers and corporate representatives.

23 These managers and corporate representatives visit stores frequently to ensure, among other

24 things, that the store is properly implementing the Company's discriminatory employment

25 policies and practices. These visits are referred to as "blitzes." When managers or corporate

26 representatives discover that minority Brand Representatives have been hired, they have directed

27 that these Brand Representatives be fired, moved to the stock room or overnight shift, or have

28 their hours "zeroed out," which is the equivalent of termination.

260294.9

-2 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

9. The Company also scrutinizes and enforces compliance with the "A&F

2 Look" by requiring all stores to submit a picture of roughly 10 of their Brand Representatives

3 who fit the "Look" to headquarters each quarter. The corporate officials then select roughly 15

4 stores' pictures as exemplary models that perpetuate the Company's discriminatory employment

5 policies and practices. They then disseminate these pictures to the over 600 A&F stores. The

6 Brand Representatives in the pictures are almost invariably white. This practice and policy, like

7 the others described above, constitutes an official directive to give preference to white Brand

8 Representatives and applicants, and to discriminate against minority Brand Representatives and

9 applicants.

10

10. The A&F image is not limited to appearance; the Company accomplishes

11 its discriminatory employment policies or practices by defining its desired "classic" and "cool"

12 workforce as exclusively white. It seeks to hire Brand Representatives who convey a certain

13 image. This A&F image is decidedly non-minority. In order to perpetuate the A&F image,

14 Abercrombie identifies specific colleges from which each store should recruit its employees, even

15 though the Brand Representative position does not require any of the skills or abilities acquired in

16 college, much less in any specific college. Abercrombie also encourages the recruitment and

17 hiring of members of specified overwhelmingly white fraternities and sororities, and of students

18 who participate in certain overwhelmingly white intercollegiate sports. However, the Company

19 does not encourage recruitment from fraternities, sororities, or sports teams with significant

20 minority populations. To further reinforce to store managers the importance of hiring white

21 students who fit the Abercrombie image, the Company requires weekly reports on the number of

22 Brand Representatives who attend targeted colleges and who fit the emphasis on

23 fraternity/sorority membership and athletic team involvement.

24

11. This class action is accordingly brought by minority Brand Representatives

25 and applicants for Brand Representative positions on behalf of themselves individually and all

26 minority applicants and employees against whom Abercrombie has discriminated on the basis of

27 race, color, and/or national origin. Abercrombie has maintained and continues to maintain a

28 pervasive policy or practice of discrimination based on race, color, and/or national origin in

260294.9

-3 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 denying employment, desirable job assignments, job transfers, allocation of weekly hours,

2 compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment to minorities in Abercrombie stores

3 throughout the United States.

4

12. This action seeks an end to these discriminatory policies or practices, an

5 award of backpay and front pay, as well as compensatory damages, punitive damages, and

6 injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.

7

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

8

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331

9 and 1343.
10

-14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Members

11 of the Plaintiff class reside in California and throughout the United States. Defendant

12 Abercrombie is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in California. It has retail stores

13 throughout California and this District. Many of the acts complained of occurred in this State and

14 this District and gave rise to the claims alleged.

15

15. Intradistrict assignment is proper in the San Francisco/Oakland Division

16 because some of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiff Anthony

17 Ocampo occurred in San Mateo County.

18

PARTIES

19

16. Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez is a minority resident of Palo Alto, California,

20 where he is a student at Stanford University. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative

21 at the Abercrombie store in the Valley Fair Mall in Santa Clara, California in August 2002, on

22 account of his race, color, andlor national origin.

23

17. Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo is a minority resident of Palo Alto, California,

24 where he is a student at Stanford University. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative

25 at the Abercrombie store in the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo, California, in or around

26 January 2000 on account of his race, color, andlor national origin. He was also denied a position

27 as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie Store in the Glendale Galleria in Glendale,

28 California in June 2000 on account of his race, color, andlor national origin.

26029~.9

-4 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

18. Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez is a minority resident of South San

2 Francisco, California. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

3 store in the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California in June or July 2001, on account

4 of his race, color, and/or national origin.

5

19. Plaintiff Johan Montoya is a minority resident of Goleta, California, where

6 he is a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He was denied a position as a

7 Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California in

8 August or September 2002 on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

9

20. Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano is a minority resident of Los

10 Angeles, California. He was e,mployed as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store at the

11 Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, from November 1998 to April 1999, when

12 he was terminated on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

13

21. Plaintiff Jennifer Lu is a minority resident of Irvine, California, where she

14 is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

15 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

16 from September 2000 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color,

17 and/or national origin.

18

22. Plaintiff Austin Chu is a minority resident of Irvine, California, where he is

19 a student at the University of California at Irvine. He was employed as a Brand Representative in

20 the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from June 2001 to

21 March 2003, when he was constructively discharged on account of his race, color, and/or national

22 origin.

23

23. Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen is a minority resident of Anaheim, California, where

24 she is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

25 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

26 from June 2002 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color, and/or

27 national origin.

28

24. Plaintiff Angeline Wu is a minority resident of Irvine, California where she

260294.9

-5-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

2 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

3 from August 2002 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color,

4 and/or national origin.

5

25. Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Company is a Delaware corporation with

6 its principal place of business at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio. Abercrombie maintains

7 offices and does business in California, in this judicial District, and in this Division.

S Abercrombie is a national retail clothing seller primarily marketing to teenagers and young adults.

9 According to the Company, it took in $1.6 billion in revenue during fiscal year 2002, a 17%

10 increase over the previous year. As of the end of the first quarter of 2003 (ended May 3, 2003),

11 the Company operated 602 stores.

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13

26. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2),

14 and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all past, present, and future minority Abercrombie Brand

15 Representatives and applicants for Brand Representative positions with Abercrombie who have

16 been, continue to be, or in the future may be discouraged from applying or denied employment,

17 desirable job assignments, job transfers, desirable hours, compensatiori, and/or other terms and

18 conditions of employment on the basis of their race, color, and/or national origin, and/or who

19 have been terminated on account of the policies or practices complained of herein.

20

27. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.

21

28. The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of

22 all members is impracticable. The number of class members is currently indeterminate, but is

23 certainly larger than can be addressed through joinder. By the end of FY 2003 (ended February 1,

24 2003), Abercrombie had approximately 22,000 employees. In addition, temporary employees are

25 hired during peak periods, such as the holiday season. Each of Abercrombie's 600-odd stores

26 employs very few minority Brand Representatives but each store, on average, annually receives

27 numerous applications from qualified minorities who are potential Brand Representatives; as a

28 result of Abercrombie's systematic discriminatory hiring practices, an unknown number of

260294.9

-6 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 minority applicants have also been deterred from applying. Thus, although the precise number of

2 qualified minority applicants who are not hired and/or who are fired or otherwise discriminated

3 against is currently unknown, it is far greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder.

4

29. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and these

5 questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common

6 questions include, among others: (1) whether Abercrombie's policies or practices discriminate

7 against minority employees and applicants; (2) whether Abercrombie's use of the "A&F Look"

8 and image as an employment policy or practice discriminates against minority applicants and

9 employees; (3) whether Abercrombie's policies or practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (4)

10 whether compensatory and pynitive damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies for

11 the class are warranted.

12

30. The representative Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class.

13

31. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and

14 protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and

15 experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection

16 thereof.

17

32. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

18 because Abercrombie has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

19 making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a

20 whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Abercrombie's common,

21 uniform, and unfair racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices.

22

33. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

23 because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only

24 individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods

25 for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged

26 and are entitled to recovery as a result of Abercrombie's common, uniform, and unfair racially

27 discriminatory personnel policies and practices. Abercrombie has computerized payroll and

28 personnel data that will make calculation of damages for specific class members relatively

260294.9

-7 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 simple. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are issues common to the class.

2

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

3 Eduardo Gonzalez

4

34. Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez, a Latino male, is a student at Stanford

5 University. He applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the

6 Valley Fair Mall in Santa Clara, California on August 7, 2002. An Abercrombie manager

7 suggested that he apply to work in the stock room or on the overnight crew in a non-sales

8 position. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzalez returned to the store for a group interview for the Brand

9 Representative position on August 27, 2002. Mr. Gonzalez was not hired as a Brand

10 Representative. Mr. Gonzalez; was qualified for the job. Indeed, immediately following his

11 Abercrombie interview, he crossed the hall within the same mall to apply for ajob at Banana

12 Republic, a similar retail clothing store that competes directly with Abercrombie for customers

13 and employees. An employee of Banana Republic asked Mr. Gonzalez if he was interested in

14 applying to work as a manager. He applied to work as a sales associate, and is still employed by

15 Banana Republic in that capacity. Despite knowing of his qualifications, Abercrombie refused to

16 hire Mr. Gonzalez based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

17

35. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez on the basis of his

18 race, color and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

19

36. On or about April 25, 2003, Mr. Gonzalez filed a charge of discrimination

20 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Mr. Gonzalez received a copy

21 of his Notice of Right to Sue from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

22 ("DFEH"), dated April 29, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated by

23 reference, are copies of that charge and that notice.

24 Anthony Ocampo

25

37. Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo, a Filipino American male, is a student at

26 Stanford University. From December 1999 to January 2000, he worked part time as a Brand

27 Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Glendale Galleria in Glendale, California near his 28 family's home.

260294.9

-8-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

38. It is common practice at Abercrombie for college students to work at the

2 Abercrombie near their family home during vacations, and then to transfer to a store near their

3 college during the school year (or vice versa). Therefore, when Mr. Ocampo returned to

4 Stanford, he attempted to apply for a position as Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store

5 in the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo, California. Mr. Ocampo was told that he would

6 be contacted regarding a stock person position, but not for the position of Brand Representative.

7 Mr. Ocampo never was contacted for any position with Abercrombie, and when he contacted the

8 manager there, he was told that he would have to reapply.

9

39. Later that year, when he returned home for summer vacation in June of

10 2000, Mr. Ocampo applied to:vork-once again at the Glendale Galleria Abercrombie. He was

11 told that there were "too many Filipinos" working at that location. He was not even given the

12 opportunity to submit a written application. Mr. Ocampo was qualified for the job of Brand 13 Representative, in part based on his prior experience doing that exact job at the Ab~rcrombie

14 store in the Glendale Galleria. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Ocampo, despite knowing of his

15 qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

16

40. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Ocampo on the basis of his

17 race, color and/or national origin (a) by denying him employment because he is not white; and

18 (b) by refusing to transfer him from one store to another on the same terms as white Brand

19 Representati ves.

20 Encarnacion Gutierrez

21

41. Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez, a Latino male, graduated from the

22 University of California at Los Angeles in 2002 with a B.S. in Civil Engineering and from the

23 University of California at Berkeley in 2003 with an M.S. in Structural Engineering. He applied

24 to work as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Third Street Promenade in

25 Santa Monica, California in June or July 2001, and later returned for a group interview.

26 Mr. Gutierrez was qualified for the job. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Gutierrez, despite

27 knowing of his qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

28

42. During his initial visit to the store, Mr. Gutierrez observed that the staff

260294.9

-9-

CLASS ACTION CO;vlPLAINT

1 was virtually exclusively white. The manager who conducted the group interview was white. He

2 asked no questions regarding prior work experience or relevant skills. During the interview, the

3 manager asked a Filipino-American applicant whether he spoke English even though the

4 applicant had already answered several questions and demonstrated his fluency in English.

5 Mr. Gutierrez saw the manager write "phil" next to the applicant's name.

6

43. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gutierrez on the basis of his

7 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

8

44. On or about May 21,2002, Mr. Gutierrez filed a charge of discrimination

9 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference, is a

10 copy of that charge.

11 Johan Montoya

12

45.

Plaintiff 10han Montoya, a Latino male, is a student at the University of

13 California at Santa Barbara. He applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the

14 Abercrombie store in the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California in August or September 2002,

15 participated in a group interview for the job and submitted a paper application. He was qualified

16 for the job, in part based on his prior work experience as a sales associate at another retail

l7 establishment in the same mall. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Montoya despite knowing of his

18 qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

19

46. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Montoya on the basis of his

20 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

21

47. On or about April 22, 2003, Mr. Montoya filed a charge of discrimination

22 with the EEOC. Mr. Montoya received a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH,

23 dated April 29, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference, are

24 copies of that charge and that notice.

25 Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano

26

48. Plaintiff luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, a Latino male, worked as a Brand

27 Representative at the Abercrombie store at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica,

28 California from November 22,1998 until August 1999, while he was a student at the University

26029-+.9

- 10 -

CLASS ACTION COI\II'LAINT

1 of California at Los Angeles. During that time, he regularly worked roughly 10-15 hours per

2 week. After noticing that his work hours had been reduced, Mr. Gomez-Montejano requested his

3 personnel file. In August 1999 he learned that Company records showed that, unbeknownst to

4 him, he had been fired from his position. He had never been previously informed of this

5 termination, nor was he advised of any reasons for the termination.

6

49. In or around February or March 1999, Abercrombie representatives from

7 Ohio corporate headquarters visited the store on a "blitz," and observed that there were

8 photographs of each of the Brand Representatives posted in an employee area in the back. A

9 corporate official pointed to the pictures of four or five minority Brand Representatives, including

10 Mr. Gomez-Montejano, and directed store management to "zero them out." This expression is

11 used within the Company to signify that the manager assigning work shifts should begin

12 assigning that person zero hours each week. In the following weeks, Mr. Gomez-Montejano

13 continued to inform his manager that he was available to work many hours a week, just as he had

14 throughout his tenure at Abercrombie; however, each week he received a schedule giving him

15 zero hours. Eventually, he realized that this "zeroed out" schedule might be permanent.

16 Therefore, he requested his personnel file in July 1999, and, after his second request, received a

17 copy of a company document stating that he had been terminated.

18

50. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gomez-Montejano on the basis

19 of his race, color, andlor national origin by (a) terminating his employment because he is not

20 white; and (b) refusing to give him desirable hours/assignments on the same terms as white Brand

21 Representati ves.

22

51. On or about December 21, 1999, Mr. Gomez-Montejano filed a charge of

23 discrimination with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D, and incorporated by

24 reference, is a copy of that charge. After investigating, the EEOC issued a Letter of

25 Determination, finding that Abercrombie had discriminated against Mr. Gomez-Montejano and

26 against "Latinos and Blacks, as a class." Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit E, and

27 incorporated by reference, is a copy of that letter. On or about December 21, 1999, the DFEH

28 issued to Mr. Gomez-Montejano a Notice of Right to Sue. Attached to this Complaint as

260294.9

- 11 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 Exhibit F, and incorporated by reference, is a copy of that notice.

2 Jennifer Lu

3

52.

Plaintiff Jennifer Lu is an Asian American female and a student at the

4 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

5 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from September 2000 to February 2003.

6 She was entrusted with responsibilities that only the most trustworthy and more senior staff were

7 given.

8

53. In or around January 2003, representatives from corporate and/or regional

9 headquarters visited the Crystal Court Mall store on an inspection tour, or "blitz." These

10 headquarters/regional representatives reiterated to the Store Manager and other managers the

11 importance of having ~ predominantly white Brand Representative workforce, with fewer

12 minorities. Specifically, corporate employees communicated this directive by pointing to a

13 picture of a white male model hanging in the store, and making a statement to the effect of "This

14 is the 'A&F Look' - you need to make your store look more like this." Soon after this "blitz," on

15 or about February 8, 2003, roughly five Asian American Brand Representatives, including

16 Plaintiffs Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu were terminated and/or

17 constructively discharged, and one African American Brand Representative was transferred to a

18 behind-the-scenes stockroom position at another Abercrombie store. This action was not

19 premised on any legitimate business consideration, such as a lessened need for Brand

20 Representatives or poor work performance. The store hired approximately five to seven white

21 Brand Representatives within two weeks of firing Ms. Lu.

22

54. On February 8, 2003, Ms. Lu learned that she had been fired. She

23 informed the Store Manager that she was willing to be flexible with shift assignments, and that if

24 the staffing needs picked up in the summer months or other peak shopping seasons, she would

25 like to be considered. Mr, Richter told her that she was not needed at that time nor would she be

26 needed in the future.

27

55. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Lu on the basis of her race,

28 color, and/or national origin by (a) terminating her employment because she is not white; and

2602949

- 12 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

2

56. On or about April 22, 2003, Ms. Lu filed a charge of discrimination with

3 the EEOC. Ms. Lu received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated April 29,

4 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference, are copies of that 5 charge and that notice.

6 Austin Chu

7

57.

Plaintiff Austin Chu is an Asian American male and a student at the

8 University of California at Irvine. He worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store

9 in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from June 2001 to March 2003, when he was

10 constructively discharged.

11

58. Jmmediately after the January corporate "blitz" visit described herein in the

12 preceding paragraphs, Mr. Chu's hours were reduced from the usual 10-15 hours per week he had

13 worked during his year and a half tenure to roughly zero hours per week. This "zeroing out" 14 began on or about February 8, 2003 and lasted until approximately March 26,2003, during which

15 six-week period Mr. Chu was assigned only one four-hour shift (in contrast to his usual 60-90 16 hours for such a six-week period), despite notifying his managers each week of his availability 17 and interest in working the usual 10-15 hours per week. Mr. Chu attempted to gain more hours 18 by offering to fill in for those who were unavailable, and he was denied the opportunity to work 19 more hours. Because he was not assigned any hours to work, Mr. Chu tendered his resignation on 20 March 26,2003. Mr. Chu was known as one of the most effective Brand Representatives in the 21 store due to his gregarious nature.

22

59. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Chu on the basis of his race,

23 color, and/or national origin by (a) constructively terminating his employment because he is not

24 white; and (b) assigning him fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

25

60. On or about April 22, 2003, Mr. Chu filed a charge of discrimination with

26 the EEOC. Mr. Chu received a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated

27 April 29,2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference, are

28 copies of that charge and that notice.

26029.+ <)

- 13 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 Ivy Nguyen

2

61. Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen is an Asian American female and a student at the

3 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative in the Abercrombie

4 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from approximately June 2002 until she

5 was fired sometime during February 2003, shortly after the corporate "blitz" described herein in

6 the preceding paragraphs.

7

62. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Nguyen on the basis of her

8 race, color, and/or national origin by (a) tenninating her employment because she is not white;

9 and (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

10

63. On or about June 16,2003, Ms. Nguyen filed a charge of discrimination

11 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference, is a copy

12 of that charge.

13 Angeline Wu

14

64. Plaintiff Angeline Wu is an Asian American female and a student at the

15 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

16 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from August 2002 to February 2003.

17

65. Ms. Wu worked approximately 5-10 hours a week, at least 2-3 shifts per

18 week. Shortly after the corporate "blitz" described herein in the preceding paragraphs, Ms. Wu's

19 hours were reduced and eventually "zeroed out." Ms. Wu was then tenninated in February 2003.

20

66. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Wu on the basis of her race,

21 color, and/or national origin by (a) tenninating her employment because she is not white; and

22 (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

23

67. On or about April 17,2003, Ms. Wu filed a charge of discrimination with

24 the EEOC. Ms. Wu received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated

25 April 22, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference, are copies

26 of that charge and that notice.

27

GENERAL POLICIES OR PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION

28

68. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by the

26029'+.9

- 14 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 Representative Plaintiffs are part of a general policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of

2 race, color, and/or national origin in employment that has existed at Abercrombie throughout the

3 relevant time. These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual decisions.

4 On the contrary, these incidents are representative of A&F's systematic discrimination against

5 minorities and in favor of white applicants and employees, to create an overwhelmingly white

6 Brand Representative workforce.

7

69. On September 13,2001, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination with

8 respect to the EEOC charge filed by Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano, stating,

9

The preponderance of the evidence supports Charging Party's claim

that he was denied a permanent position as a Brand Representative,

10

denied an assignment and terminated because of his national origin.

Moreover, evidence obtained during the course of the investigation

11

revealed that Latinos and Blacks, as a class, were denied

pennanent positions, denied assignments and treated in an unfair

12

manner with regard to recruitment based on their race and national

origin, and that Respondent failed to maintain employment records

13

as required by Title VII. Therefore, I have concluded that the

evidence is sufficient to establish a violation of the above-cited

14

statute.

15 Attached hereto as Exhibit E (emphasis added).
16 70. The EEOC sent this letter to Mr. Gomez-Montejano and to Abercrombie.
17 71. The under-representation of minorities in Brand Representative positions
18 throughout Abercrombie's approximately 602 stores in the United States results from an
19 intentional policy and practice of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin
20 in hiring, initial job assignment, weekly hours allocation, internal job transfer, inter-store transfer,
21 and termination.
22
72. Abercrombie has pursued policies or practices on a continuing basis that
23
have denied or restricted job opportunities to qualified minority applicants and employees.
24
73. Such discriminatory policies or practices include, without limitation: 25
a. reliance on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and un validated 26
criteria in making hiring decisions, focusing on whether applicants properly reflect the 27
predominantly white "A&F Look" and image rather than whether they would be responsible,
28

26029-1.9

- 15 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 effective Brand Representatives who could perform their jobs well;

2

b. reliance on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and unvalidated

3 criteria in making decisions in job assignments, weekly hour allocations, and ability to transfer

4 between stores focusing on whether employees properly reflect the predominantly white "A&F

5 Look" and image rather than whether they would be responsible, effective Brand Representatives

6 who perform their jobs well;

7

c.

shunting minority applicants and Brand Representatives to stock

8 room and overnight shift positions where they are out of the public eye;

9

d.

targeting white candidates for recruitment, both systemically ~,

10 recruiting visits to college carp.puses and/or targeting of specific sororities and fraternities) and

11 individually ~, inviting individual customers in the store to apply to become Brand

12 Representatives), but avoiding, ignoring, discouraging or dissuading equally qualified minorities

13 from applying;

14

e.

use of the "Look Book," the A&F Quarterly, and wall posters as

15 guidelines for management to select Brand Representatives on the basis of their appearance -~,

16 white - as opposed to their qualifications for the job;

17

f.

use of corporate "blitzes" to monitor and enforce stores'

18 compliance with the "A&F Look" and to weed out minority Brand Representatives; and

19

g. termination' of employees based on race, color, and/or national origin

20 without regard to their performance on the job.

21

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

22

23

74. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 73 as alleged above.

24

75. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class they

25 represent.

26

76. Abercrombie has maintained an intentionally discriminatory system with

27 respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, weekly hour allocations, and

28 termination.

260294.9

- 16 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

77. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal intentional discrimination with

2 respect to the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts prohibited by

3 42 U.S.c. § 1981.

4

78. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

5

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940, et seq.)

6

7

79. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 78 as alleged above.

8

80. This claim is brought on behalf of Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion

9 Gutierrez, 10han Montoya, luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, lennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen,

10 and Angeline Wu and the subc,lass of California class members they represent.

11

81. Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, 10han Montoya, luancarlos Gomez-

12 Montejano, lennifer Lu, Austin Chu, and Angeline Wu have received copies of their Right to Sue

13 letters from the DFEH. The pendency of the EEOC investigations into Plaintiffs' charges tolled

14 the time limits for filing civil actions pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

15 Plaintiffs have therefore timely complied with all prerequisites to suit.

16

82. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

17

NOTICE OF FUTURE THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.) 18

83. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 82 as alleged above.

19

84. Abercrombie has maintained a system that is intentionally discriminatory,

20

subjective, standardless, and arbitrary with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, transfer,

21

weekly hour allocation, and termination. The system has an adverse disparate impact on minority

22

applicants and employees. This system is not and cannot be justified by business necessity, but

23

even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could equally serve any

24

alleged necessity.

25

85. Abercrombie's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

26

denied minority applicants and employees employment, job assignments, job transfers, and

27

weekI y hour allocations, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits.

28

2602949

- 17 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

86. As noted above, the EEOC has determined that "the evidence is sufficient

2 to establish" that Abercrombie has violated Title VII, because "Latinos and Blacks, as a class,

3 were denied permanent positions, denied assignments and treated in an unfair manner with regard

4 to recruitment based on their race and national origin." Exhibit E.

5

87. In light of its ongoing investigation of Plaintiffs' administrative charges,

6 the EEOC has not yet issued right to sue letters to Plaintiffs. When the EEOC issues such letters,

7 Plaintiffs intend to amend the instant Complaint to assert a claim for relief under Title VII of the

8 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e, et seq., because the foregoing policies or

9 practices constitute intentional discrimination or unjustified disparate impact.

10

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

11

88. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, have no plain, adequate, or

12 complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in

13 this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs, and the class

14 they seek to represent, are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from

15 defendant's discriminatory acts and omissions.

16

89. Abercrombie's actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiffs and all

17 class members substantial losses in earnings, work experience, weekly hour allocations, and other

18 employment benefits.

19

90. In addition, named plaintiffs and the class suffer and continue to suffer

20 humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an amount according to proof.

21

91. Abercrombie performed the acts herein alleged with malice or reckless

22 indifference. Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an

23 amount according to proof.

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the class pray for relief as follows:

26

92. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed class;

27

93. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony

28 Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, 10han Montoya, luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, lennifer Lu,

26029·t9

- 18 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu as representatives of the class;

2

94. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs' counsel of record as class

3 counsel;

4

95. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are

5 unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

6

96. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Abercrombie and its

7 officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert

8 with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set

9 forth herein;

10

97. An ord~r that Abercrombie institute and carry out policies, practices, and

11 programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all minorities, and that it eradicate the

12 effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

13

98. An order restoring plaintiffs and class members to their rightful positions at

14 Abercrombie, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay benefits;

15

99. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for individual plaintiffs and class

16 members;

17

100. All damages sustained as a result of Abercrombie's conduct, including

18 damages for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;

19

101. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with

20 Abercrombie's ability to pay and to deter future conduct;

21

102. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent

22 allowable by law;

23

103. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

24

104. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

25 necessary, just, and proper.

26

27

28

26029 .... 9

- 19 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 Dated: June.11, 2003 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
260294.9

Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Saenz Shaheena Ahmad Simons MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Julie Su Minah Park ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
Kimberly West-Faulcon Jyoti Nanda NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
BY:~r-~~7=-+~~~~----------------
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu

- 20-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

If, 3 Dated: June 2003

Respectfully submitted,

4

Thomas A. Saenz

Shaheena Ahmad Simons

5

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATIONAL FUND 6

7

Julie Su

Minah Park

8

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER

9

~ Kimberly West-Faulcon

10

Jyoti Nanda

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

11

FUND, INC.

12

Bill Lann Lee

13

Kelly M. Dermody

Eve H. Cervantez

14

Jahan C. Sagafi

LIEFF,

ASER,

15

16 By: __+-~~~~~~~_________________
17

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony

Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya,

19

luancarlos Gomez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu,

Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26029.+ 9

- 21 -

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CHARGE OF PY~r:RIMINATION ,
This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing this form.

AGENCY
o rriPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
340"-200 3"-OtTt02

NAME (indicate Mr., Ms. or Mrs.)
Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and EEOC State or local Agency, ifany
HOME TELEPHONE (include area code)
(510) 782-3167

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTH

27474 Capri Avenue, Hayward, CA 94545 P.O. Box 11375, Stanford, CA 94309

October 19, 1983

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one, list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (include area code)

Abercrombie & Fitch at Valley Fair

Cat. D (500+)

408-551-0252

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

2855 Stevens Creek Blvd., Space B585, Santa Clara, CA 95050

NAME

.-
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
~~.

Abercrombie & Fitch

Cat. D (500+)

COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
TELEPHONE (include area code)
614-283-6500

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054

COUNTY
FRANKLIN

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ONK (Check appropriate box!es))
• RACE • COLOR D SEX D RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN D RETALIATION D AGE D DISABILITY D OTHER (specify)
THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space is ne<ded. attach extra sheet(s):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

lATEST

8/7/02

• CONTINUING ACTION

1. I am a Latino male. I was denied a position as a sales associate ("Brand Representative") at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in

the Valley Fair Mall in Santa Clara, California. I initially applied at the Valley Fair Mall store on August 7,2002 and returned for a group

interview on August 27, 2002. I was not hired nor was I ever contacted by Abercrombie.

II. I believe that I have been discriminated against by Abercrombie on the basis of national origin, color, or race for the following

reasons: I am qualified for the sales associate position. I am a Stanford University undergraduate who was looking for a part-time job at

the time. On both August 7 and 27, 2002, I noticed that none of the sales associates at the Valley Fair Abercrombie were minority

individuals, i.e., Latino, African American or Asian American. When I initially applied, an Abercrombie manager suggested that I apply to

work in the stock room or on the late night crew in a non-sales position.

III. I believe that Abercrombie has a pattern and practice of discriminating against minority individuals on the basis of national

origin, color, or race in staffing sales positions in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and similarly situated

minority individuals denied sales positions as a result of national origin, color, or race.

'--"---

'..__----..:_.:<,.0 t·:: ,; r~: '. "

r-:::
,~

(".
...,

i.~

Ii

\: "

?

r:"~#. j I'" r~ ,

• I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if
any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedure.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

25 NOTARY - (When nece~saryJo,r State,fP,RJocaJ'"R7Quirements)

.1

"\. "

LUl"

:

I swear or affirm that I have read 'thtiiliove-charge and that it is true to the best of my .knowledge~ information and belief.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

:, / t SJ 2 DO_~
Date

2/ctI~ 4;r.~
Charging Paft)" (signature)

!#vCu41tft

SUBSCRIBED AND

N TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

(Day, month, and year)

248204.2

EXliIBiT-A

STAn OF CAWORNIA - STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGEN:.;CY~===============---===========G=RA=Y=O=A=V=IS=_Go=VC=mof=
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EI\t, .OYMENT & HOUSING
(SEE ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

TTY # (800) 700-2320

o

1001 Tower Way, Suite 250 Bakersfield, CA 93309

H

18051 395-2729

o

1320 E_ Shaw Avenue, Suite 150 Fresno, CIl 93710

C 15591 244-4760

Ms. Rachel Riddle

EEOC Number:

Human Resources Director

Abercrombie & Fitch 6301 Fitch Path

Case Name:

New Albany, OR 430054

Date:

340-2003-09802 GONZALEZ, EDUARDO April 29, 2003

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

o

611 West Sixth Street, Suite 1500 los Angeles, CA 90017

B 12131439-6799

o

1515 Clay Street, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612-2512

M (5101622-2941

2000 ·0· Street, Suite 120 Sacramento, CA 95814-5212 (916) 445-5523

This is to advise you that the above-referenced complaint is being referred to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S_ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint will be filed in accordance with California Government Code section 12960_ This notice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section 12962.
No response to the DFEH is required by the respondent.
The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint_ DFEH will not be conducting an investigation into this matter. EEOC should be contacted directly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of "processing waived to another agency."

o

350 W_ Ash Street, Suite 950 San Diego, CA 92101-3440

D (619) 645-2681

o

121 Spear Street, Suite 430

San Francisco, CA 94105

A (4151 904-2303

o

111 North Market Street, Suite 810 San Jose, CA 95113-1102

G

(4081277-1277

o

2101 E. Fourth Street, Suite 255-B Santa Ana, CA 92705-3855

K

(714) 558-4266

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT~TO-SUE
Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), you may bring a civil action under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in a State of California Superior, Municipal or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that such a civil action must be brought within one year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (d){l), this one year period will be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an attorney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. This right to file a civil action may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should be referred to the EEOC.

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Osborne Deputy Director Enforcement Field Operations

DFEH-200-02 (03/03)

./ r o VAY-GS-03 12:39 From:EEOC/LADO

12138941118

________4._..___________,· "__ __.______ ______

~.

,~--~

~-----

T-362 P.02/03 Job-433

CHAR ti~ OF DISCRIMINATION

....... AG'HCY

Ttl

fE"~

00 340)\201971 ~~1~,

'biE

_
tD~~"~

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ ~

_

_~ E f

_O_C_

_ ~

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

and EEOC

I"
si

nercWroDmREbhie & Fitch

,~5 Th fEd HIe e t PtQmgO.!!.ru:~.>l13:.n.I:.a.-.r.w~.c.a+-.Li.B--::Z~J..U_ _ _ _--.:-:-=-=~=-==~-C.~-:.;~t,;:e;.:l:.:e:..:s

II

TElEl'I10HE

COUNTY

~aT~ ~.;CRI~~U~rJOH TOOK PLACI

o 1RACE

!Sa COl-oft

o DRETALlA1"1011 O~G~

~'x' 0 I\HIGIQN ~"ATlOHAL ORI0111

0 OISAantTy

onl£" (Spe,,: tr)

EAf(J;IC8T

ur&ST

June/July 2001-continuing

&J -P-A-RT-l-CU-I-.A-Il$-,AR,E--a--r -lI-t1-dJr-/l-ll-~J-~-P-"D-~-1,-~ -""-c--dt!-tJ-. -IIU-4-£:-)) -fI-~t-r~--Ih-N'-~(-;i-)J-: -------------e-OH-T~l~~1.~J~tJ~iQ~~A~Ci~Tl~OW~------

During the SUIT mer of2001, I went to, the Abercrombie & Fitch store located on the Third Street Promenade in Smta Monica, Cnlifomill, e.~d I inquired about the availability of
employment at the s'tOl c. 1received an application) which I was instnlcted to fill out. I was told to bring the completed application to a group interview on a set day of the week and time. 1 did retum fer the group inerview, with my completed application. The group interview was
conducted in the open area on the second floor of the store by a white male identified as the
manager. There were )~ven or eight applicants sittil1g in '1 circle. The mallllger asked us to go around the circle and i rltroduce ourselves, say something about ourselves) and indicate what job position we wal1ted to obtain. Each applicant did as instructed. The manager asked n very few
follow-l.lp questions 0 . particular applicants, I do recall that he asked the first applicant to speak
-- an Asian Ameli can male -- whether he spoke English even though his answer to the initial set of questions plainly dl:monstratcd that he did in fact speak English. After we each responded, the
manage::' told us that ftc interview was over and collected our applications. I have never been contacte:d about takinl: a pOSition at the Abercrombie & Fitch store even though I never withdrew my appl ication. I alsc have never received any sort of letter or communication indicating that my application was reject ~d or asking for any further infom1ation about my qualifications. Based on
my observations ofw':}o works in the store, who was interviewed (more than half of those in my group interview were minorities) and the manager's interest in each applicant) I believe that I
have not been hired o' contacted because I am Latino.

MAY-05-03 12:39 From:EEOC/LADO

12138941118

T-362 P.03/03 Job-433

Th1li 1 com II!

CHARO )F DISCRIMINA'fION

IAClENCY

._- ·0 FEPA

Iew 1& sHeeted bY tho Prlvac~ Act of 1974; Sao privacY Act Statemsnt t.eror-o':'1&! EEOC thlS forlll.

CHARGE NUU8ER
340A201971

CA Peptr Fair Emp.J,oyment & Hou~ ing
Slate or localAgency, iftmy

and EEOC

HANS
Mr.
STAEE'
Ab~ SlREE;
1 !
NAUE

IctloBte HJ4•• H~ •• Mrs.)

~nc arnac :lon PDRE5S

Gu t 1 e I·:fr:.!:e:C:,IT,Y;z,L_S~T~A~T:E-:A-N=D~~-Z=I=P~=c:o-o;e;-_ _ _ _-'-_.....4....L.,,~..L-....:::.J:......!r.:~~~~~-I

Stansbu~y Avenue, Pa o~ama Cit CA 1402 IS THE EM~LOyeR, LAEOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY
OR LOCAL ':lOVERNMI:NT AGENCY WHO DIGCRIMINAT.I:O AQAINST ME (IrI1/"r~ ell/In Dnt' lJ.:;~ belo",.)

NUliaER OF EIAPlOYEES, I.IEUBERS TELEPHONE (Incluac A.rt'1J Cocte)

~rombie ,~ Fitch C(~,.~__~~~~~~C~a~t~D~~~~~______~~~~~~~~6~6~4
DORf'SS

3rd S t r1i? e t Prome 1: J:.a~dd.!esw..-k~L-ru..!.5.E::.::I..!~""""~1...-~.1L!:~_--r;;r.-~,;-;:-:;-:=-:=.:~;-;:~::-;:~~~~ TELEPHONE NUI.IIIER (Jnclu4e AreB Code)

CllY I $TATE ANP ZIP COCE

COUNTY

IXlFt

!Xl (OLOR

o SEX

0 00 RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

J I\fTALIATlOIi

0 AGE

o 0 IHS"PILITY

OTHER (tp~..Jq)

THE P. 'ICUlAAS ARE (l'r addUI17rutl ;jJ9.ae ts nacctoct, lJctlJctl ~x~rlS ,o'heet(s));
Amf ded Charge

06/01/2001 OS/21/2002
~ CONTINUING ACTION

DurinE:the summer (1[2001, 1 ~ent to the Abercrombie & Fitch store located on the Third reet Prornen(lde in Santa 1'1onica, Califomia, and I inquired about the availability of
.1ployment at the storc. I! eceiveu an application. which 1was instructed to fi II l)Ut. I W[)s (old bring the c(,mpleted application to a group interview on a set day of the week and time. I did
tum for the :;roup intervie N, with my completed application. The group interview was
Inducted in the open area (In the second floor of the store by a white male identified as the anager. There were s~ven or eight applicants sitting in a circle. The nlClnClger asked tiS to go
ound the cirde and introdllce ourselves, say something about ourselves, and indicate what job
)sition we wanted to obtai}. Each applicant did as instructed. The manager asked a very few now-up que,stions of pani ~lllar applicants. I do recall that he asked the first applicant to $peak
an Asian American male ,- whether he spoke English even though his answer to the initial set ~ q\lestions plainly demon~ trated th~t he did in fact speak El1glish. Afil::r we each responded, the anager told ·11S that the int. :rview was over and collected Ollr applicAtions. I have never been
mtacted about taking a po;:ition at the Abercrombie & Fitch store even though I never withdrew
y application. I also have nevcr received any sort of letter or communication indicating that my
>pIication was rejected or :\sking for any further infom1ation about my qualifications. Based on y observatie'ns of who wo~ks in the store, who was interviewed (more than half of those in my
·oup interview were minol ities), and the managt!r's interest in each applicant, I believe that I we not been hired or cant; lcteu because I am Latino.

I wan l.oca,\
II<lClr'.

tnls Charge l'He<1 w:t.tn I\otll tno EEOI< an<1 the auta or NOTARY·
....... leney. j.f <lny. I w1ll :lClII 156 ': he agene!et 11' I C:hangn my f--------~~-"'-=7--.l\~ ~~_:_.:_~=;__J

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

11 S (Ilev. Om!1

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(,jQnth, day an4 year)

CHAA~" 1F DISCRIMINATIONl \CENCY

,l&Jl Thb form 1s affected by the Pr1vacy Act 01 1974; See Privacy Act StatG11Iel1t l'lIfot'c

FEPA eEOC

com letin this form.

CHARa~ NUMB
3;~OA20197:

QA Dept. Fair Employment & HQusin~ State or (ocalAgency, ifany

and EEOC

NAIIE (Indl,,/2tc /(1"•• H••• HI'S.)

lOME TELEPHOliE (Includc At'''

Mr. Encarnacion GutiQrrez
STREET ADDRESS

CITY, S~ATE AND ZIP CODE

(310) '~24-4 DA 01

8 0 Stansbur Avenue Panorama Cit OA 1

6 2

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICE!1HIP COMMl

STATE OR LOCAL GOV~RNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

NAME

NUNSER OF EMPLOYEES,

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
ST~EET ADDRESS

Cat 0
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

~~~~~~rd~~S~tr~e~et~~Pr~o~m~en~a~ de~~L~o~s ~A~n ~e~l~ e~~~O~A~~0I06~3lEPHONE NUMBER~u~AN

u(Jt1!) TH
~~)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

o rKl RA.CE

(XJ COLOR

o o RETALIATION

0 AGE

SEX

DRELIGIO~ 00 NATIONAL ORIGIN

DISABILITY 0 OTHER (.sp~ctry)

TI4~ PART!CULARS ARE (zr II.ddJtJD1J3J space I:; ne(!rJed, /lctllcll cxtra ••l1eet(II)):
Amended Charge

06/01/2001 OS/21 ~002 00 CONTINU::NG ACTION

During the summer of 200 1, I y;cnt to the Abercrombie & Fitch S ,ore located on the Third
Street Promenade in Santa Monica, Califomia, and I inquired about the availability of
employment at the store. I received an application, which I was instructed to fill (JUt. ] was told
to bring the completed application to a group interview on a set day of the week and time. 1 did r-etum for the group interview, with my completed application. The group interview \Vas conducted in the open area on the second floor of the store by a white m: Ie identified ,;,S the manager. There were seven or eight applicants sWing in a circle::. The manager asked 'iJS to go nround the circle and introduce ourselves, say something about ourselve~, and indicate what job
position we wanted to obtain. Each applicant did as instmcted. The manager asked a very few follow-up questions of particular applicants. J do recall that he asked th( first applican t to speak
-- an Asian American male -- whether he spoke English even though his answer to the lnitlal set of questions plainly demonstrated th1!t he djd in fact speak English. Aftt T we each responded, the
manager told us that the interview was over and collected our applicatin:1S. 1have ne\'er bccn contacted about taking a position at the Abercrombie & Fitch store even though Jnever withdrew
my application. 1 also have never received any sort of lettcr or commun: cation indicat ing that my application was rejected or asking for any further infonnation about my ~ualifications, Based on my observations of who works in the store, who was interviewed (more than half oftllose in my group interview were minorities), and the managcr's interest in each aprlicant. 1 belie'/e that I have not been hired or contacted because 1 am Lutino.

e£~-qor ZO/ZO·d 19£-1

elll~se£IZI

SlIBSCWUIED AND ~NOl'ltJ TO 9EF(;.R5 ME THIS ATE (Month, day and y@ar>

CHARGE OF DISL.~IMINATION
This fonn is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing this fonn.

o FEPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
3lfD - 2 0 (7.3- ocr 730

NAME (indicate Mr., Ms. or Mrs.) Mr. Johan Montoya

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and EEOC State or local Agency, ifany
HOME TELEPHONE (include area code)
818-674-0904

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTH

15415 Vanowen Street, #15, Van Nuys, CA 91406 6850 EI Colegio, Goleta, CA 93117

July 7, 1984

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME(lfmore than one, list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (include area code)

Abercrombie & Fitch at Topanga

Cat.D(500+)

~~713-1391

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

6600 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Space #83, Canoga Park, CA 91303

Q '.J C"fITY

5~;"-"I ~ £:>":>

L Angeles

NAME
Abercrombie & Fitch
STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

: -:;,

"'" t"'t

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
-, o j .

Q TELEPHONE (include area code) «<;' '/

Cat. D (500+)

d,_ (j: 614-283-6500

..., I '/

•

v :

!!0i.e:..--..'.

COUNTY

6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054

/ Franklin

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ONK (Check appropriate box(es))

o o • RACE • COLOR

SEX

RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o o RETALIAnON

o AGE

DISABILITY 0 OTHER (specify)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ifaddtlional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

817102

• CONTINUING ACTION

1. I am a Latino male. I was denied a position as a sales associate ("Brand Representative") at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California. I initially applied to work at that store in August or September 2002 and returned for a group interview the following Saturday afternoon. I was not hired nor was I ever contacted by Abercrombie.
II. I believe that I have been discriminated against by Abercrombie on the basis of national origin, color, or race for the following reasons: I am qualified for the sales associate position. I am an undergraduate at the University of California at Santa Barbara who was looking for a part-time job at the time, having already worked for roughly 6 months as a sales associate at the Foot Action USA in the same mall (Topanga). On both visits to the store, I noticed that none of the sales associates at the Topanga Abercrombie were minority individuals, i.e., Latino, African American or Asian American.
III. I believe that Abercrombie has a pattern and practice of discriminating against minority individuals on the basis of national origin, color, or race in staffing sales positions in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and similarly situated minority individuals denied sales positions as a result of national origin, color, or race.

• I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedure.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

::--------. ~<4~'I/~'\

V ~) Date

'-i - S '- -::-

Charging Party (signature)

NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)
I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
S BSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE ( ay, mo , and year)

250228.2

STA'C'E OF CAUFURNIA, STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY-==================-",==========G=RA=Y=O=A=V'=S,=Go=v=cfnO=r
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EM, .)YMENT & HOUSING
(SEE ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

TTY # (8001 700·2320
o 1001 Tower Way, Suite 250 Bakersfield, CA 93309
H (805) 395,2729

Rachel Riddle Human Resources Director Abercrombie & Fitch 6301 Fitch Path New Albany, OH 43054

EEOC Number: 340-2003-09730 Case Name: MONTOYA, JUAN

Date: April 29, 2003

0

1320 E. Shaw Avenue, Suite 150 Fresno, CA 93710

C (559) 244·4760

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

0

6 11 West Sixth Street, Suite 1500 los Angeles, CA 9001 7

B (213) 439·6799

0

1515 Clay Street, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612·2512

M (510) 622·2941

0

2000 ·0· Street, Suite 120 Sacramento, CA 95814·5212

E (916) 445·5523

This is to advise you that the above-referenced complaint is being referred to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint will be filed in accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section 12962.
No response to the DFEH is required by the respondent.
The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint. DFEH will not be conducting an investigation into this matter. EEOC should be contacted directly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of "processing waived to another agency."

0

350 W. Ash Street, Suite 950 San Diego, CA 92101·3440

0 (619) 645·2681

0

121 Spear Street, Suite 430 San Francisco, CA 94105

A (415) 904-2303

0

111 North Market Street, Suite 810 San Jose, CA 95113·1102

G (408) 277-1277

0

2101 E. Fourth Street, Suite 255·6 Santa Ana, CA 92705·3855

K (714) 558-4266

NOTiCE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT·TO·SUE
Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b). you may bring a civil action under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in a State of California Superior, Municipal or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b). provides that such a civil action must be brought within one year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government
Code section 12965, subdivision (d)( 1>. this one year period will be tolled
during the pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an attorney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. This right to file a civil action may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should be referred to the EEOC.

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Osborne Deputy Director Enforcement Field Operations

DFEH-200·02 (03f03)

MAL DEF.

18:26 FAX 213 629 0266

01/28/03

C~ -l-E-O-F-D-IS-C-R-IM--IN~~-~-IO-N----

AQI;~CY

o fhil fpr. it .ffoct.Q by tho Prtv.~, Act or tDt4: SI. Pr1~.or ~~1 stat.mlnt b.ro~.
com latin this fer••

iii

fEPA EEOO

cHAnae NUNSEII
34oAoo452

. CA pept. Fair EmploYment & Hgu,s1ng Sr4Ie ""I"cal~ ifIDf1

and EEOC
......
TELEPHONE (.LllflJU~~ ..(,..,. CaN)
a

tch Co.

STREET AIlDIIESB

CIry. S~ATe ~D ZIP GOOE

COUNTY

(r:b~" .pprtJPrJ.'r. ~q~(t!.J J

o o !lAcE

0 COLOR

o ItEtALIATIeN

0 AGE

SEX Cl ftliuiilOH 00 IiArloliAL ORlan

D 0 DISA1m.ITY

OtfiER (s,.:,,'r¥)

DATE DI&CRINtNAtldN rOOk PLAce

tr4CUF;lJf'

u.'1~

04/15/1999 04/15/1999 c:J CONTtNUXNIl At'rION

THIi PI\RTICULIIMS ARE (.rr A#HttJt:/u 1I]111t.r:' J$ "orx/trt1• • ~r:llch cozen. .Jb.~r:(')J:

- I~ In June 1999, I received a copy or my personneI l file Which indicated ~hat on April 15. 1999 I was laid oft r~om my pos1t1on as Brand Representative. My employers never informed me or my layoff. I was in1t1al1~ hired by the Respondent on Noyember 22,

1998.

11. My layoff notioe did not indicate Why I was

but

stated that I was eligible for rehire.

I !II. I believe that I was laid off beoause of" my tional origin,

Me~1aan which is in violation of Title VII 0 :the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended.

I
!

• I

,

-!

RECEIVED

I
DEC 21 1999:

-L

. EEOQMDO INTAKE

I

NOTARY - (Whlln hlla.S• ...,. h .. atato _hit lo~ !'IeqU1re.bts) t swa.~ Dr «trirM that ,·h&VI re.d tho ahoY. c~.rGo .~d t~t
it ia true to thO bost af -t ~W1.dge. 1n1o~.t1a" ~nd baller.

'6
ZOO °d

-- -~68090,Ol£ :'13J.
\

CHARGING PARtY copy

NV~3~~V@V'1~n 3S1nd 3Hl

O£:81 {U3Mlno.Tn -")l\l1l

L.

Charge Number 340A00452

Juan C. Gomez-Monetjano 411 Kelton Avenue, Unit1#329 Los Angeles, California 90024
Aber~m~Fitch.~!- _ ~ 1346 3M Street Promenade Los Angeles, California 90063

Charging party
- ,- -' ;,..-.-

_ ;.- .. ..

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Four Limited Parkway East Reynoldsburg. Ohio 43068.

LETIER OF DETERMINaTION

By the authoritY v~ in me by the Equal Employment Qpportunity Commission (EEOC). J
issue the following detennination as to the merits of the sUbject charge filed under Title vn of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, B:S amended. All requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging party alleged tlud he was denied a peimanent p~sition as a Brand Representative.

denied an assignment and terminated because ofhis national origin, Mexican-American.
Charging party further alleges that Latinos and Blacks, as"a class, are djs~nated against in

recruitment, hiring, and assignment. Respondent denies the allegati9Ils ofdiscrimination and

-,

contends the Charging Party was not denied a permanent position pf B~d Representative,

depied an assignment. or terminated based on his nationai origin.

":

,.

.... "7.. 1'v...... ~. _ .. - ... , _ . . . . •

.... o. : .... '''~ ___ O'' o.:~ ..

- ..:. ... - . 0_.. _0... ",,'

.. ,

-.~

....~ ..

The"preponderance of the evidence supports Charging P~-ty's claim that he was denied a
as permanent position a Brand Representative, denied an assignment and termmated because of

his national origin. MOJ:eover7 evidence obtained during the co'urse ofthe investigation revealed that Latinos and Blacks, as a class. were denied permanent positions. denied assignments and

treated in an unfair manner with regard to recruitment based on their race and national origin. and

that Respondent failed to maintain employment records as required by Title VII. Therefore, I

have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to establish a violation oftbe above·cited statute.

Respondent is reminded that Federal law prohibits retaliation against ~rsons who have exercised
their right tq inquiTe or complain about matters they believe may violate the law. Discrimination against persons who have cooperated in EEOC investigations is also prohibited. These P!Ot~tions appl~ regardless of the EEOC's detennination on the merits of the charge.

UJ./~O/U" "."
,," . ~, ~"

MAL DEl".

LOD.
CHAlj.GE NUMBER 340A004S2 ~AGE20F2
/

,. III 003
,"

,"

Having determined that there is :reason to believe that violations have occurre~ the EEOC now

hlVitcs the parties to join With it in a collective effort toward ajust tBSolution oftis matter. If

Respondent declines to enter into settlement discmssions, or jffor any other reason the EEOC's

represen1atiVe is unable to secure au acceptable settlemL':Jlt" the Director will so inform the parties

in writing and advise them ofthe collrt enfcm:emant altemati.ve available to the charging party

and theEEOC.

- can rontact Ittvestigator Karrle Maeda will be COl1ta.ctmg you shortly to begin conciliation discpssions. You

ffivemgs.tar Mae---ms. at tzt3) 894-1'15';- -' .~"...

,- ,- - -

-,

Onbehalfofthe Commission:

Set;Jttm1ber 1 3 . 2 0 0 1 Date
I

Olophius Proy. Acting District Direct Los Angeles District Office:

.-------=
-'1.

-- . ._--- . - ....._- . ........ ~~ -.~ "

-- _ _- -.-: "'

........

'--

-_ _- -- - ....---- -- - ..

06/16/03 11:19 FAX 213 629 0266

MAL DEF.

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING

(SEE ADDFleSS CHECKED BELOWI

T1Y'19OOI100-2320

Mx' ~ J:im Whse~Oh

•

r i 1001 Tow.r WIY, Suite 250 sse ..... BakBr.llfhlld. CA 93309-1 H IScSI 396-211'

Human Resources Mmlagttt
Abercrombie & Fitch 00.
3 Urn!tEd Pat'king co~.unlJUs I Cl1 4321e

EEOC Number: 311 OA00452
Case Name: Mr. Juan c. Goole;:z-Mont~jc!Illo

( J 1320 E. Shaw A"III'III., SIJ/t8 160 FnrtmCl. CA. g3110
C I!iSS! 244-47B~

a ail W,,~t $b:tk srreet, Sulte 1 BOO Loa ArI~llIa. CA 90017·311t!

e

121lI439-a79~

0 151!l day Strllat, SI,/I[II "01 Oakland. CA 94012-2!i12
M 1!i101022·2941
c:r 2000 ·0' Sttllat, Suits 1zo 5~ctllmento. CA 90614-6212
E (916\ 44.6.f)f)Z3

tJ 1848 S. 9uall11111!11 C.~.r Dr., 5"ftg 127 SIn Bamardll'lCl, CA 9240B-3426
J 19081 i83-4313

Date: December 21. 1999
NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONOENT
This is to edvise you that the above-referenoed complaint is being refetred to the Cillifornla Department of FaIr em"lovmE!n~ end Housing (DFEHI bv the U.S. EC1ual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The
~ornplBlnt will be filed In accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice oonstitutes service pl.lrsuant to Government Code section 1296~.
No retlponso to tho DFEH 19 required by 1110 rQspondeht.
The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaInt. DfEH
will not be conductIng an investigatIon Into this mattar. EEOC should be
CONtacted dIrectly for any discl!SBien of tha charge. OFEH Is closing Its
case on the basis gf "precessing WEllved to another agency."
NOTICE .0 COMPLAINANT OF RIQHT.TO~SUE

0 .350 W, Ash Streit, Sl.Ilta 9liO GaM OIelll!. CA 9:2.101-3440
D 161111 6411·215'"

CJ 4!Je GOld_" Gatl! AvonuB. Sufll 7600 lilCl" FrgnclllCll. CA 94102.1008
A 141 fjJ 703-4178

o '11 Nort" M,l'Icet Strva1. SUite 1110

a

SlIM Jon. I;A 95113·1 10.2
140111 :J.71-1277

a 211 CI~lc Cllntar Plalll, S\lct. &ao Santa An" eA 92101-4010
K \7141 Ef)B·4:lSe

o 1732 Palmll Drlvto. Se"ltG 200

V!!MttJr., CA 93OO3·519a •

L

(8051 U54--~!l14

Since DFEH wilt not be Issuing an accusation, this latter is also your right~ to-sUe notIce. According to Government Code seotlon 12965, subdivision (b). you may bring a civil action under the prov(,ions of the Fait Employment and Houslnu Act against ths .person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named' in the above-referenced comlJlalnt. The lawsuit may be flied in B State of California SUperior, MunIcipal or Justice COUrt. Tho civil action rn....t be flied wlthln One year of thIs letter. This right may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. aUestions about the right to file under feder&/ law should be referrad to the EEoc.
The DFEH does not retain case r~cords beyond three years after EI
complaint [s flied.
Bemembet; This Right-lo-Sue Nctlge allows you to file a.private lawsuit In State court.
SilJcarely-,
~~.J{~-~ Barbara J ..osborn, Deputy Dlreotor Enforcemel1t Field Operations

\. .'
\..<"=- '.> ...
£00 'd

V68090Z0I£:13.L

OFEH.200-02 (9/99)

NVWH3X~V@V1~n 3S10d 3HJ

1£:81 (U3M) 00 ,10- '}j1

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
This fonn is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing this fonn.

AGENCY
o FEPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
3~D -00-tJ3 - 0 q '7~,-l, II

NAME (indicate Mr., Ms. or Mrs.)
Ms. Jennifer Lu

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and EEOC State or local Agency, ifany
HOME TELEPHONE (include area code)
(405) 209-8931

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTII

163 Exeter, Apt # 163, Irvine, CA 92612

March 3, 1982

r--

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AG~~CY APPRE~SIflP COMMITTEE, STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ifill ethan one,list below.

NAME
Abercrombie & Fitch at Crystal Court

NCaUt.MDB(E50R0+O)'IE.M~'UPU,Oc:~::~;, ~0 ,;'

TELEPHONE (include area code)
714-557 -9787

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

"'
3333 Bear St. Suite # 223, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

NAME

..

".....

C,

L11J&.J .-~-~'' d~@~ r."... ~.(
I NUMBER OF E,L'6¥€ES, lvfEMBERS

COUNTY
ORANGE
TELEPHONE (include area code)

Abercrombie & Fitch

Cat. D (5004) .

. I

614-283-6500

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054

COUNTY ,
FRANKLIN

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ONK (Check appropriate box(es))

• RACE

• COLOR

o • SEX

RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o RETALIATION

o o o AGE

DISABILITY OTHER (specify)

TIIE PARTICULARS ARE (Ifadditional space is needed, attach exIra sheel(s)):

DATE DISCRlMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARllESF

LATESF

8/7/02

• CONTINumG ACTION

I. I am an Asian American female. I was terminated from my position as a sales associate ("Brand Representative") at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, Califomia. I had worked at the Crystal Court store from September 2000 to February 2003.
II. I believe that I have been discriminated against by Abercrombie on the basis of national origin, color, race or sex for the following reasons: I have \wrked in the sales associate position for three years. Based on my experience and demonstrated responsibility, I was entrusted with the duties of handling the cash register and even returns and exchanges. I am an undergraduate attending University of California at Irvine. On or about February 8,2003, I was terminated from the Crystal Court Abercrombie along with 4 other Asian American sales associates. I believe the terminations were a direct result of a visit to the store by employees from Abercrombie's corporate offices, where they told the store management that it needed to "reevaluate the look" of the store and they pointed to a picture of a white male model hanging in the store, and stated something to the effect of, "This is the Abercrombie look." I believe this was code language to recommend that minority sales staff, particularly the Asian Americans and females, be terminated from employment.
III. I believe that Abercrombie has a pattern and practice of discriminating against minority individuals on the basis of national origin, color, race or sex in staffing sales positions in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and similarly situated minority individuals denied sales positions as a result of national origin, color, race, or sex.

• I want tlus charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if
any. I will advise the agencies if! change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedure.

I dec1pre under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct.

-d- 4131?m,? ',\~.d;JJ

Date

Charging Party (signature)

251620.1

NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)
I swear or aflirm that I have read the above charge and that it is tme to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief.
4-/3/0" SIGNATUREOFSOMPLAIN~
SUB~~RN TO BEFORE ME TIllS DATE
(Day, month, and year)

STAn: OF -::AUFORNIIi. -STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENC.;,Y==========================G=RA=Y=O=A=V=IS=.Go=vc=mo=,
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EM. .JYMENT & HOUSING
iSEE ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

TTY # (800) 700-2320

o

1001 Tower Way, Suite 250 Bakersfield, CA 93309

H (805) 395-2729

o 1320 E. Shaw Avenue, Suite 150 Fresno, CA 93710
C (559) 244-4760

Rachel Riddle Human Resources

DirectorEEOC Number:

340-2003-09736

Abercrombie & Fitch 6301 Fitch Path

Case Name: LU, JENNIFER

New Albany, OH 43054

Date: April 29, 2003

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

o 611 West Sixth Street, Suite 1500 los Angeles, CA 9001 7
B (213) 439·6799
o 1515 Clay Street, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 9461 2 -251 2
M (510) 622-2941
o 2000 "0" Street, Suite 120 Sacramento, CA 95814-5212
E (916) 445·5523

This is to advise you that the above-referenced complaint is being referred to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint will be filed in accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section 12962.
No response to the DFEH is required by the respondent.
The .EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint. DFEH will not be conducting an investigation into this matter_EEOC should be contacted directly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of .. processing waived to another agency."

o 350 W. Ash Street, Suite 950 San Diego, CA 92101-3440
D (6191645-2681
o 121 Spear Street, Suite 430 San Francisco, CA 94105
A (415) 904-2303
o 111 North Market Street, Suite 810 San Jose,CA 95113-1102
G (4081277-1277
o 2101 E. Fourth Street, Suite 255-6 Santa Ana, CA 92705-3855
K (714) 558-4266

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT-TO-SUE
Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), you may bring a civil action under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in a State of California Superior, Municipal or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that such a civil action must be brought within one year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (d)(1). this one year period will be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an attorney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. This right to file a civil action may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should be referred to the EEOC.

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Osborne
Deputy Director Enforcement Field Operations

OFEH-200-02 (03/03)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing this form.

..
o FEPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER

NAME (indicate Mr.• Ms. or Mrs.)

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and EEOC
State or local Agency. ifany
HOME TELEPHONE (include area code)

Mr. Austin Chu

949-857-1721

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

23 Timberline, Irvine, CA 92604

DATE OF BIRTH
January 12, 1983

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one, list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (include area code)

Abercrombie & Fitch at Crystal Court

Cat. D (500+)

714-557-9787

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

3333 Bear St. Suite # 223, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

COUNTY
Orange

NAME
Abercrombie & Fitch

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
Cat. D (500+)

TELEPHONE (include area code)
614-283-6500

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054

COUNTY
Franklin

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ONK (Check appropriare box(es)}

o o • RACE • COLOR

SEX

RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o RETALIATION

o o AGE

DISABILITY 0 OTHER (specify)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If addirional space is needed. arraeh exira sheer(s}):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

8/7/02

• CONTINUING ACTION

I. I am an Asian American male. I was constructively discharged from my position as a sales associate ("Brand Representative" at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the Crystal Court MalI in Costa Mesa, California, where I had worked from June 2001 to February 2003.
II. I believe that I have been discriminated against by Abercrombie on the basis of national origin, color, or race for the foIIowin~ reasons: I have worked in the sales associate position for almost two years. Based on my experience and demonstrated responsibility, I was entrusted with the duties of handling the cash register and even returns and exchanges. I am an undergraduate attending University of California at Irvine. After February 8,2003, my hours were reduced from an average of 10-15 hours/week to only 4 hours in the month and a half period between February 8 and March 26,2003. At the same time my hours were reduced, management at the Crystal Court Abercrombie terminated 5 female Asian American sales associates and hired 5-7 white male sales associates. I believe the terminations were a direct result of a visit to the store by employees from Abercrombie's corporate offices, where they told the store managemei1t that it needed to "reevaluate the look" of the store and they pointed to a picture of a white male model hanging in the store, and stated something to the effect of "This is the Abercrombie look." I believe this was code language that minority sales staff, particularly Asian Americans ani females, be terminated.
III. I believe that Abercrombie has a pattern and practice of discriminating against minority individuals on the basis of national origin, color, race or sex in staffing sales positions in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and similarly situated minority individuals denied sales positions as a result of national origin, color, or race.

• I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if
any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedure.

NOTARY - (When necessary for Stateancl'Local Require~ts)
I swear or affirm that I have read.the above.cltarge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, inforn1ation and belief.· --
S41;~~~OFCO~i~

251621.3

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEF~!~,t1~ ;HIS p,ATE \

(Day, month, and year)

'., .. ; ,./ ; 'f:·, , ., Ll-

STATE OF CAUroRNl1t - STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENC.. ; Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = G = R A = Y=DA=V=I:>=".",,=ve=mo=,
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EM JYMENT & HOUSING
(SEE ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

TTY # (8001700-2320

o

1001 Tower Way, Suite 250 Bakersfield, CA 93309

H (8051 395-2729

o 1320 E_ Shaw Avenue. Suite 150 Fresno, CA 93710
C (5591 244-4760

Rachel Riddle
Human Resources DirectorEEOC Number: 340-2003-09740
Abercrombie & Fitch

6301 Fitch Path Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Case Name: CHU, AUSTIN C

Date: April 29, 2003

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

o

611 West Sixth Street, Suite 1500 los Angeles. CA 9001 7

B (2131439-6799

o

1515 Clay Street, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612-2512

M (510) 622-2941

2000 "0" Street, Suite 120 Sacramento, CA 95814-5212 (916) 445-5523

This is to advise you that the above-referenced complaint is being referred to
the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint will be filed in accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section 12962.
No response to the DFEH is required by the respondent.
The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint. DFEH will not be conducting an investigation into this matter. EEOC should be contacted directly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of "processing waived to another agency."

o

350 W_ Ash Street, Suite 950 San Diego, CA 92101-3440

D (619) 645-2681

o

121 Spear Street, Suite 430 San Francisco, CA 94105

A (4 I 5) 904-2303

o 1 I I North Market Street, Suite 8 I 0 San Jose, CA 95113-1102
G (4081277-1277

o 2101 E. Fourth Street, Suite 255-8 Santa Ana, CA 92705-3855
K (714) 558-4266

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT-TO-SUE
Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), you may bring a civil action under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in a State of California Superior, Municipal or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that such a civil action must be brought within one year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (d)( 1). this one year period will be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an attorney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed, This right to file a civil action may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should be referred to the EEOC.

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Osborne Deputy Director Enforcement Field Operations

DFEH-200-02 (03/03)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMJNATION

o ,
This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974;; ...ee Privacy Act Statement

FEPA

beJOr.ecompleting this form.

• EEOC

AGENCY

CHARGE NUMBER

NAME (indicate Mr., Ms. or Mrs.)

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and EEOC State or local Agency, /kif'!' ft .... , .....
n 1:." 1:.11 I:. U

Ms. Ivy Nguyen

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

1503 West Kimberly, Anaheim, CA 92802

JUN 16 2003
EE&C- OLD

HOME TELEPHONE (include area code)
(714) 635-7065
DATE OF BIRTH
09/2111983

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one, list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (include area code)

Abercrombie & Fitch at Crystal Court

Cat. D (500+)

(714) 557-9787

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

3333 Bear St. Suite # 223 / Costa Mesa, CA 92626

COUNTY
Orange

NAME
Abercrombie & Fitch

--
.,

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
Cat. D (500+)

TELEPHONE (include area code)
614-283-6500

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054

COUNTY
FRANKLIN

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ONK (Check appropriate box(es))

o • RACE • COLOR • SEX

RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o RETALIATION

o o o AGE

DISABILITY OTHER (specify)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK

PLACE

EARUEST

LATEST

02/8/03

• CONTINUING ACTION

1. I am an Asian American female. Around February 8, 2003, I was terminated from my position as a sales associate ("Brand Representative") at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the Crystal Court MaH in Costa Mesa, California. I had worked there from June 2002 to February 2003.
II. I believe that I have been discriminated against by Abercrombie on the basis of national origin, color, race, or sex for the foHowing reasons: I have worked in the sales associate position for three years. Based on my experience and demonstrated responsibility, I was entrusted with the duties of handling the cash register and even returns and exchanges. I am an undergraduate attending University of California at Irvine. On or about February 8, 2003, I was terminated from the Crystal Court Abercrombie along with 4 other Asian American sales associates. I believe the terminations were raciaHy motivated.
III. I believe that Abercrombie has a pattern and practice of discriminating against minority individuals on the basis of national origin, color, race, or sex in staffing sales positions in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and similarly situated minority individuals denied sales positions as a result of national origin, color, race, or sex.

• I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency,
if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedure.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date vi'" rO~ \") r ./

Charging Party (signature)

NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)
~~
I sw~ar \>r a,nri,,,at I have read the above charge and that it is true to the bestiof my 1m' wledge, information and belief.
SIGNAtuRE OF COMPLAINANT
t/ I?J /03
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (Day, month, and year)

248204.2

o CHAR( OF DISCRIMINATION

AGENCY

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before ~ EFEEOPAC

CHARGE NUMBER
3~5- ~3-Cf{(j'\G

_ ~c~o~m~p~le~t~i~n~g_t~h~i~s~fo~r~m~. _________________________________________________~________~~~-

- - - - -~-

CA DEPT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT/HOUSING State or localAgency, ifany

and EEOC

NAME (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

HOME TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

Ms. Angeline Wu STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

(626) 47 -9440 I DATE OF BIRTH

220~ Robruce Drive Hacienda Heights CA 91745

08/14/198~

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ir more than one list belo... )

NA~~ERCROMBIE & FITCH

I N~M::R ~ Et;~O~~E~~~;MBERS ITE~~~:N~(I~C~U;~~r;~;de)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

~~~~ Bear Street (Suite 22~) NAME

Costa Mesa

CA 92626

0~9

____JT_ ~LE~_HO_N_EN_U_M~~R (Include Area Code)

jS-T-R-EE-T--A-D-DR-E-S-S -----------------------C-I-T-Y-, -S-T-AT-E--AN-D- Z-I--P----CO-D-E- - ---- ---

---r-CalJNTY -----

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate _box(es))

[KJ RACE

0 COLOR

[KJ SEX

o o RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

o RETALIATION 0 AGE

o 0 DISABILITY

OTHER (specify)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ir additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

02/09/2003 02/09/2003
o CONTINUING ACTION

I. I was hired on or about 09-16-02, as a Sales Associate. On 02-09-03, I was laid off.

II.

According to Kyle Richter (General Manager, White), the action was taken because the business slowed down and there were too many employees.

III.

I believe I have been discriminated against because of my
race, Asian, and my sex, Female, in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)
local Agency, if any. I will adv ise the agenc ies if I change my 1-______________________________________________-;

address or telephone number and cooperate fUlly with them in the I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that

processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

/ ; £ 1 ' - -// I declare under pena.-HYll! f i ul ry r tha. / t.he_ foregoing is true
and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

V x< . /?

q!ILflo;/ /

Date

1,_

>~--~---"..
~~\
Charging Party (Signature)

EEOC FORM 5 (Rev. r7/99)

\

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Month, day and year)
CHARGING PARTY COPY

= = = =_ _= - = = = = = = = .'-AIT. OF (~LlFORNIA - STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICE' :.N;;,;C;;.;.y..... DEPARTMENT OF FAIR Eu•..··LOYMENT & HOUSING
(SEE ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

TTY # (800) 700-2320
o 1001 Tower Way. Suite 250 Bakersfield. CA 93309
H (805) 395-2729

Abercl:dnbie & Fitch P.O. Box 182168 ColurbJs, <II 43218

EEOC Number: Case Name:

GRAY DAVIS. Governor

•. ..-... '--:""';

('

. .

.

, .

.... .

""

.'

.~

345-2003-04040

Wu v. 1\l:>ercra1i>ie & Fitch

o 1320 E. Shaw Avenue. Suite 150 Fresno. CA 93710
C (559) 244-4760
0 611 West Sixth Street. Suite 1500 Los Angeles. CA 90017
B (213) 439-6799
0 1515 Clay Street. Suite 701 Oakland. CA 94612-2512
M (510) 622-2941
0 2000 '0" Street. Suite 120 Sacramento. CA 95814-5212
E (916) 445-5523

Date: 4/22/03
NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT
This is to advise you that the above-referenced complaint is being referred to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint will be filed in accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section 12962.
No respon~e to the DFEH is required by the respondent.
The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint. DFEH will not be conducting an investigation into this matter. EEOC should be contacted directly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of "processing waived to another agency. n

0 350 W. Ash Street. Suite 950 San Diego. CA 92101-3440
D (619) 645-2681
0 121 Spear Street. Suite 430 San Francisco. CA 94105
A (415) 904-2303
0 111 North Market Street. Suite 810 San Jose. CA 95113-1102
G (408) 277-1277
0 2101 E. Fourth Street, Suite 255-8 Santa Ana. CA 92705-3855
K (714) 558-4266

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT-TO-SUE
Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b)' you may bring a civil action under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in a State of California Superior, Municipal or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that such a civil action must be brought within one year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (d)(1)' this one year period will be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an attorney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. This right to file a civil action may be waived in the event a settlement agreement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should be referred to the EEOC.

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.
C Sin;:':i s;p~~-.

Barbara J. Osborne Deputy D:rector Enforcement Field Operations

DFEH-200-02 (03(03)

JS 44 • No. CALIF .(Rev.4197)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE TWO)

I.(a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY OCAMPO, ENCARNACION GUTIERREZ, JOHAN MONTOY A, JUANCARLOS GOMEZ-MONTEJANO, JENNNIFER LU, AUSTIN CHU, IVY NGUYEN, and ANGELINE WU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
Alameda

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLy)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CA!"P:: II"'" T ... ", I ()rATI()'-I ()'" T ...'" TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(e) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

Bill Lann Lee, Esq.

(415) 956-1000

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

See Attachment for additional counsel

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACEANlI"INONEBOXONLY)

01 U.S. Government Plaintiff
02 U.S. Government Defendant

o 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
o 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN 11" INONE BOX FOR

PLAINTIFF
(For diversity cases only)

AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

Citizen of This State Citizen of Another State

PTF DEF 01 01
02 02

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place

PTF DEF
04 04
0 5 05

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

03 03

of Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

0606

IV. ORIGIN
01 Original Proceeding

02 Removed from State Court

(PLACE AN '(] .. IN ONE BOX ONL Y)

o o 3 Remanded from

4 Reinstated or

Appellate Court

Reopened

05 Transfered from Another district (specify)

06 Multidistrict Litigation

07 Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACEAN'Ei "INONEBOXONLy)

CONTRACT

TORTS

0110 Insurance
o 120 Marine o 130 Miller Act o 140 Negotiable Instrument o 150 Reoovery ct Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
0151 Medicare Act
o 152 Reoovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Exd Veterans)
0153 Reoovery ctOverpayment
o of Veteran's Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits
o 190 Other Contract
0195 Contract Product liability

oPERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 0315 Airplane Product
Liability
o 320 Assault Libel &
Slander 0330 Federal Employers
o Liability 340 Marine 0345 Marine Product
Liability 0350 Motor Vehicle 0355 Motor Vehicle
o Product Liabiltiy 360 Other Personal Injury

oPERSONAL INJURY 362 Personal Injury
o Med Malpractice 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 0368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY D 370 Other Fraud D 371 Tnuth In Lending 0360 Other Personal
o Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product liability

REAL PROPERTY
0210 Land Condemnation
0220 Foreclosure
o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 240 Tarts to Land o 245 Tort Product Liability
0290 All Other Real Property

CIVIL RIGHTS
D441Voting 0442 Employment 0443 Housing 0444 Welfare D 440 Other Civil Rights

PRISONER PETITIONS
D 510 Motion to Vacate Sentence
o Habeas Corpus: 530 General 0535 Death Penalty
o 540 Mandamus & Other
D 550 Civil Rights
D 555 Prison Condition

FORFEITURE/PENALTY
o 610 Agriculture
0620 Other Food & Drug
o 625 Drug Related Seizure of o Property 21 USC 881
630 Liquor Laws
o 640RR & Truck o 650 Airline Regs o 660 Occupational
Safety/Health
n 6900th"" LABOR

BANKRUPTCY
o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
o 820 Copyrights o 830 Patent
0840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY

o 710 Fair Labor Standards Act
0720 labor/Mgmt Relations 0730 Labor/Mgmt Reportjng &
Disclosure Act 0740 Railway Labor Act 0790 Other Labor litigation 0791 Empl.Re!. Inc. Security
Act

0861 HIA (139511)
o 862 Black Lung (923) o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g» o 864 SSID Title XVI o 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
o 870 Taxes (US Plaintiff or
Defendant
o 871 IRS - Third Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
o 400 State Reapportionment o 410 Antitrust o 430 Banks and Banking o 450 Commerce/ICC Rates!etc. o 460 Deportation o 470 Racketeer Influenced and o Corrupt Organizations
810 Selective Service
o 850 Securities/Commodities! o Exchange
875 Customer Challenge
o 12 USC 3410 891 Agricultural Acts
o 892 Economic Stabilization o Act
893 Environmental Matters
o 894 Energy Allocation Act o 895 Freedom of Information o Act
900 Appeal of Fee
Determination Under Equal Access to Justice
D 950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
o 890 Other Statutory Actions

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE US CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE. DO NOT CITE
JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 - Employment Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

o CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: 0 YES 0 NO

VIII. RELATED CASE{S} IF ANY PLEASE REFER TO CIVIL L.R. 3-12 CONCERNING REQUIREMENT TO FILE "NOTICE OF RELATED CASE".

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (CIVIL L.R. 3-2) (PLACE A" "IN ONE BOX ONLy) I2l SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND D SAN JOSE

DME

F

265686.1

ATTACHMENT
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
Thomas A. Saenz Shaheena Ahmad Simons MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Julie Su Minah Park ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor" Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-7500 -
Kimberly West-Faulcon Jyoti Nanda NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 975-0211
Bill Lann Lee Kelly M. Dermody Eve H. Cervantez Jahan C. Sagafi LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000
265696.1

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/96)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
L (a) Plaintiffs - Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time offiling. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract ofland involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. Ifthere are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a). F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "[]" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (I) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included

h~.

.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "[]" in this box. Fe~eral question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.c. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.c. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship ofthe different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the 1S-44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Origin. Place an "I]" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (I) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C, Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multi district litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision.
V. Nature of Suit Place an liD II in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section IV above, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description ofthe cause.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "I]" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the .1S-44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

265686.1

 
 Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 1 of 35

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 2 of 35

1

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo,

2 Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu,

3 Ivy Nguyen, Angeline Wu, Eric Fight, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Robair

4 Sherrod, Brandy Hawk, and Andre Steele (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and

5 all others similarly situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and information

6 and belief as to other matters, as follows:

7

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

8

1. Defendants Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, and

9 A&F Ohio, Inc., and Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. (hereinafter collectively identified as

10 “Abercrombie,” “A&F,” or “the Company”) are a national retail clothing seller that discriminates

11 against minority individuals, including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans

12 (hereinafter, collectively, “minorities”) on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin, with

13 respect to hiring, firing, job assignment, compensation, promotion to in-store managerial

14 positions, and other terms and conditions of employment by enforcing a nationwide corporate

15 policy of preferring white employees for in-store sales and management positions, desirable job

16 assignments, and favorable work schedules in its stores throughout the United States.

17

2. Abercrombie recruits, hires, and maintains a disproportionately white sales

18 force (called Brand Representatives) who act as salespeople and recruiters of other potential store

19 employees, and a disproportionately white store manager workforce (comprising Managers-in-

20 Training, Assistant Managers, Store Managers, and General Managers), who manage the day-to-

21 day operations of the stores.

22

3. Abercrombie systematically refuses to hire qualified minority applicants as

23 Brand Representatives to work on the sales floor and store managers to manage the store, and

24 discourages applications from minority applicants for such positions. To the extent that it hires

25 minorities, it channels them to stock room and overnight shift positions and away from visible

26 sales positions, keeping them out of the public eye. In addition, Abercrombie systematically fires

27 qualified minority Brand Representatives and store managers in furtherance of its discriminatory

28 policies or practices.

358281.1

- 1-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 3 of 35

1

4. Abercrombie implements its discriminatory employment policies and

2 practices in part through a detailed and rigorous “Appearance Policy,” which requires that all

3 Brand Representatives must exhibit the “A&F Look.” The “A&F Look” is a virtually all-white

4 image that Abercrombie uses not only to market its clothing, but also to implement its

5 discriminatory employment policies or practices.

6

5. When people who do not fit the “A&F Look” inquire about employment,

7 managers sometimes tell them that the store is not hiring, or may provide them with applications

8 even though they have no intention of considering them for employment. If applicants who do

9 not fit the “A&F Look” submit applications, managers and/or Brand Representatives acting at

10 their direction sometimes throw them away without reviewing them.

11

6. Abercrombie publishes and distributes to its employees a “Look Book” that

12 explains the importance of the Appearance Policy and the “A&F Look,” and that closely regulates

13 the Brand Representatives’ and store managers’ appearance. The Company requires its managers

14 to hire and continue to employ only Brand Representatives and store managers who fit within the

15 narrow confines of the “Look Book,” resulting in a disproportionately white Brand

16 Representative workforce.

17

7. Abercrombie also uses visual media to reinforce to managers responsible

18 for recruitment, hiring, assignment, compensation, termination, and other terms and conditions of

19 employment of Brand Representatives and store managers the importance of adhering to the

20 virtually all-white A&F image in employment decisions. Each store prominently posts large

21 photographs of models – virtually all of whom are white. In addition, the Company publishes and

22 sells A&F Quarterly, a magazine/catalog featuring almost exclusively white models. Some stores

23 also display A&F TV, a television program played on a loop featuring Brand Representatives

24 who fit the “A&F Look.” Again, almost every Brand Representative shown is white.

25 Abercrombie corporate representatives and managers use these displays and publications to

26 portray and promote the “A&F Look” to employees, customers, applicants, and potential

27 applicants, to discourage and deter minority applicants, and to justify terminating minority

28 employees.

358281.1

-2-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 4 of 35

1

8. The Company rigorously maintains the “A&F Look” by careful scrutiny

2 and monitoring of its stores by regional and district managers and corporate representatives.

3 These managers and corporate representatives visit stores frequently to ensure, among other

4 things, that the store is properly implementing the Company’s discriminatory employment

5 policies and practices. These visits are referred to as “blitzes.” When managers or corporate

6 representatives discover that minority Brand Representatives or store managers have been hired,

7 they have directed that these employees be fired, moved to the stock room or overnight shift, or

8 have their hours “zeroed out,” which is the equivalent of termination.

9

9. The Company also scrutinizes and enforces compliance with the “A&F

10 Look” by requiring all stores to submit a picture of roughly 10 of their Brand Representatives

11 who fit the “Look” to headquarters each quarter. The corporate officials then select roughly 15

12 stores’ pictures as exemplary models that perpetuate the Company’s discriminatory employment

13 policies and practices. They then disseminate these pictures to the roughly 700 A&F stores. The

14 Brand Representatives in the pictures are almost invariably white. This practice and policy, like

15 the others described above, constitutes an official directive to give preference to white Brand

16 Representatives, store managers, and applicants, and to discriminate against minority Brand

17 Representatives, store managers, and applicants.

18

10. The A&F image is not limited to appearance; the Company accomplishes

19 its discriminatory employment policies or practices by defining its desired “classic” and “cool”

20 workforce as exclusively white. It seeks to hire Brand Representatives and store managers who

21 convey a certain image. This A&F image is decidedly non-minority. In order to perpetuate the

22 A&F image, Abercrombie identifies specific colleges from which each store should recruit its

23 employees, even though neither the Brand Representative position nor the store manager

24 positions require any of the skills or abilities acquired in college, much less in any specific

25 college. Abercrombie also encourages the recruitment and hiring of members of specified

26 overwhelmingly white fraternities and sororities, and of students who participate in certain

27 overwhelmingly white intercollegiate sports. However, the Company does not encourage

28 recruitment from fraternities, sororities, or sports teams with significant minority populations. To

358281.1

- 3-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 5 of 35

1 further reinforce to store managers the importance of hiring white students who fit the

2 Abercrombie image, the Company requires weekly reports on the number of Brand

3 Representatives who attend targeted colleges and who fit the emphasis on fraternity/sorority

4 membership and athletic team involvement.

5

11. This class action is accordingly brought by minority store employees and

6 applicants for Brand Representative and Manager-in-Training positions on behalf of themselves

7 individually and all minority applicants and employees against whom Abercrombie has

8 discriminated on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin. Abercrombie has maintained and

9 continues to maintain a pervasive policy or practice of discrimination based on race, color, and/or

10 national origin in denying employment, desirable job assignments, job transfers, allocation of

11 weekly hours, compensation, promotion to store management and other terms and conditions of

12 employment to minorities in Abercrombie stores throughout the United States.

13

12. This action seeks an end to these discriminatory policies or practices, an

14 award of backpay and front pay, as well as compensatory damages, punitive damages, and

15 injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.

16

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

17

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

18 and 1343.

19

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Members

20 of the Plaintiff class reside in California and throughout the United States. Defendant

21 Abercrombie is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in California. It has retail stores

22 throughout California and this District. Many of the acts complained of occurred in this State and

23 this District and gave rise to the claims alleged.

24

15. Intradistrict assignment is proper in the San Francisco/Oakland Division

25 because (1) some of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiff Anthony

26 Ocampo occurred in San Mateo County, (2) some of the events and omissions that give rise to the

27 claims of Plaintiff David Culpepper occurred in San Francisco County, and (3) some of the events

28

358281.1

-4-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 6 of 35

1 and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiff Patrice Douglass occurred in Alameda

2 County.

3

PARTIES

4

16. Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez is a minority resident of Palo Alto, California,

5 where he is a student at Stanford University. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative

6 at the Abercrombie store in the Valley Fair Mall in Santa Clara, California in August 2002, on

7 account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

8

17. Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo is a minority resident of Palo Alto, California,

9 where he is a student at Stanford University. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative

10 at the Abercrombie store in the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo, California, in or around

11 January 2000 on account of his race, color, and/or national origin. He was also denied a position

12 as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie Store in the Glendale Galleria in Glendale,

13 California in June 2000 on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

14

18. Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez is a minority resident of South San

15 Francisco, California. He was denied a position as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

16 store in the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California in June or July 2001, on account

17 of his race, color, and/or national origin.

18

19. Plaintiff Johan Montoya is a minority resident of Goleta, California, where

19 he is a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He was denied a position as a

20 Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California in

21 August or September 2002 on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

22

20. Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano is a minority resident of Los

23 Angeles, California. He was employed as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store at the

24 Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, from November 1998 to April 1999, when

25 he was terminated on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

26

21. Plaintiff Jennifer Lu is a minority resident of Irvine, California, where she

27 is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

28 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

358281.1

- 5-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 7 of 35

1 from September 2000 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color,

2 and/or national origin.

3

22. Plaintiff Austin Chu is a minority resident of Irvine, California, where he is

4 a student at the University of California at Irvine. He was employed as a Brand Representative in

5 the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from June 2001 to

6 March 2003, when he was constructively discharged on account of his race, color, and/or national

7 origin.

8

23. Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen is a minority resident of Anaheim, California, where

9 she is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

10 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

11 from June 2002 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color,

12 national origin, and/or gender.

13

24. Plaintiff Angeline Wu is a minority resident of Irvine, California where she

14 is a student at the University of California at Irvine. She was employed as a Brand

15 Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California,

16 from August 2002 to February 2003, when she was terminated on account of her race, color,

17 national origin, and/or gender.

18

25. Plaintiff Eric Fight is a minority resident of Venice, California. He was

19 employed as a Brand Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Third Street Promenade in

20 Santa Monica, California, from roughly May 2003 to June 2003, but was channeled to a stock

21 room role (a non-sales position) due to his race or color. He was constructively discharged in or

22 around June 2003 when he learned that he was not allowed to work on the sales floor due to his

23 race or color and that he had been misled by the manager with whom he had interviewed into

24 believing that there were no sales floor Brand Representative positions available.

25

26. Plaintiff Carla Grubb is a minority resident of Bakersfield, California,

26 where she is a student at California State University at Bakersfield. She began working as a

27 Brand Representative in the Abercrombie store in the Bakersfield Valley Plaza Mall in

28

358281.1

- 6-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 8 of 35

1 Bakersfield, California in November 2002. In or after January 2003, she was constructively

2 discharged on account of her race or color.

3

27. Plaintiff David Culpepper is a minority resident of Berkeley, California,

4 where he is a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley. He was denied

5 positions as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the SF Shopping Center in San

6 Francisco, California in June 2003, and at the SF Stonestown Galleria in San Francisco,

7 California in March 2003 on account of his race or color.

8

28. Plaintiff Patrice Douglass is a minority resident of El Sobrante, California,

9 where she is a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She was denied a position as a

10 Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Bay Street shopping area in Emeryville,

11 California in or about May 2003 on account of her race, color, and/or national origin.

12

29. Plaintiff Robair Sherrod is a minority resident of Carson, California, where

13 he is a student at California State University at Dominguez Hills. He was denied a position as a

14 Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store at the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach,

15 California in or about December 2002.

16

30. Plaintiff Brandy Hawk is a minority resident of Burlington, New Jersey,

17 where she is a student of the College of New Jersey. She was denied a position as a Brand

18 Representative at the Abercrombie store in Cherry Hill, New Jersey in or about May 2003.

19

31. Plaintiff Andre Steele is a minority resident of Waukegan, Illinois, and is a

20 graduate of DePaul University. He was hired by Abercrombie as a Brand Representative in 1998

21 and then became an Assistant Manager in 1999. He was denied a promotion to Store Manager at

22 the Gurnee Mills Mall store on or about September 1, 2002.

23

32. Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is an Ohio corporation and a

24 wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie. Based on the representations of defendants, from July

25 1996 to August 2000, during which time it was a Delaware corporation, Abercrombie & Fitch

26 Stores, Inc. operated all California Abercrombie stores; from August 2000, when it became an

27 Ohio corporation, to May 2002, it operated all Abercrombie stores; and since May 2002, it has

28 operated all Abercrombie stores outside of California and Ohio.

358281.1

-7-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 9 of 35

1

33. Defendant A&F California, LLC is an Ohio limited liability company and a

2 wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie. Based on the representations of defendants, since May

3 2002, it has operated all Abercrombie stores in California.

4

34. Defendant A&F Ohio, Inc. is an Ohio corporation and a wholly owned

5 subsidiary of Abercrombie. Based on the representations of defendants, since May 2002, it has

6 operated all Abercrombie stores in Ohio.

7

35. Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., is an Ohio corporation.

8 Based on the representations of defendants, it operates the Abercrombie corporate offices in Ohio.

9

36. Defendants are a national retail clothing seller primarily marketing to

10 teenagers and young adults. According to the Company, it took in $1.7 billion in revenue during

11 fiscal year 2003, a 7% increase over the previous year. As of January 31, 2004, the Company

12 operated 700 stores.

13

37. Abercrombie operates stores (and/or departments within Abercrombie &

14 Fitch stores) under three different names: “Abercrombie & Fitch” (the “Adult” store),

15 “Hollister,” and “A&F Kids.” Although each type of store offers different product lines, they all

16 follow the same human resources policies and practices, participate in the same discrimination,

17 and are run by the same management. Applicants to and employees of each type of store are

18 included in the proposed Class.

19

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20

38. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2),

21 and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of: (a) applicants for Brand Representative and Manager-in-

22 Training positions with Abercrombie who have been, continue to be, or in the future may be

23 discouraged from applying or denied employment since February 24, 1999, and (b) all past,

24 present, and future minority Abercrombie in-store hourly employees, Managers-in-Training,

25 Assistant Managers and Store Managers who have been, continue to be, or in the future denied

26 desirable job assignments, job transfers, desirable hours, compensation, promotions to store

27 management positions, and/or other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their

28

358281.1

- 8-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 10 of 35

1 race, color, and/or national origin, and/or who have been terminated on account of the policies or

2 practices complained of herein since February 24, 1999.

3

39. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.

4

40. The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of

5 all members is impracticable. The number of class members is currently indeterminate, but is

6 certainly larger than can be addressed through joinder. As of March 26, 2004, Abercrombie had

7 approximately 30,200 employees. In addition, temporary employees are hired during peak

8 periods, such as the holiday season. Each of Abercrombie’s roughly 700 stores employs very few

9 minority Brand Representatives and store managers, but each store, on average, annually receives

10 numerous applications from qualified minorities who are potential Brand Representatives and/or

11 store managers. Furthermore, as a result of Abercrombie’s systematic discriminatory hiring

12 practices, an unknown number of minority applicants have also been deterred from applying.

13 Thus, although the precise number of qualified minority applicants who are not hired and/or who

14 are fired or otherwise discriminated against is currently unknown, it is far greater than can be

15 feasibly addressed through joinder.

16

41. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and these

17 questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common

18 questions include, among others: (1) whether Abercrombie’s policies or practices discriminate

19 against minority employees and applicants; (2) whether Abercrombie’s use of the “A&F Look”

20 and image as an employment policy or practice discriminates against minority applicants and

21 employees; (3) whether Abercrombie’s policies and practices violate Title VII; (4) whether

22 Abercrombie’s policies or practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (4) whether compensatory and

23 punitive damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies for the class are warranted.

24

42. The representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class.

25

43. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and

26 protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and

27 experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection

28 thereof.

358281.1

-9-

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 11 of 35

1

44. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

2 because Abercrombie has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

3 making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a

4 whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Abercrombie’s common,

5 uniform, and unfair racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices.

6

45. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

7 because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only

8 individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods

9 for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged

10 and are entitled to recovery as a result of Abercrombie’s common, uniform, and unfair racially

11 discriminatory personnel policies and practices. Abercrombie has computerized payroll and

12 personnel data that will make calculation of damages for specific class members relatively

13 simple. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are issues common to the class.

14

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

15 Eduardo Gonzalez

16

46. Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez, a Latino male, is a student at Stanford

17 University. He applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the

18 Valley Fair Mall in Santa Clara, California on August 7, 2002. An Abercrombie manager

19 suggested that he apply to work in the stock room or on the overnight crew in a non-sales

20 position. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzalez returned to the store for a group interview for the Brand

21 Representative position on August 27, 2002. Mr. Gonzalez was not hired as a Brand

22 Representative. Mr. Gonzalez was qualified for the job. Indeed, immediately following his

23 Abercrombie interview, he crossed the hall within the same mall to apply for a job at Banana

24 Republic, a similar retail clothing store that competes directly with Abercrombie for customers

25 and employees. An employee of Banana Republic asked Mr. Gonzalez if he was interested in

26 applying to work as a manager. He applied to work as a sales associate, and worked for Banana

27 Republic in such a capacity through the academic year. Despite knowing of his qualifications,

28 Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Gonzalez based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

358281.1

- 10 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 12 of 35

1

47. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez on the basis of his

2 race, color and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

3

48. On or about April 25, 2003, Mr. Gonzalez filed a charge of discrimination

4 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Mr. Gonzalez received a copy

5 of his Notice of Right to Sue from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

6 (“DFEH”), dated April 29, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated by

7 reference are copies of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC

8 issued Mr. Gonzalez a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit P and

9 incorporated by reference is a copy of that notice.

10 Anthony Ocampo

11

49. Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo, a Filipino American male, is a student at

12 Stanford University. From December 1999 to January 2000, he worked part time as a Brand

13 Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Glendale Galleria in Glendale, California near his

14 family’s home.

15

50. It is common practice at Abercrombie for college students to work at the

16 Abercrombie near their family home during vacations, and then to transfer to a store near their

17 college during the school year (or vice versa). Therefore, when Mr. Ocampo returned to

18 Stanford, he attempted to apply for a position as Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store

19 in the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo, California. Mr. Ocampo was told that he would

20 be contacted regarding a stock person position, but not for the position of Brand Representative.

21 Mr. Ocampo never was contacted for any position with Abercrombie, and when he contacted the

22 manager there, he was told that he would have to reapply.

23

51. Later that year, when he returned home for summer vacation in June of

24 2000, Mr. Ocampo applied to work once again at the Glendale Galleria Abercrombie. He was

25 told that there were “too many Filipinos” working at that location. He was not even given the

26 opportunity to submit a written application. Mr. Ocampo was qualified for the job of Brand

27 Representative, in part based on his prior experience doing that exact job at the Abercrombie

28

358281.1

- 11 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 13 of 35

1 store in the Glendale Galleria. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Ocampo, despite knowing of his

2 qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

3

52. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Ocampo on the basis of his

4 race, color and/or national origin (a) by denying him employment because he is not white; and

5 (b) by refusing to transfer him from one store to another on the same terms as white Brand

6 Representatives.

7 Encarnacion Gutierrez

8

53. Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez, a Latino male, graduated from the

9 University of California at Los Angeles in 2002 with a B.S. in Civil Engineering and from the

10 University of California at Berkeley in 2003 with an M.S. in Structural Engineering. He applied

11 to work as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the Third Street Promenade in

12 Santa Monica, California in June or July 2001, and later returned for a group interview.

13 Mr. Gutierrez was qualified for the job. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Gutierrez, despite

14 knowing of his qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

15

54. During his initial visit to the store, Mr. Gutierrez observed that the staff

16 was virtually exclusively white. The manager who conducted the group interview was white. He

17 asked no questions regarding prior work experience or relevant skills. During the interview, the

18 manager asked a Filipino-American applicant whether he spoke English even though the

19 applicant had already answered several questions and demonstrated his fluency in English.

20 Mr. Gutierrez saw the manager write “phil” next to the applicant’s name.

21

55. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gutierrez on the basis of his

22 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

23

56. On or about May 21, 2002, Mr. Gutierrez filed a charge of discrimination

24 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference, is a

25 copy of that charge. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Mr. Gutierrez a notice of

26 right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Q and incorporated by reference is a copy of

27 that notice.

28

358281.1

- 12 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 14 of 35

1 Johan Montoya

2

57. Plaintiff Johan Montoya, a Latino male, is a student at the University of

3 California at Santa Barbara. He applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the

4 Abercrombie store in the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California in August or September 2002,

5 participated in a group interview for the job and submitted a paper application. He was qualified

6 for the job, in part based on his prior work experience as a sales associate at another retail

7 establishment in the same mall. Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Montoya despite knowing of his

8 qualifications, based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

9

58. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Montoya on the basis of his

10 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

11

59. On or about April 22, 2003, Mr. Montoya filed a charge of discrimination

12 with the EEOC. Mr. Montoya received a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH,

13 dated April 29, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference, are

14 copies of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Mr.

15 Montoya a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit R and incorporated by

16 reference is a copy of that notice.

17 Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano

18

60. Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano, a Latino male, worked as a Brand

19 Representative at the Abercrombie store at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica,

20 California from November 22, 1998 until August 1999, while he was a student at the University

21 of California at Los Angeles. During that time, he regularly worked roughly 10-15 hours per

22 week. After noticing that his work hours had been reduced, Mr. Gomez-Montejano requested his

23 personnel file. In August 1999 he learned that Company records showed that, unbeknownst to

24 him, he had been fired from his position. He had never been previously informed of this

25 termination, nor was he advised of any reasons for the termination.

26

61. In or around February or March 1999, Abercrombie representatives from

27 Ohio corporate headquarters visited the store on a “blitz,” and observed that there were

28 photographs of each of the Brand Representatives posted in an employee area in the back. A

358281.1

- 13 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 15 of 35

1 corporate official pointed to the pictures of four or five minority Brand Representatives, including

2 Mr. Gomez-Montejano, and directed store management to “zero them out.” This expression is

3 used within the Company to signify that the manager assigning work shifts should begin

4 assigning that person zero hours each week. In the following weeks, Mr. Gomez-Montejano

5 continued to inform his manager that he was available to work many hours a week, just as he had

6 throughout his tenure at Abercrombie; however, each week he received a schedule giving him

7 zero hours. Eventually, he realized that this “zeroed out” schedule might be permanent.

8 Therefore, he requested his personnel file in July 1999, and, after his second request, received a

9 copy of a company document stating that he had been terminated.

10

62. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Gomez-Montejano on the basis

11 of his race, color, and/or national origin by (a) terminating his employment because he is not

12 white; and (b) refusing to give him desirable hours/assignments on the same terms as white Brand

13 Representatives.

14

63. On or about December 21, 1999, Mr. Gomez-Montejano filed a charge of

15 discrimination with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D, and incorporated by

16 reference, is a copy of that charge. After investigating, the EEOC issued a Letter of

17 Determination, finding that Abercrombie had discriminated against Mr. Gomez-Montejano and

18 against “Latinos and Blacks, as a class.” Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit E, and

19 incorporated by reference, is a copy of that letter. On or about December 21, 1999, the DFEH

20 issued to Mr. Gomez-Montejano a Notice of Right to Sue. Attached to this Complaint as

21 Exhibit F, and incorporated by reference, is a copy of that notice. On or about December 30,

22 2003, the EEOC issued Mr. Gomez-Montejano a notice of right to sue. Attached to this

23 Complaint as Exhibit S and incorporated by reference is a copy of that notice.

24 Jennifer Lu

25

64. Plaintiff Jennifer Lu is an Asian American female and a student at the

26 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

27 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from September 2000 to February 2003.

28

358281.1

- 14 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 16 of 35

1 She was entrusted with responsibilities that only the most trustworthy and more senior staff were

2 given.

3

65. In or around January 2003, representatives from corporate and/or regional

4 headquarters visited the Crystal Court Mall store on an inspection tour, or “blitz.” These

5 headquarters/regional representatives reiterated to the Store Manager and other managers the

6 importance of having a predominantly white Brand Representative workforce, with fewer

7 minorities. Specifically, corporate employees communicated this directive by pointing to a

8 picture of a white model hanging in the store, and making a statement to the effect of “This is the

9 ‘A&F Look’ – you need to make your store look more like this.” Soon after this “blitz,” on or

10 about February 8, 2003, roughly five Asian American Brand Representatives, including Plaintiffs

11 Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, and Angeline Wu were terminated and/or constructively

12 discharged, and one African American Brand Representative was transferred to a behind-the-

13 scenes stockroom position at another Abercrombie store. This action was not premised on any

14 legitimate business consideration, such as a lessened need for Brand Representatives or poor

15 work performance. The store hired several white Brand Representatives within two weeks of

16 firing Ms. Lu.

17

66. On February 8, 2003, Ms. Lu learned that she had been fired. She

18 informed the Store Manager that she was willing to be flexible with shift assignments, and that if

19 the staffing needs picked up in the summer months or other peak shopping seasons, she would

20 like to be considered. Mr. Richter told her that she was not needed at that time nor would she be

21 needed in the future.

22

67. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Lu on the basis of her race,

23 color, and/or national origin by (a) terminating her employment because she is not white; and

24 (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

25

68. On or about April 22, 2003, Ms. Lu filed a charge of discrimination with

26 the EEOC. Ms. Lu received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated April 29,

27 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference, are copies of that

28 charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Ms. Lu a notice of

358281.1

- 15 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 17 of 35

1 right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit T and incorporated by reference is a copy of

2 that notice.

3 Austin Chu

4

69.

Plaintiff Austin Chu is an Asian American male and a student at the

5 University of California at Irvine. He worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store

6 in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from June 2001 to March 2003, when he was

7 constructively discharged.

8

70. Immediately after the January corporate “blitz” visit described herein in the

9 preceding paragraphs, Mr. Chu’s hours were reduced from the usual 10-15 hours per week he had

10 worked during his year and a half tenure to roughly zero hours per week. This “zeroing out”

11 began on or about February 8, 2003 and lasted until approximately March 26, 2003, during which

12 six-week period Mr. Chu was assigned only one four-hour shift (in contrast to his usual 60-90

13 hours for such a six-week period), despite notifying his managers each week of his availability

14 and interest in working the usual 10-15 hours per week. Mr. Chu attempted to gain more hours

15 by offering to fill in for those who were unavailable, and he was denied the opportunity to work

16 more hours. Because he was not assigned any hours to work, Mr. Chu tendered his resignation on

17 March 26, 2003. Mr. Chu was known as one of the most effective Brand Representatives in the

18 store due to his gregarious nature.

19

71. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Chu on the basis of his race,

20 color, and/or national origin by (a) constructively terminating his employment because he is not

21 white; and (b) assigning him fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

22

72. On or about April 22, 2003, Mr. Chu filed a charge of discrimination with

23 the EEOC. Mr. Chu received a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated

24 April 29, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference, are

25 copies of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Mr. Chu

26 a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit U and incorporated by reference is

27 a copy of that notice.

28

358281.1

- 16 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 18 of 35

1 Ivy Nguyen

2

73. Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen is an Asian American female and a student at the

3 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative in the Abercrombie

4 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from approximately June 2002 until she

5 was fired sometime during February 2003, shortly after the corporate “blitz” described herein in

6 the preceding paragraphs.

7

74. Abercrombie maintained a target ratio for the number of male Brand

8 Representatives relative to female Brand Representatives of 60:40. This policy was in writing on

9 a board in the back of the store, designating the recruiting goal. In order to meet the target ratio,

10 Brand Representatives were encouraged to recruit more men than women to work as Brand

11 Representatives.

12

75. Immediately after the corporate “blitz” described in paragraph 62,

13 corporate representatives reiterated the 60:40 policy to management at the Crystal Court Mall

14 store by indicating that there were too many women working in the store.

15

76. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Nguyen on the basis of her

16 race, color, national origin, and/or gender by (a) terminating her employment because she is not

17 white or male; and (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white or male Brand

18 Representatives.

19

77. On or about June 16, 2003, Ms. Nguyen filed a charge of discrimination

20 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference, is a copy

21 of that charge. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Ms. Nguyen a notice of right to

22 sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit V and incorporated by reference is a copy of that

23 notice.

24 Angeline Wu

25

78. Plaintiff Angeline Wu is an Asian American female and a student at the

26 University of California at Irvine. She worked as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

27 store in the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California from August 2002 to February 2003.

28

358281.1

- 17 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 19 of 35

1

79. Ms. Wu worked approximately 5-10 hours a week, at least 2-3 shifts per

2 week. Shortly after the corporate “blitz” described herein in the preceding paragraphs, Ms. Wu's

3 hours were reduced and eventually “zeroed out.” Ms. Wu was then terminated in February 2003.

4

80. Abercrombie maintained a target ratio for the number of male Brand

5 Representatives relative to female Brand Representatives of 60:40. This policy was in writing on

6 a board in the back of the store, designating the recruiting goal. In order to meet the target ratio,

7 Brand Representatives were encouraged to recruit more men than women to work as Brand

8 Representatives.

9

81. Immediately after the corporate “blitz” described in paragraph 62,

10 corporate representatives reiterated the 60:40 policy to management at the Crystal Court Mall

11 store by indicating that there were too many women working in the store.

12

82. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Wu on the basis of her race,

13 color, national origin, and/or gender by (a) terminating her employment because she is not white

14 or male; and (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white or male Brand

15 Representatives.

16

83. On or about April 17, 2003, Ms. Wu filed a charge of discrimination with

17 the EEOC. Ms. Wu received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH, dated

18 April 22, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference, are copies

19 of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Ms. Wu a

20 notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit W and incorporated by reference is a

21 copy of that notice.

22 Eric Fight

23

84. Plaintiff Eric Fight is an African American male residing in Venice,

24 California. He worked as a Brand Representative in the stock room only (a non-sales position) at

25 the Abercrombie store in the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, from roughly

26 May 2003 to June 2003. He was constructively discharged in or around June 2003 when he

27 learned that he was not allowed to work on the sales floor due to his race or color and that he had

28

358281.1

- 18 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 20 of 35

1 been misled by the manager with whom he had interviewed into believing that there were no sales

2 floor Brand Representative positions available.

3

85. In May 2003, Mr. Fight applied for a position as a Brand Representative at

4 the Abercrombie store in the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California and participated

5 in a group interview for the job. Mr. Fight informed the manager conducting the interview that he

6 would rather work as a floor Brand Representative because he had substantial experience in sales

7 and did not have any experience working in a stockroom. The manager told Mr. Fight that he

8 would call him with a hiring decision within a week. Mr. Fight was qualified for the floor Brand

9 Representative job because of his prior work experience as a sales representative for comparable

10 retail clothing stores, including the Gap, Urban Outfitters, and Miller’s Outpost. Abercrombie

11 refused to hire Mr. Fight as a Brand Representative despite knowing of his qualifications for the

12 position, based on his race or color.

13

86. A week later, not having heard from the store, Mr. Fight called the store to

14 inquire about the status of his application. The same manager told Mr. Fight that the store was

15 not hiring floor Brand Representatives. Roughly ten days later, the store’s stock manager called

16 Mr. Fight and offered him a position in the stock room (a non-sales position). Mr. Fight accepted

17 the position and began working at the store in June 2003, expecting that the store would soon be

18 hiring floor Brand Representatives again and that he could reapply for such a position then. Upon

19 beginning work at the Third Street Promenade store, Mr. Fight observed that the floor Brand

20 Representative staff was virtually exclusively white.

21

87. In June 2003, on Mr. Fight’s second day of work at Abercrombie, he met a

22 white floor Brand Representative who had just begun working at the store. Mr. Fight learned that

23 this new Brand Representative had recently been hired, and thus that the manager with whom he

24 had interviewed had deceived him about the availability of floor Brand Representative positions.

25 Mr. Fight concluded that the manager and the store would not consider him for floor Brand

26 Representative positions at that time or in the future due to his race or color. Mr. Fight thus

27 realized that he had been constructively discharged.

28

358281.1

- 19 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 21 of 35

1

88. Approximately a week after his discharge, Mr. Fight was hired as a sales

2 associate for the Levi’s Store at the Third Street Promenade, a similar retail clothing store that

3 competes with Abercrombie for customers and employees.

4

89. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Fight on the basis of his race,

5 color, and/or national origin by denying him employment as a Brand Representative and

6 channeling him to a stock room position because he is not white.

7

90. On or about August 18, 2003, Mr. Fight filed a charge of discrimination

8 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit K, and incorporated by reference, is a

9 copy of that charge. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Mr. Fight a notice of

10 right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit X and incorporated by reference is a copy of

11 that notice.

12 Carla Grubb

13

91.

Plaintiff Carla Grubb is an African American female and a student at

14 California State University at Bakersfield. She worked as a Brand Representative at the

15 Abercrombie store in the Bakersfield Valley Plaza Mall in Bakersfield, California from

16 November 2002 to January 2003, when she was constructively discharged.

17

92. From November 2002 to December 2002, Ms. Grubb worked as Brand

18 Representative. Each week she requested daytime shifts. However, she was usually assigned to

19 work night shifts, often starting approximately one hour before closing and continuing into the

20 late night. When Ms. Grubb began working for Abercrombie, she observed that she was the only

21 African American employee at the store; besides one Latino male Brand Representative, all the

22 other employees were white. She also noticed that white Brand Representatives were receiving

23 daytime hours and floor time. Although she was officially a floor Brand Representative,

24 Ms. Grubb spent the vast majority of her work time dusting and cleaning windows.

25

93. In approximately late December 2002, Ms. Grubb notified a manager that

26 she would not be available for shifts for the next few weeks, a practice that she had observed to

27 be unremarkable among Brand Representatives in the store. The manager granted her request and

28 stated that it would be “no problem.” Upon returning to work roughly two weeks later, in January

358281.1

- 20 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 22 of 35

1 2003, Ms. Grubb's hours had been reduced from the normal 15-20 hours per week to almost

2 nothing. She was assigned one 4-hour shift during the month of January. From the seven-month

3 period from the end of January to the present (August 2003), Ms. Grubb has been assigned no

4 shifts, despite notifying her managers each week of her interest in working up to 30 hours a week,

5 and indicating availability from roughly 8 am to 10 pm each day as well as requesting

6 opportunities to sign up for overnight shifts. Ms. Grubb has since learned that there was a

7 corporate “blitz” of the store in early January 2003, which the store managers knew about in

8 advance. The blitz involved a visit by Abercrombie corporate representatives, who took pictures

9 of the Brand Representatives to gauge the store’s compliance with the “A&F Look.”

10

94. In or around May 2003, Ms. Grubb asked her managers for an explanation

11 as to why she was not being assigned shifts. She was informed that she could not return to work

12 because the store was full of employees, although the store still considered her an Abercrombie

13 employee. At the time Ms. Grubb was aware of at least two white Brand Representatives at the

14 store who were assigned shifts of up to 40 hours a week, while Ms. Grubb, despite her continued

15 requests, was assigned no hours.

16

95. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Grubb on the basis of her race,

17 color, and/or national origin by (a) constructively terminating her employment because she is not

18 white and (b) assigning her fewer hours than similarly-situated white Brand Representatives.

19

96. On or about August 18, 2003, Ms. Grubb filed a charge of discrimination

20 with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit L, and incorporated by reference, is a

21 copy of that charge. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Ms. Grubb a notice of

22 right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Y and incorporated by reference is a copy of

23 that notice.

24 David Culpepper

25

97. Plaintiff David Culpepper is a minority resident of Berkeley, California and

26 a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley. He was denied positions as a

27 Brand Representative at the Abercrombie store in the SF Shopping Center in San Francisco,

28

358281.1

- 21 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 23 of 35

1 California in June 2003, and at the SF Stonestown Galleria in San Francisco, California in March

2 2003 on account of his race or color.

3

98. Mr. Culpepper applied to work as a Brand Representative at the SF

4 Shopping Center store in late May 2002, September 2002, and early June 2003 by handing a

5 written application to an Abercrombie sales associate or manager each time. On the first visit, the

6 Abercrombie employee stated that she would pass the application to the manager. On the second

7 and third visits, the managers there told him that the store was not hiring and that there were no

8 positions available. Mr. Culpepper also applied to work at the SF Stonestown Galleria store in

9 June 2002, late November or early December 2002, and March 2003 by handing a written

10 application to an Abercrombie sales associate or manager each time. On the first and third visits,

11 the Abercrombie employees there told him that the store was not hiring and that there were no

12 positions available. On the second visit, the Abercrombie employee stated that the store would

13 contact him if they were interested. During none of these six application attempts did any

14 Abercrombie employee inform him of the existence of a group interview or ask about his

15 qualifications. Because Mr. Culpepper visited both locations frequently, he noticed many new

16 white Brand Representatives working at both stores, several of whom informed him that they had

17 been hired in recent weeks (during times immediately before and after each of his application

18 attempts). Mr. Culpepper was not hired nor was he ever contacted by Abercrombie.

19

99. By the time of his first application to work at Abercrombie, in May 2002,

20 Mr. Culpepper had substantial experience as a sales associate for comparable stores including

21 Banana Republic, Aeropostale, and Instant (a boutique clothing store in New York City). He was

22 then a recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley.

23

100. In June 2002, within a few weeks of Mr. Culpepper’s first application to

24 the SF Shopping Center, four white male friends of his with no retail experience applied to that

25 store and were all hired on the spot and scheduled for their first shifts.

26

101. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Culpepper on the basis of his

27 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

28

358281.1

- 22 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 24 of 35

1

102. On or about August 18, 2003, Mr. Culpepper filed a charge of

2 discrimination with the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit M, and incorporated by

3 reference, is a copy of that charge. On or about December 30, 2003, the EEOC issued Mr.

4 Culpepper a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Z and incorporated by

5 reference is a copy of that notice.

6 Patrice Douglass

7

103. Plaintiff Patrice Douglass, an African American female, is a student at the

8 University of California, Santa Cruz. She applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the

9 Abercrombie store in the Bay Street shopping area in Emeryville, California in or about May

10 2003. She submitted a written application to a manager on duty and informed him of her

11 qualifications, including her prior retail experience. She was qualified for the job, in part based

12 on that retail experience. Abercrombie refused to hire Ms. Douglass despite knowing of her

13 qualifications, based on her race, color, and/or national origin.

14

104. The manager informed Ms. Douglass that May was “early” to apply for

15 summer employment. He also questioned Ms. Douglass why she had included two phone

16 numbers, when the “usual” applicant only listed one.

17

105. One week later, Ms. Douglass’s friend, who is white, requested an

18 application for summer employment as a Brand Representative at the same Abercrombie store.

19 An Abercrombie employee invited the friend to attend one of the group interviews that the store

20 held every Wednesday. The friend did so and was hired.

21

106. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Douglass on the basis of her

22 race, color, and/or national origin by denying her employment because she is not white.

23

107. On or about December 23, 2003, Ms. Douglass filed a charge of

24 discrimination with the EEOC. Ms. Douglass received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from

25 the DFEH, dated December 23, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit N, and incorporated

26 by reference, are copies of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the

27 EEOC issued Ms. Douglass a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit AA

28 and incorporated by reference is a copy of that notice.

358281.1

- 23 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 25 of 35

1 Robair Sherrod

2

108. Plaintiff Robair Sherrod, an African American male, is a student at

3 California State University at Dominguez Hills. He applied for a position as a Brand

4 Representative at the Abercrombie store in the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach, California

5 in or around December 2002. He submitted a written application and participated in two group

6 interviews. He was qualified for the job, in part based on his prior retail experience.

7 Abercrombie refused to hire Mr. Sherrod despite knowing of his qualifications, based on his race,

8 color, and/or national origin.

9

109. In or around January 2003, shortly after he had submitted his application,

10 Mr. Sherrod was invited to a group interview. The manager who conducted the interview

11 informed Mr. Sherrod that the Company would contact him within a week regarding his

12 application. Approximately one month later, a store employee called Mr. Sherrod to invite him to

13 a second group interview. Again, the manager who conducted the interview informed Mr.

14 Sherrod that he would be called within a week regarding his application. No store employee has

15 since contacted Mr. Sherrod regarding his application.

16

110. Abercrombie has discriminated against Mr. Sherrod on the basis of his

17 race, color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

18

111. On or about December 1, 2003, Mr. Sherrod filed a charge of

19 discrimination with the EEOC. Mr. Sherrod received a copy of her Notice of Right to Sue from

20 the DFEH, dated December 30, 2003. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit O, and incorporated

21 by reference, are copies of that charge and that notice. On or about December 30, 2003, the

22 EEOC issued Mr. Sherrod a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit BB and

23 incorporated by reference is a copy of that notice.

24 Brandy Hawk

25

112. Plaintiff Brandy Hawk, an African American female, is a student of the

26 College of New Jersey. She applied for a position as a Brand Representative at the Abercrombie

27 store in the Cherry Hill mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey in or about May 2003. She submitted a

28 written application to an employee at the store, indicating that she was a full time college student,

358281.1

- 24 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 26 of 35

1 varsity athlete, possessed comparable retail experience, and was willing to work flexible hours.

2 She was qualified for the job, in part based on those qualities and that retail experience.

3 Abercrombie refused to hire Ms. Hawk despite knowing of her qualifications, based on her race,

4 color, and/or national origin.

5

113. Within a few days of submitting this application, Brandy Hawk was

6 interviewed for the position by Keri Renfroe, an Assistant Manager at the store. During this

7 interview, Ms. Renfroe informed Ms. Hawk that she would recommend Ms. Hawk for the Brand

8 Representative position. However, Abercrombie never hired Ms. Hawk. Ms. Hawk subsequently

9 learned that Ms. Renfroe’s supervisor, Sherry Donchez, refused to hire Ms. Hawk to work on the

10 sales floor because Ms. Donchez believed that Ms. Hawk did not have the "image" Abercrombie

11 wanted to portray.

12

114. The store hired a white employee in Ms. Hawk’s place.

13

115. Abercrombie has discriminated against Ms. Hawk on the basis of her race,

14 color, and/or national origin by denying her employment because she is not white.

15

116. On or about July 17, 2003, Ms. Hawk filed a charge of discrimination with

16 the EEOC. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit CC and incorporated by reference is a copy of

17 that charge.

18 Andre Steele

19

117. Plaintiff Andre Steele is a minority resident of Waukegan, Illinois, and a

20 graduate of DePaul University. He was hired as a Brand Representative in December 1998 and

21 became an Assistant Store Manager in fall 1999. After filing a change of discrimination in

22 November 2001, Mr. Steele was involuntarily transferred from the Gurnee Mills Mall store to a

23 location with a longer commute. On September 1, 2002, Abercrombie promoted a white

24 Assistant Manager to Store Manager of the Gurnee Mills Mall store without considering

25 Mr. Steele, who was equally qualified. Mr. Steele left Abercrombie in 2003.

26

118. During his years at Abercrombie, Mr. Steele observed that Abercrombie

27 routinely discriminated against minority individuals with respect to hiring and promotion.

28

358281.1

- 25 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 27 of 35

1

119. On February 11, 2003, Mr. Stele filed a charge of discrimination with the

2 EEOC alleging class wide discrimination and individual retaliation on the basis of race against

3 Abercrombie. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit DD and incorporated by reference is a copy

4 of that charge. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE and incorporated by reference is a copy of the right

5 issue letter Mr. Steele received for the EEOC on November 4, 2004.

6

GENERAL POLICIES OR PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION

7

120. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by the

8 Representative Plaintiffs are part of a general policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of

9 race, color, and/or national origin in employment that has existed at Abercrombie since February

10 24, 2004. These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual decisions. On

11 the contrary, these incidents are representative of A&F’s systematic discrimination against

12 minorities and in favor of white applicants and employees, to create an overwhelmingly white

13 Brand Representative and store manager workforce.

14

121. On September 13, 2001, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination with

15 respect to the EEOC charge filed by Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez-Montejano, stating,

16

The preponderance of the evidence supports Charging Party’s claim

that he was denied a permanent position as a Brand Representative,

17

denied an assignment and terminated because of his national origin.

Moreover, evidence obtained during the course of the investigation

18

revealed that Latinos and Blacks, as a class, were denied

permanent positions, denied assignments and treated in an unfair

19

manner with regard to recruitment based on their race and national

origin, and that Respondent failed to maintain employment records

20

as required by Title VII. Therefore, I have concluded that the

evidence is sufficient to establish a violation of the above-cited

21

statute.

22 Attached hereto as Exhibit E (emphasis added).

23

122. The EEOC sent this letter to Mr. Gomez-Montejano and to Abercrombie.

24

123. The EEOC issued additional Letters of Determination on September 30,

25 2004 and November 1, 2004. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibits FF to OO and incorporated

26 by reference are copies of those letters.

27

124. The under-representation of minorities in Brand Representative and store

28 manager positions throughout Abercrombie’s approximately 700 stores in the United States

358281.1

- 26 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 28 of 35

1 results from an intentional policy and practice of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or

2 national origin in hiring, initial job assignment, weekly hours allocation, internal job transfer,

3 inter-store transfer, and termination.

4

125. Abercrombie has pursued policies or practices on a continuing basis that

5 have denied or restricted job opportunities to qualified minority applicants and employees.

6

126. Such discriminatory policies or practices include, without limitation:

7

a. reliance on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and unvalidated

8 criteria in making hiring decisions, focusing on whether applicants properly reflect the

9 predominantly white “A&F Look” and image rather than whether they would be responsible,

10 effective Brand Representatives and store managers who could perform their jobs well;

11

b. reliance on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and unvalidated

12 criteria in making decisions in job assignments, weekly hour allocations, and ability to transfer

13 between stores focusing on whether employees properly reflect the predominantly white “A&F

14 Look” and image rather than whether they would be responsible, effective Brand Representatives

15 and store managers who perform their jobs well;

16

c. shunting minority applicants and Brand Representatives to stock

17 room and overnight shift positions where they are out of the public eye;

18

d. targeting white candidates for recruitment, both systemically (e.g.,

19 recruiting visits to college campuses and/or targeting of specific sororities and fraternities) and

20 individually e(., inviting individual customers in the store to apply to become Brand

21 Representatives and Managers-in-Training), but avoiding, ignoring, discouraging or dissuading

22 equally qualified minorities from applying;

23

e. use of the “Look Book,” the A&F Quarterly, and wall posters as

24 guidelines for management to select Brand Representatives on the basis of their appearance – e.g.,

25 white – as opposed to their qualifications for the job;

26

f. use of corporate “blitzes” to monitor and enforce stores’

27 compliance with the “A&F Look” and to weed out minority Brand Representatives and store

28 managers;

358281.1

- 27 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 29 of 35

1

g. denying minority Managers-in-Training and other store managers

2 promotion to store management; and

3

h. termination of employees based on race, color, and/or national origin

4 without regard to their performance on the job.

5

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq.) 6

7

127. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 126 as alleged above.

8

128. This Claim is brought by all representative Plaintiffs, except Mr. Ocampo

9 and Ms. Hawk, on behalf of themselves and the Class they represent.

10

129. Abercrombie has maintained a system that is intentionally discriminatory,

11 subjective, standardless, and arbitrary with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment,

12 promotion, transfer, weekly hour allocation, and termination. The system has an adverse

13 disparate impact on minority applicants and employees. This system is not and cannot be

14 justified by business necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives

15 exist that could equally serve any alleged necessity.

16

130. Abercrombie’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have

17 denied minority applicants and employees employment, job assignments, promotions, job

18 transfers, and weekly hour allocations, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job

19 benefits.

20

131. As noted above, the EEOC has determined that “the evidence is sufficient

21 to establish” that Abercrombie has violated Title VII, because “Latinos and Blacks, as a class,

22 were denied permanent positions, denied assignments and treated in an unfair manner with regard

23 to recruitment based on their race and national origin.” Exhibit E.

24

132. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination as

25 unjustified disparate impact prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

26

133. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

27

28

358281.1

- 28 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 30 of 35

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C.§1981)

2

3

134. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 126 as alleged above.

4

135. This claim is brought by all representative Plaintiffs on behalf of

5 themselves and the Class they represent.

6

136. Abercrombie has maintained an intentionally discriminatory system with

7 respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignments, promotions, transfers, weekly hour allocations,

8 and termination.

9

137. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal intentional discrimination with

10 respect to the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts prohibited by

11 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

12

138. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

13

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940et seq.)

14

15

139. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 126 as alleged above.

16

140. This claim is brought by all representative Plaintiffs except Mr. Ocampo,

17 Ms. Hawk, and Mr. Steele on behalf of themselves and the subclass of California class members

18 they represent.

19

141. Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez-

20 Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Angeline Wu and Andre Steele have received copies of their 21 Right to Sue letters from the DFEH. The pendency of the EEOC investigations into Plaintiffs’

22 charges tolled the time limits for filing civil actions pursuant to the Fair Employment and

23 Housing Act. Plaintiffs have therefore timely complied with all prerequisites to suit.

24

142. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

25

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq.)

26

27

143. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 126 as alleged above.

28

358281.1

- 29 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 31 of 35

1

144. This Claim is brought by representative Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu on

2 behalf of themselves individually.

3

145. Abercrombie has maintained a system that is intentionally discriminatory,

4 subjective, standardless, and arbitrary with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, transfer,

5 weekly hour allocation, and termination. The system has had an adverse disparate impact on

6 Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu on the basis of their gender. This system is not and cannot be justified

7 by business necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that

8 could equally serve any alleged necessity.

9

146. Abercrombie’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have

10 denied Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu employment, job assignments, job transfers, and weekly hour

11 allocations, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits, due to their

12 gender.

13

147. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional gender discrimination

14 as unjustified disparate impact prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

15

148. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

16

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940et seq.) 17

18

149. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 126 as alleged above.

19

150. This Claim is brought by representative Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu on

20 behalf of themselves individually.

21

151. Abercrombie’s actions with respect to Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu constitute

22 gender discrimination in violation of FEHA. Plaintiffs Nguyen and Wu have received copies of

23 their Right to Sue letters from the DFEH. The pendency of the EEOC investigations into their

24 charges tolled the time limits for filing civil actions pursuant to the Fair Employment and

25 Housing Act. They have therefore timely complied with all prerequisites to suit.

26

152. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

27

28

358281.1

- 30 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 32 of 35

1

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

2

153. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, have no plain, adequate, or

3 complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in

4 this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs, and the class

5 they seek to represent, are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from

6 defendant’s discriminatory acts and omissions.

7

154. Abercrombie’s actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiffs and all

8 class members substantial losses in earnings, work experience, weekly hour allocations, and other

9 employment benefits.

10

155. In addition, representative plaintiffs and the class suffer and continue to

11 suffer humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an amount according to

12 proof.

13

156. Abercrombie performed the acts herein alleged with malice or reckless

14 indifference. Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an

15 amount according to proof.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the class pray for relief as follows:

18

157. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed class;

19

158. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs as representatives of the class;

20

159. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as class

21 counsel;

22

160. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are

23 unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

24

161. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Abercrombie and its

25 officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert

26 with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set

27 forth herein;

28

358281.1

- 31 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 33 of 35

1

162. An order that Abercrombie institute and carry out policies, practices, and

2 programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all minorities, and that it eradicate the

3 effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

4

163. An order restoring plaintiffs and class members to their rightful positions at

5 Abercrombie, or, in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay benefits;

6

164. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for individual plaintiffs and class

7 members;

8

165. All damages sustained as a result of Abercrombie’s conduct, including

9 damages for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;

10

166. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with

11 Abercrombie’s ability to pay and to deter future conduct;

12

167. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent

13 allowable by law;

14

168. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

15

169. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

16 necessary, just, and proper.

17

Dated: November 8, 2004 18

Respectfully submitted, 19

Thomas A. Saenz 20 Shaheena Ahmad Simons

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

21

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

634 South Spring Street 22 Los Angeles, CA 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 23 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

24

25

Bill Lann Lee Kelly M. Dermody
Eve H. Cervantez Jahan C. Sagafi LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

26

27

28

358281.1

- 32 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 34 of 35

1 Julie Su Minah Park
2 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
3 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
4 Telephone: (213) 977-7500 Facsimile: (213) 977-7595
5 Kimberly West-Faulcon
6 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
7 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017
8 Telephone: (213) 975-0211 Facsimile: (213) 202-5773
9

Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D’Urso Diana Liberto Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Bryan L. Clobes Melody Forrester Jeffrey D. Lerner MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-2800

10 Sidney L. Gold Traci M. Greenberg
11 SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 515
12 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-1999
13 Cleo Fields
14 RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION 930 East 50th Street
15 Chicago, IL 60615 Telephone: (773) 373-3366
16 James F. Keller
17 Zachary Gottesman GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES
18 2121 URS Center 36 East 7th Street
19 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 651-2121
20

By: /s/ Bill Lann Lee

21

Bill Lann Lee

22 A ttorneys for Plaintiffs
23

24

25

26

27

28

358281.1

- 33 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 35 of 35

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

3 Dated: November 8, 2004

4 Respectfully submitted,

5 Julie Su Minah Park
6 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
7 Kimberly West-Faulcon
8 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
9
10

Thomas A. Saenz Shaheena Ahmad Simons MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Bill Lann Lee Kelly M. Dermody Eve H. Cervantez Jahan C. Sagafi LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP

11 Sidney L. Gold Traci M. Greenberg
12 SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
13 Cleo Fields
14 RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION
15
16 James F. Keller
17 Zachary Gottesman GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES
18

Bryan L. Clobes Melody Forrester Jeffrey D. Lerner MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY
Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D’Urso Diana Liberto Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.

19

By: /s/ Bill Lann Lee Bill Lann Lee

20 A ttorneys for Plaintiffs
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

358281.1

- 34 -

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 1 of 33

Redacted red act

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 2 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 3 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 4 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 5 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 6 of 33

Redacted Redacte d

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 7 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 8 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 9 of 33 Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 10 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 11 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 12 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 13 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 14 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 15 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 16 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 17 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 18 of 33

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 19 of 33 Redacted Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 20 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 21 of 33

Redacted

Redacted

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 22 of 33

REDACTED

REDACTED

EXHIBIT N

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 23 of 33 EXHIBIT N

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 24 of 33

REDACTED

REDACTED

EXHIBIT O

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 25 of 33 EXHIBIT O

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 26 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT P

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 27 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT Q

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 28 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT R

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 29 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT S

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 30 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT T

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 31 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT U

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 32 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT V

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-2 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 33 of 33 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT W

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 1 of 30 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT X

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 2 of 30 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT Y

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 3 of 30 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT Z

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 4 of 30 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT AA

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 5 of 30 REDACTED
REDACTED
EXHIBIT BB

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 6 of 30 EXHIBIT CC

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 7 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 8 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 9 of 30 EXHIBIT DD

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 10 of 30 EXHIBIT EE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 11 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT FF

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 12 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 13 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT GG

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 14 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 15 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT HH

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 16 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 17 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT II

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 18 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 19 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT JJ

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 20 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 21 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT KK

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 22 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 23 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT LL

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 24 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 25 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT MM

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 26 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 27 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT NN

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 28 of 30

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 29 of 30 REDACTED REDACTED
EXHIBIT OO

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 92-3 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 30 of 30

 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

Douglas R. Young (State Bar No. 073248) Douglas E. Dexter (State Bar No. 115868) Sandra A. Kearney (State Bar No. 154578) Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 OF COUNSEL: Thomas B. Ridgley (Ohio Bar No. 0000910) Sandra J. Anderson (Ohio Bar No. 0002044) Mark A. Knueve (Ohio Bar No. 0067074) Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 Facsimile: (614) 464-6350 Attorneys for Defendants ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY OCAMPO, ENCARNACION GUTIERREZ, JOHAN MONTOYA, JUANCARLOS GÓMEZ-MONTEJANO, JENNIFER LU, AUSTIN CHU, IVY NGUYEN ANGELINE WU, ERIC FIGHT, CARLA GRUBB, DAVID CULPEPPER, PATRICE DOUGLASS, ROBAIR SHERROD, BRANDY HAWK, and ANDRE STEELE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, and A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.
Defendants.

Case No. C03-2817 SI ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., AND ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO. TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COME Defendants Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F

Ohio, Inc., and Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. (collectively “Defendants”), by and

through counsel, and for their Answer to the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint (“Fourth

Amended Complaint”) filed by Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez,

Johan Montoya, JuanCarlos Gómez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angeline

Wu, Eric Fight, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Brandy Hawk,

and Andre Steele (collectively “Plaintiffs”), hereby make the following admissions, denials,

averments, and affirmative defenses:

1. For their response to paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint,

Defendants assert that A&F California, LLC operates retail clothing stores in California.

Defendants state that A&F Ohio, Inc. operates retail clothing stores in Ohio. Defendants state

that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. operates retail clothing stores in some other states.

Defendants state that Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. does not operate any retail clothing

stores. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

2. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

4. For their response to paragraph 4 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, and A&F Ohio, Inc.,

maintain an Appearance/Look Policy, which has been revised from time to time. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Fourth Amended Complaint,

including the allegation that the Appearance/Look Policy has any unlawfully discriminatory

intent, effect, or is enforced in any unlawfully discriminatory manner.

5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 1 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

6. For their answer to paragraph 6 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that, until 1999 but not currently, some of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s subsidiaries

published and distributed a “Look Book” which, among other things, explained the

Appearance/Look Policy. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6

of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

7. For their answer to paragraph 7 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that some stores have sold A&F Quarterly, that some stores display A&F TV, and that

some stores have photographs of models wearing Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

8. For their answer to paragraph 8 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that regional and district managers occasionally make site visits to stores. Defendants deny

the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

9. For their answer to paragraph 9 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that some stores have sent pictures of brand representatives to headquarters. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

10. For their answer to paragraph 10 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, and A&F Ohio, Inc., recruit

at various colleges across the United States. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 10 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

11. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

13. For their answer to paragraph 13 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Plaintiffs purport to invoke jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. __1331 and 1343.

14. For their answer to paragraph 14 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Plaintiffs purport to invoke venue in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1391(b). Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate. Defendants Abercrombie &

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 2 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F Ohio, Inc., and Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. deny that they

operate any retail stores in California. Defendants Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F

Ohio, Inc. deny that they employ anyone in California. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

15. For their answer to paragraph 15 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Plaintiffs claim that intradistrict assignment is proper. Defendants deny the allegations

contained in paragraph 15 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

16. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the minority status, residency, or student enrollment information of Mr. Gonzalez and

therefore deny the same. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 16 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint and specifically deny that they discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez on

account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

17. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the minority status, residency or student enrollment information of Mr. Ocampo and

therefore deny the same. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 17 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint and specifically deny that they discriminated against Mr. Ocampo on

account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

18. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez applied for a position in the

Fourth Street Promenade Abercrombie & Fitch store in or around July 2001 and admit that Mr.

Gutierrez was not hired. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of his minority status or residency information and therefore deny the same.

Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 18 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and

specifically deny that they discriminated against Mr. Gutierrez on account of his race, color,

and/or national origin.

19. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Johan Montoya applied for a position at the

Topanga Mall Abercrombie & Fitch store in or around August 2002 and admit Mr. Montoya

was not hired. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of his minority status, residency and student enrollment information and therefore deny

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 3 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

the same. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 19 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint and specifically deny that they discriminated against Mr. Montoya on account of his

race, color, and/or national origin.

20. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Juancarlos Gómez-Montejano was employed at the

Fourth Street Promenade Abercrombie & Fitch store beginning in November 1998, but deny that

he was employed until April 1999. Defendants deny that Mr. Gómez-Montejano was employed

as a Brand Representative. Defendants further assert that Mr. Gómez-Montejano applied and

was hired for a temporary position as an Overnight at the Century City Abercrombie & Fitch

store, where he worked for a short time. Defendants deny that they discriminated against Mr.

Gómez-Montejano on account of his race, color, and/or national origin. Defendants are without

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 20 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and therefore deny same.

21. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Jennifer Lu was employed as a Brand

Representative in the Abercrombie & Fitch store at Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa,

California, but deny that she was employed from September 2000 through February 2003.

Defendants deny that Ms. Lu was terminated on account of her race, color, and/or national

origin. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and

therefore deny same.

22. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Austin Chu was employed as a Brand

Representative in the Abercrombie & Fitch store at Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa,

California. Defendants deny that Mr. Chu was employed from June 2001 through March 2003.

Defendants deny that Mr. Chu was constructively discharged on account of his race, color,

and/or national origin. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint and therefore deny same.

23. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen was employed as a Brand

Representative in the Abercrombie & Fitch store at Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa,

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 4 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

California. Defendants deny that Ms. Nguyen was terminated on account of her race, color,

national origin, and/or gender. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint and therefore deny same.

24. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Angeline Wu was employed as a Brand

Representative in the Abercrombie & Fitch store at Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa,

California. Defendants deny that Ms. Wu was terminated on account of her race, color, national

origin, and/or gender. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint and therefore deny same.

25. Defendants state that Plaintiff Eric Fight was employed from June 3, 2003 to June

13, 2003. Defendants deny that Mr. Fight was constructively discharged. Defendants also deny

that they discriminate based on race or color. Defendants are without sufficient information to

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of

the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.

26. Defendants state that Ms. Grubb was employed as a Brand Representative from

November 17, 2002 until December 31, 2002. Defendants are without sufficient information to

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the minority status, residency or student enrollment

information of Ms. Grubb, and therefore deny the same. Defendants deny all other allegations

in paragraph 26 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and deny specifically that she was

constructively discharged on account of her race or color.

27. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, student enrollment, or minority status of Mr. Culpepper, and therefore

deny the same. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 27 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint, and deny specifically that he was denied positions due to his race or color.

28. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, student enrollment, or minority status of Ms. Douglass. Defendants

deny all other allegations in paragraph 28 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and deny

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 5 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

specifically that she was denied a position due to her race, color, or national origin.

29. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, student enrollment, or minority status of Mr. Sherrod. Defendants deny

all other allegations in paragraph 29 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and deny specifically

that he was denied a position due to his race, color, or national origin.

30. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, student enrollment, or minority status of Ms. Hawk and therefore deny

same. Defendants admit that Ms. Hawk applied for employment at the Abercrombie store in

Cherry Hill, New Jersey and that she was not hired. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, minority status, or educational background of Mr. Steele and therefore

deny same. Defendants admit that Mr. Steele worked as a Brand Representative and an

Assistant Manager for Abercrombie & Fitch. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. For their answer to paragraph 32 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is an Ohio corporation. A separate corporate entity,

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which is now known as Abercrombie

& Fitch Management Co., operated all Abercrombie stores from July 1996 until August 9, 2000.

From August 9, 2000 until April 26, 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Ohio

corporation, operated all Abercrombie stores. Since May 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,

Inc., the Ohio corporation, has operated all Abercrombie stores outside of the states of California

and Ohio. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

33. For their answer to paragraph 33 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that A & F California, LLC is an Ohio limited liability company which has operated all

Abercrombie stores within the State of California since on or about May 3, 2002. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 6 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

34. For their answer to paragraph 34 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that A & F Ohio, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which has operated all Abercrombie stores in

Ohio since on or about April 26, 2002. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 34 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

35. For their answer to paragraph 35 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

state that Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. is a Delaware corporation that operates the

Abercrombie corporate offices in Ohio. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 35 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

36. For their answer to paragraph 36 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California LLC, and A&F Ohio, Inc., state that they

operate retail clothing stores in a number of states. In 2003, Defendants operated approximately

700 stores. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

37. For their answer to paragraph 37 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC and A&F Ohio, Inc. state that they

operate stores under the names: “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister,” and “Abercrombie.”

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

38. Defendants state that Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

39. Defendants state that Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants deny that all of the Plaintiffs are members of the

class they seek to represent. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

40. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 7 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

41. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

42. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

43. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

44. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

45. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

46. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez was not hired as a Brand

Representative. Defendants deny that Mr. Gonzalez was not hired based on his race, color,

and/or national origin. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint and therefore deny same.

47. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

48. Defendants admit that Mr. Gonzalez filed a charge of discrimination with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on or about April 25, 2003 and that a copy of the

charge was attached to the Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit A. Defendants deny the

allegations in the charge. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued

Mr. Gonzalez a notice of right to sue on or above December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that

notice was attached as Exhibit P to the Complaint served on Defendants.

49. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo worked as a part-time Brand

Representative in the Glendale Galleria store beginning in December 1999. Defendants deny

that Mr. Ocampo worked until January 2000, but aver that Mr. Ocampo worked until February

2000. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 8 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

therefore deny the same.

50. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

51. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

52. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

53. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez applied for a job at the

Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Fourth Street Promenade in or around July 2001. Defendants

deny that Mr. Gutierrez was refused hire based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and

therefore deny the same.

54. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

55. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

56. Defendants admit that Mr. Gutierrez filed a charge of discrimination with the

EEOC on or about May 21, 2002 and that a copy of said Charge was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit B. Defendants deny the allegations in the

Charge. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right

to sue on or about December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached as Exhibit Q

to the Complaint served on Defendants.

57. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Johan Montoya applied for a position at the

Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Topanga Mall in Canoga Park, California in or about August

2002 and that he was not hired. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of whether Mr. Montoya is a Latino male and is a student at the

University of California at Santa Barbara and therefore deny the same. Defendants deny the

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 9 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

58. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

59. Defendants admit that Mr. Montoya filed a charge of discrimination with the

EEOC on or about April 22, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit C, but deny the allegations in the Charge.

Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued Mr. Montoya a notice of

right to sue on or about December 30, 2003, and that a copy of the notice was attached as

Exhibit R to the Complaint served on Defendants.

60. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Juancarlos Gómez-Montejano worked at the

Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Fourth Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

allegation that Mr. Gómez-Montejano is or was a student at the University of California at Los

Angeles or of his minority status and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

61. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

62. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

63. Defendants admit that Mr. Gómez-Montejano filed a charge of discrimination with

the EEOC on or about December 21, 1999 and that a copy of that charge was attached to the

Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit D. Defendants admit that the

EEOC issued a Letter of Determination and that a copy of that Letter was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit E. Defendants deny the allegations in the

Charge and deny that the Letter of Determination was properly issued, and similarly deny that

the Letter of Determination reached the correct conclusion. Defendants admit that the DFEH

issued to Mr. Gómez-Montejano a Notice of Right to sue on or about December 21, 1999 and

that a copy of that notice was attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 10 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

as Exhibit F. Defendants admit that the EEOC issued to Mr. Gómez-Montejano a notice of right

to sue on or about December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit S.

64. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Jennifer Lu worked as a Brand Representative at

the Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California but deny that

Ms. Lu worked there from September 2000 through February 2003. Defendants are without

information sufficient to form a belief as to the minority status of Ms. Lu or whether she is a

student at the University of California at Irvine and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

65. Defendants admit that in or around January 2003, certain headquarters and

regional employees visited the Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Crystal Court Mall. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

66. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

67. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

68. Defendants admit that Ms. Lu filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about April 22, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit G, and deny the allegations in the Charge.

Defendants admit that the DFEH issued a Notice of Right to Sue dated April 29, 2003, a copy of

which was attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit G.

Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued Ms. Lu a notice of right to

sue on or about December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached as Exhibit T to

the Complaint served on Defendants.

69. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Austin Chu worked as a Brand Representative at

the Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Crystal Court Mall in Costa Mesa, California, but deny that

Mr. Chu worked from June 2001 through March 2003. Defendants deny that Mr. Chu was

constructively discharged. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 11 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 69 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint and therefore deny same.

70. Defendants admit that Mr. Chu tendered his resignation in or about March, 2003.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 70 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

71. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

72. Defendants admit that Mr. Chu filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about April 22, 2003, that a copy was attached to the Complaint served on Defendants as

Exhibit H, and deny the allegations in the Charge. Defendants admit that the DFEH issued a

Notice of Right to Sue dated April 29, 2003, a copy of which was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants at Exhibit H. Upon information and belief,

Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Mr. Chu on December 30,

2003, and that a copy of the notice was attached to the Complaint served on Defendants at

Exhibit U.

73. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen worked as a Brand Representative at

the Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Crystal Court store in Costa Mesa, California. Defendants

are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the minority status

of Ms. Nguyen or of the allegation that Ms. Nguyen is a student of the University of California

at Irvine and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 73 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

74. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

75. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

76. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

77. Defendants admit that Ms. Nguyen filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 12 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

on or about June 16, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit I, and deny the allegations in the Charge. Upon

information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Ms.

Nguyen on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the Complaint

served on Defendants at Exhibit V.

78. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Angeline Wu worked as a Brand Representative at

the Abercrombie & Fitch store at the Crystal Court store in Costa Mesa, California. Defendants

are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the Fourth Amended Complaint and therefore deny

same.

79. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

80. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

81. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

82. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

83. Defendants admit that Ms. Wu filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about April 17, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit J, and deny the allegations in the Charge.

Defendants admit that the DFEH issued a Notice of Right to Sue dated April 22, 2003, a copy of

which was attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants at Exhibit J. Upon

information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Ms.

Wu on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the Complaint served

on Defendants at Exhibit W.

84. Defendants state that Mr. Fight was employed from June 3, 2003 until June 13,

2003, at which point Mr. Fight resigned his employment. Defendants deny that Mr. Fight was

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 13 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

constructively discharged, and also deny that he was not allowed to work on the sales floor due

to his race or color. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the

residence or minority status of Mr. Fight, and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 84 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

85. Defendants deny that Mr. Fight was denied hire due to his race or color.

Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 85 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny same.

86. Defendants state that Mr. Fight was hired on or about June 3, 2003. Defendants

are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in paragraph 86 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny same.

87. Defendants deny that Mr. Fight was constructively discharged, and also deny that

he was not considered for a Brand Representative position due to his race or color. Defendants

are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 87 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.

88. Defendants specifically deny that Mr. Fight was discharged. Defendants are

without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 88 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny

same.

89. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 89 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

90. Defendants state that Mr. Fight filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about August 16, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit K, and deny the allegations in the Charge. Upon

information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Mr.

Fight on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the Complaint served

on Defendants at Exhibit X.

91. Defendants state that Ms. Grubb was employed as a Brand Representative from

November 17, 2002 until December 31, 2002. Defendants are without sufficient information to

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 14 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Ms. Grubb’s minority status or the allegation that she is

a student. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 91 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint, and specifically deny that Ms. Grubb was constructively discharged.

92. Defendants state that Ms. Grubb was employed as a Brand Representative from

November 17, 2002 until December 31, 2002. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 92 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

93. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

94. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

95. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 95 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

96. Defendants state that Ms. Grubb filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

on or about August 16, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit L, and deny the allegations in the Charge. Upon

information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Ms.

Grubb on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the Complaint

served on Defendants at Exhibit Y.

97. Defendants deny that Mr. Culpepper was denied positions as a Brand

Representative on account of his race or color. Defendants are without sufficient information to

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 97 of

the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny same.

98. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny same.

99. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny same.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 15 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

100. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 100 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny same.

101. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

102. Defendants state that Mr. Culpepper filed a charge of discrimination with the

EEOC on or about August 16, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit M, and deny the allegations in the Charge.

Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Mr. Culpepper was issued a notice of right

to sue by the EEOC on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of the notice was attached to the

Complaint served on Defendants at Exhibit Z.

103. Defendants deny that Ms. Douglass was denied a position as a Brand

Representative on account of her race, color, and/or national origin. Defendants are without

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 103 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.

104. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 104 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny the same.

105. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the information contained in paragraph 105 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny the same.

106. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 106 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

107. Defendants state that Ms. Douglass filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

on or about December 23, 2003, and that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth

Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit N, and deny the allegations in the charge.

Defendants admit that the DFEH issued a Notice of Right To Sue dated December 23, 2003, a

copy of which was attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 16 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

N. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued Ms. Douglass a notice

of right to sue on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the

Complaint served on Defendants at Exhibit AA.

108. Defendants deny that Mr. Sherrod was denied positions as a Brand Representative

on account of his race, color, and/or national origin. Defendants are without sufficient

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 108 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.

109. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 109 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, and

therefore deny the same.

110. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 110 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

111. Defendants state that Mr. Sherrod filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

on or about December 1, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit O, and deny the allegations in the charge.

Defendants admit that the DFEH issued a Notice of Right To Sue dated December 30, 2003, a

copy of which was attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit

O. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue

to Mr. Sherrod on December 30, 2003, and that a copy of the notice was attached to the

Complaint served on Defendants at Exhibit BB.

112. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, student enrollment, or minority status of Ms. Hawk and therefore deny

same. Defendants admit that Ms. Hawk applied for employment at the Abercrombie store in

Cherry Hill, New Jersey and that she was not hired. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 112 of the Complaint.

113. Defendants admit that Ms. Hawk was interviewed for a position at Abercrombie &

Fitch and that she was not hired. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 113 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 17 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

114. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 114 of the Complaint.

115. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 115 of the Complaint.

116. Defendants state that Ms. Hawk filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about July 17, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit CC, and deny the allegations in the charge.

117. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the residency, minority status, or educational background of Mr. Steele and therefore

deny same. Defendants admit that Mr. Steele worked as a Brand Representative and an

Assistant Manager for Abercrombie & Fitch. Defendants admit that Mr. Steele left his

employment with Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 117 of the Complaint.

118. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 118 of the Complaint.

119. Defendants state that Mr. Steele filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

or about February 11, 2003, that a copy of that charge was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit DD, and deny the allegations in the charge. Upon

information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a Notice of Right To Sue to Mr.

Steele on November 4, 2004, and that a copy of that notice was attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibit EE. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 119 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

120. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 120 of the Complaint.

121. Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination on September

13, 2001, attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint as Exhibit E. Defendants deny that the

Letter of Determination was properly issued, and similarly denies that the Letter of

Determination reached the correct conclusion.

122. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in

paragraph 122 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

123. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued Letters of

Determination on September 30, 2004, and that copies of the letters of determination were

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 18 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendants as Exhibits FF to OO.

Defendants deny the allegations and findings set forth in the letters of determination.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 123 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

124. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 124 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

125. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 125 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

126. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 126 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the sub-parts of paragraph

126 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

127. For their answer to paragraph 127 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

reincorporate and reallege each of the admissions, statements and denials contained in their

answer to paragraphs 1 through 126 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as if fully restated

herein.

128. Defendants state that Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 128 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

129. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 129 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

130. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 130 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

131. Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination on September

13, 2001, attached to the Fourth Amended Complaint as Exhibit E. Defendants deny that the

Letter of Determination was properly issued, and similarly denies that the Letter of

Determination reached the correct conclusion.

132. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 132 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 19 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

133. In response to paragraph 133 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is proper. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 133 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

134. For their answer to paragraph 134 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

reincorporate each of the admissions, statements and denials contained in their answer to

paragraphs 1 through 133 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein.

135. Defendants state that Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 135 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

136. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 136 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

137. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 137 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

138. For their answer to paragraph 138 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

deny that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 138 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

139. For their answer to paragraph 139 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

reincorporate and reallege each of the admissions, statements and denials contained in their

answer to paragraphs 1 through 138 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as if fully restated

herein.

140. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 140 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

141. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have timely complied with all prerequisites to suit.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 141 of the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

142. Defendants deny that the requested relief or any relief is proper.

143. For their answer to paragraph 143 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 20 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

reincorporate and reallege each of the admissions, statements and denials contained in their

answer to paragraphs 1 through 142 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as if fully restated

herein.

144. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 144 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

145. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 145 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

146. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 146 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

147. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 147 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

148. Defendants deny that the requested relief or any relief is proper.

149. For their answer to paragraph 149 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants

reincorporate and reallege each of the admissions, statements and denials contained in their

answer to paragraphs 1 through 148 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, as if fully restated

herein.

150. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 150 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

151. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 151 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

152. Defendants deny that the requested relief or any relief is proper.

153. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 153 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

154. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 154 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

155. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 155 of the Fourth

Amended Complaint.

156. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 156 of the Fourth

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 21 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

Amended Complaint.

157. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 157 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

158. Defendants deny that the named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and

deny that class certification is appropriate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained

in paragraph 158 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

159. Defendants deny that class certification is appropriate and deny that named

plaintiffs’ counsel should be designated class counsel. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 159 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

160. In response to paragraph 160 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 160 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

161. In response to paragraph 161 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 161 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

162. In response to paragraph 162 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 162 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

163. In response to paragraph 163 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 163 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

164. In response to paragraph 164 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 164 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

165. In response to paragraph 165 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 165 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

166. In response to paragraph 166 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 22 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 166 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
167. In response to paragraph 167 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 167 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
168. In response to paragraph 168 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 168 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
169. In response to paragraph 169 of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants deny that the requested relief, or any relief whatsoever, is appropriate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 169 of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
170. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Fourth Amended Complaint not specifically admitted to be true herein.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 171. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 172. Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by applicable statutes of limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 173. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 174. This action is not maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 175. Plaintiffs are estopped by their own actions and conduct from asserting any cause of action against Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 23 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

176. Plaintiffs have engaged in conduct and activities sufficient to constitute a waiver

of any right to assert the claims upon which they now seek relief.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

177. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

178. Some or all of the Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred by their failure timely to

exhaust administrative remedies with respect to each Defendant.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

179. All of the actions of Defendants taken towards Plaintiffs’ employment were taken

for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

180. Defendants’ policies and practices are job-related and consistent with business

necessity.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

181. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

182. To the extent Plaintiffs or the class seek punitive or exemplary damages, they are

barred or limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, -- U.S. --, 123 S.

Ct. 1513 (2003).

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

183. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims fail because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at

law.

//

//

//

//

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 24 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954-4400

WHEREFORE, Defendants Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., and Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co. respectfully request that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety with all costs assessed against Plaintiffs, and that the Court grant such further relief as it deems just and proper at law or in equity.

DATED: November 11, 2004.

Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL: Thomas B. Ridgley (Ohio Bar No. 0000910) Sandra J. Anderson (Ohio Bar No. 0002044) Mark A. Knueve (Ohio Bar No. 0067074) Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 52 E. Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 Facsimile: (614) 464-6350

/S/ Sandra A. Kearney (State Bar No. 154578) Farella Braun & Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile (415) 954-4480 Attorneys for Defendants ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

- 25 -

CASE NO. C03-2817 SI

 
 Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 48

1 Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)
2 Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice)
3 Jahan C. Sagafi (SBN 224887) Nirej S. Sekhon (SBN 213358)
4 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
5 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
6 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
7 Thomas A. Saenz (SBN 159430)
8 Shaheena Ahmad Simons (SBN 225520) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
9 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street
10 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telepho ne: (213) 629-2512
11 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D’Urso Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
Jack W. Lee, Esq. (SBN 071626) Lisa Duarte, Esq. (SBN 169750) John Ota, Esq. (SBN 195532) MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel listed on signature page]

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY

Case Nos. 03-2817 SI, 04-4730 and

16

OCAMPO, ENCARNACION GUTIERREZ, JOHAN MONTOYA, JUANCARLOS GÓMEZ-

04-4731

17

MONTEJANO, JENNIFER LU, AUSTIN CHU, IVY NGUYEN, ANGELINE WU, ERIC FIGHT,

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

18

CARLA GRUBB, DAVID CULPEPPER, PATRICE DOUGLASS, and ROBAIR

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE

19

SHERROD, BRANDY HAWK and ANDRE STEELE, on behalf of themselves and all others

CONSENT DECREE AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

20 similarly situated,

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

21

Plaintiffs,

Hearing Date: April 14, 2005

22

v.

Hearing Time: 4:00 p.m.

23

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F Courtroom of Hon. Susan Illston CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and

24

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.,

25

Defendants.

26

27 [Continued on next page] 28
425190.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 2 of 48

1
ELIZABETH WEST and JENNIFER LU, 2
Plaintiffs, 3
v. 4
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F 5 CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT 6 CO.,

7

Defendants.

8 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
9 COMMISSION,

10

v.

11 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and
12 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.
13
Defendants. 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
425190.1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 3 of 48

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1

4 I. II.
5 III.
6
7

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................................3 ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE CLASS OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT. ..................................5 A. Legal Standard .........................................................................................................5 B. Adequate Notice Was Given....................................................................................6

8 IV. 9

THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. .......................................................................................................................7

10

A. The Consent Decree Provides Exceptional Injunctive And Monetary Relief for the Class. ............................................................................................................9

11

B. This Litigation Involved Substantial Potential Risks.............................................10

12

C. The Discovery Completed and the Stage of Proceedings Support Final Approval. ................................................................................................................11

13

D. The Experience and Views of Class Counsel, the EEOC, and Mediator

Support the Proposed Consent Decree...................................................................12

14

E. The Reaction of Class Members Supports the Proposed Settlement .....................13

15

F. The Settlement Is a Product of Extensive, Arm’s-Length Negotiations................14

16 V. 17

THE OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT. ................................................................15 A. Objections of Three Minority Class Members with Disabilities. ..........................15 B. Late Objections of Amani J. King and Efe Agindotan. .........................................16

18

C. Objection of Elizabeth Guleke. ..............................................................................16

19

D. The Objection of Rachel Potter..............................................................................17

1. The Proposed Consent Decree Is Sufficiently Clear..................................18

20

2. The Court Retains Jurisdiction Over the Parties And Has Sole

21

Authority To Modify the Terms of the Consent Decree. ...........................20

3. The Release Is Narrow, Protecting Class Members’ Rights To the

22

Maximum Extent Feasible. ........................................................................21

23

4. Plaintiffs Agree that the Single-Letter Typographical Error Should Be Corrected. .............................................................................................21

24

5. The Monitoring Mechanisms Are Adequate..............................................22

25 VI.
26

6. The 125% Opt-Out Credit Is Reasonable. .................................................23
THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CHARGING PARTY AWARDS ARE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. ........................................23

27

VII.

THE PROPOSED FEE IS LIKEWISE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. .....................................................................................................................26

28

A. The Time and Labor Required Were Substantial. ..................................................29

425190.1

- i-

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 4 of 48

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

2

Page

3

B. The Questions Involved Were Novel and Difficult. ..............................................30

4

C. The Case Required Significant Skill to Perform the Legal Service Properly. .......30

D. Class Counsel Were Precluded From Other Employment Due to

5

Acceptance of the Case. .........................................................................................30

6

E. The Customary Fee and Awards in Similar Cases, Whether Measured Under the Lodestar Method or the Percentage Method, Support the Fee

7

Application. ............................................................................................................30

1. The fee is reasonable under the lodestar- multiplier method. .....................31

8

2. The fee is also reasonable under the percentage method. ..........................33

9

F. The Contingent Nature of the Fee Supports the Proposed Award. ........................34

10

G. The Time Limitations Imposed by the Client and the Circumstances Support the Fee Award. .........................................................................................35

11

H. The Amount Involved Was Substantial and the Results Obtained Were

Exceptional, Including $40 million for the Class as Well as Robust

12

Injunctive Relief. ....................................................................................................35

13

I. Class Counsel Have a High Degree of Experience, Reputation, and Ability. .......36

J. The Case Was Somewhat Undesirable. .................................................................36

14

K. Class Counsel’s Professional Relationship with the Class Representatives

15

Was Longstanding. .................................................................................................36

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................36

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

425190.1

- ii -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 5 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3

CASES

4 Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.,

73 F.R.D. 269 (N.D. Cal. 1976) ...............................................................................................20

5 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,

6

521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................24

Bebchick v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n,

7

805 F.2d 396 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................35

8

Behrens v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534 (S.D. Fla. 1988)..............................................................................................32

9 Blum v. Stenson,

465 U.S. 886 (1984) .................................................................................................................27

10 Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.,

11

621 F.Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ...............................................................................................25

Bouman v. Block,

12

940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................31

13

Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ..............................................................................12, 13, 14

14 Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.,

59 F.R.D. 616 (W.D. Pa. 1973), aff’d,

15

494 F.2d 799 (3d Cir.)..............................................................................................................25

16

Butler v. Home Depot, Case Nos. C-94-4335 SI, C-95-2182 SI (N.D. Cal.)................................................................20

17 Carson v. American Brands, Inc.,

450 U.S. 79 (1981) .....................................................................................................................7

18 Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles,

19

796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................27

Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec.,

20

361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................7, 8

21

Cimarron Pipeline Const., Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Ins., 1993 WL 355466 (W.D. Okla. June 8, 1993)..........................................................................25

22 City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,

356 F. Supp. 1380 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), aff'd in part,

23

rev'd in part on other grounds, 495 F.2d 448 ..........................................................................16

24

City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 203 Cal. App. 3d 78 (1988) .....................................................................................................32

25 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,

955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................................7, 8

26 Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the Pub. Interest v. Bd. of

27

Supervisors of Los Angeles County, 76 Cal. App. 3d 241 (1977) .....................................................................................................32

28

425190.1

- iii -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 6 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 Cook v. Niedert,

142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................26

4 County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.,

5

710 F. Supp. 1428 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) ........................................................................................13

Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper,

6

445 U.S. 326 (1980) .................................................................................................................28

7

Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1980) .......................................................................................7, 12, 19

8 Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.,

137 F.R.D. 240 (S.D. Ohio 1991) ............................................................................................25

9 Florida v. Dunne,

10

915 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................27

Glicken v. Bratford,

11

35 F.R.D. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) .................................................................................................9

12

Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................19

13 Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,

823 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1987).......................................................................................................13

14 Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Dept. v. Civil Service Commission of

15

City of New York, 527 F. Supp. 751 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)...........................................................................................14

16 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................8, 15, 28

17 Hensley v. Eckerhart,

18

461 U.S. 424 (1983) .................................................................................................................27

Huguley v. General Motors Corp.,

19

128 F.R.D. 81 (E.D. Mich. 1989), aff'd,

925 F.2d 1464 (6th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................14

20 In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litig.,

21

79 F.R.D. 707 (M.D. Pa. 1978), aff’d in part, 612 F.2d 576 (3rd Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................................13

22 In re Baldwin-United Corp.,

770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985).....................................................................................................21

23 In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation,

24

817 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................6

In re Cont’l Ill. Sec. Litig.,

25

962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................34

26

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................21

27 In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366 (S.D. Ohio 1990) ............................................................................................25
28

425190.1

- iv -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 7 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 In re General Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,

55 F.3d 768 (3rd Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................34

4 In re Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig.,

5

150 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ...............................................................................................18

In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Anti-trust Litig.,

6

187 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) .............................................................................................10

7

In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................33

8 In Re S. Ohio Correctional Facility,

175 F.R.D. 270 (S.D. Ohio 1997) ............................................................................................25

9 In re Safety Components Int’l, Inc.,

10

166 F. Supp.2d 72 (D.N.J. 2001) .............................................................................................28

In re Saxon Sec. Litig.,

11

644 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)...........................................................................................12

12

In re Shell Oil Refinery, 155 F.R.D. 552 (E.D. La. 1993)...............................................................................................35

13 In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA Litig.,

886 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ............................................................................................32

14 In re Warner Communications Sec. Litig.,

15

618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff’d, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1986).......................................................................................................28

16 In re Washington Public Power Supply Systems Securities Litigation,

720 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Ariz. 1989) ..............................................................................10, 27, 34

17 Ingram v. Coca-Cola Co.,

18

200 F.R.D. 685 (N.D. Ga. 2001)........................................................................................24, 26

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.,

19

526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) .....................................................................................................29

20

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122 (2001) ...........................................................................................................35

21 Kyriazi v. Western Elec. Co.,

527 F. Supp. 18 (D.N.J. 1981) .................................................................................................25

22 League of Martin v. City of Milwaukee,

23

588 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D. Wis. 1984)........................................................................................25

Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc.,

24

82 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2002) ......................................................................................................32

25

Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 1997 WL 450064 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 1997)............................................................................12

26 Loring v. City of Scottsdale, Ariz.,

721 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................29

27 Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n,

28

67 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................28, 32

425190.1

- v-

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 8 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 Manners v. American Gen. Life Ins. Co.,

1999 WL 33581944 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 11, 1999) ..................................................................28

4 Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc.,

5

550 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1977) .............................................................................................8, 10

Martens v. Smith Barney,

6

No. 96 Civ. 3779, 1998 WL 1661385 *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1998) and 181

F.R.D. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ....................................................................................................25

7 Mendoza v. United States,

8

623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................6

Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei,

9

491 U.S. 274 (1989) .................................................................................................................31

10

Moore v. City of San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................7

11 Morales v. City of San Rafael,

96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................35

12 Muehler v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.,

13

617 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Minn. 1985).........................................................................................27

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

14

339 U.S. 306 (1950)), rev'd on other grounds,

490 U.S. 93 (1989) .....................................................................................................................6

15 Newman v. Stein,

16

464 F.2d 689 (2d Cir. 1972).......................................................................................................9

Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm’n,

17

688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................7, 8

18

Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 963 (5th Cir. 1982) .........................................................14

19 Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty,

886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................28, 33

20 PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler,

21

22 Cal. 4th 1084 (2000) ...........................................................................................................32

Reed v. General Motors Corp.,

22

703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................13

23

Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) .................................................................................................................36

24 Roberts v. Texaco Inc.,

94 Civ. 2015 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.) ...................................................................................21, 25, 26

25 Safeco Corp. v. Van Bronkhorst,

26

529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) .....................................................................................................7

Scherrer v. Group Voyagers, Inc.,

27

No. C 99-04834 (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2005) ............................................................................32

28

425190.1

- vi -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 9 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 Serrano v. Priest,

20 Cal. 3d at 25 (1977).............................................................................................................32

4 Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers,

5

904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................27

Sorenson v. Mink,

6

239 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................27

7

State of W. Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 314 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)...........................................................................................23

8 Staton v. Boeing,

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................24, 26

9 Stoetzner v. United States Steel Corp.,

10

897 F.2d 115 (3rd Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................13

Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co.,

11

8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................6

12

Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..............................................................................25, 26, 32

13 Vizcaino v. Microsoft,

290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................28, 33, 35

14 Weinberger v. Kendrick,

15

698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982).......................................................................................................14

Wershba v Apple Computer, Inc.,

16

91 Cal. App. 4th 224 (2001) ....................................................................................................32

17

Wise v. Popoff, 835 F. Supp. 977 (E.D. Mich. 1993)........................................................................................28

18 Women's Comm. For Equal Employment Opportunity v. National Broadcasting

Co.,

19

76 F.R.D. 173 (S.D.N.Y.1977) ..........................................................................................25, 26

20

Zerkle v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 52 F.R.D. 151 (S.D. N.Y. 1971) ................................................................................................9

21

STATUTES

22 42 U.S.C. § 1981............................................................................................................................10

42 U.S.C. §2000e .....................................................................................................................10, 23

23 California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code

24

§12940......................................................................................................................................10

RULES

25 Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

Rule 23(e).................................................................................................................................26 Rule 23(e)(1)(B).........................................................................................................................6

27

Rule 30(b)(6)..............................................................................................................................3

28

425190.1

- vii -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 10 of 48

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3

TREATISES

4

3 NEWBERG 4TH, § 8:32........................................................................................................................................19

5 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS (4th ed. 2002)

§ 11:41........................................................................................................................................7

6 4 NEWBERG 4TH,

7

§ 11:45......................................................................................................................................11 § 11:49......................................................................................................................................12

8

§ 11:58................................................................................................................................15, 16 § 12:13......................................................................................................................................23

9

§ 12:15......................................................................................................................................21

5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.83[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1999) .................................18, 19

10 8 NEWBERG 4TH,

11

§ 11.41........................................................................................................................................9 § 24:126......................................................................................................................8, 9, 14, 20

12

§ 24:127....................................................................................................................................14 § 24:129....................................................................................................................................24

13 Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (2004)

§ 14.121..............................................................................................................................29, 33

14

§ 14.122....................................................................................................................................28

§ 21.312......................................................................................................................................6

15

§ 21.313....................................................................................................................................19

§ 21.634......................................................................................................................................7

16

§ 32.465....................................................................................................................................19

17

Richard Posner, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (3d ed. 1986) § 21.9........................................................................................................................................34

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

425190.1

- viii -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 11 of 48

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL

2

3 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

4

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon

5 thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Courtroom of the Honorable Susan Illston, located at

6 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony

7 Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gómez-Montejano, Jennifer Lu, 8 Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angeline Wu, Eric Fight, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper, Patric e 9 Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Brandy Hawk, Andre Steele, and Elizabeth West will and hereby do 10 move this Court for final approval of the settlement that was preliminarily approved by this Court 11 on November 16, 2004.

12

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion and the

13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof; the Declaration of Bill Lann Lee In

14 Support of Order of Final Approval (“Bill Lann Lee Decl.”) ; the Declaration of Gregory M.

15 Gochanour (“Gochanour Decl.”), the Declaration of Hunter R. Hughes III (“Hughes Decl.”), the

16 other declarations of Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted herewith; the other records, pleadings, and

17 papers filed in this action; and upon such other documentary and oral evidence or argument as

18 may be presented to the Court at the hearing of this motion.

19

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

20 I. INTRODUCTION

21

On November 16, 2004, this Court (1) certified a settlement class; (2) appointed

22 Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel; (3) appointed Plaintiffs as adequate Class Representatives;

23 (4) preliminarily approved the proposed class action settlement at issue; (5) directed distribution 24 to the Class of notice of settlement and opportunity to “opt out” of or object to the settlement; and 25 (6) set a schedule for the final settlement approval process. Stipulation of Proposed Settlement 26 and Order of Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree, November 16, 2004 27 (“Preliminary Approval Order’).

28
425190.1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 12 of 48

1

As directed by this Court, notice of the settlement and instructions on how to

2 submit Claim forms for monetary relief and on how to opt out were given by publication in

3 periodicals and internet banner advertisements, and by first class mail to roughly 320,000

4 potential class members. See Claims Administrator’s Interim Report to the Cour t and Point

5 Allocation Recommendation, filed Friday, April 8, 2005 (“Interim Report”) at p. 2; Declaration of

6 Wayne Pines, filed Friday, April 8, 2005 (“Pines Decl.”) at ¶ 10 (describing “total circulation of

7 all print advertising in the Notice campaign [as] 21,468,694”).

8

The proposed Consent Decree1 resolves all of Plaintiffs’ claims against

9 Abercrombie arising out of the facts at issue in this litigation, including injunctive relief,

10 monetary relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Consent Decree satisfies all the criteria for

11 final settlement approval under Ninth Circuit law and falls well within the range of possible

12 approval.

13

To date, the Claims Administrator has received approximately 20,000 claim forms,

14 eight objections to the settlement (two of which were untimely), and 57 opt-outs (one of which

15 was untimely, and five of which were rescinded). Interim Report at pp. 1-2. Thus, 0.04% of the

16 claimants objected, and 0.28% of the people submitting Claim forms or opt-out statements opted

17 out (both figures include timely and untimely submissions as well as timely rescissions). The

18 objections are narrow in scope. The objectors principally raised issues concerning the fact that

19 the Decree did not encompass disability discrimination, unsupported claims that the monetary

20 relief obtained was insufficient, and concerns about certain general release and other provisions.

21 As explained below, these objections are meritless.

22

Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court grant final approval to the

23 Consent Decree, putting into effect the parties’ settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants

24 Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., and Abercrombie &

25 Fitch Management Co. (hereinafter “Abercrombie”), for significant injunctive and monetary

26

27

28 1 The Consent Decree is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

425190.1

- 2 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 13 of 48

1 relief for the benefit of the class of minority and female employees and applicants for

2 employment certified in the Preliminary Approval Order.

3 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

4

This litigation consists of three related cases that the court ordered consolidated on

5 November 11, 2004.

6

Plaintiffs filed their first Gonzalez complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that

7 Abercrombie’s nationwide employment policies and practices discriminated against minorities

8 with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, managerial promotion, termination, and other

9 terms and conditions of employment in violation of 42 U.S. § 1981 and the California Fair

10 Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The claims of named Plaintiffs paralleled the class

11 allegations. The complaint was filed four years after the initial administrative charge of

12 discrimination was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

13 and two years after the EEOC determined that Abercrombie had engaged in classwide

14 discrimination against Latino and African American applicants and employees.

15

This complaint was subsequently amended on August 13, 2003, January 9, 2004,

16 June 10, 2004 and November 8, 2004 to add Title VII claims, managerial discrimination claims,

17 and more named Plaintiffs and Defendants. Abercrombie answered each complaint, denying all

18 liability.

19

The parties conducted extensive discovery relevant to class certification. In

20 particular, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained and analyzed 17,000 pages of documents and

21 approximately 74 discs containing computerized data and information. After the initial round of

22 class discovery of documents, Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(b)(6) manager depositions, and

23 Abercrombie’s depositions of several named Plaintiffs, the parties commenced mediation while

24 continuing to prepare for class certification. Plaintiffs’ Mediation Brief, submitted April 5, 2004,

25 summarized the discovery Plaintiffs conducted as well as the expert analyses prepared from the

26 discovery. (Plaintiffs’ Mediation Brief was submitted under seal as an exhibit to the

27 November 12, 2004 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of Motion for Order Granting

28 Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Consent Decree (“Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval

425190.1

- 3 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 14 of 48

1 Decl.”).) In addition to formal discovery, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted more than 500 potential

2 class members of witnesses, and prepared over 165 declarations from potential class members

3 and witnesses. See Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval, ¶ 12; Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶ 35. The

4 declarations and analyses of expert witnesses that Plaintiffs’ counsel retained were prepared both

5 for the mediation and for a class certification motion should the mediation fail.

6

After eight two-day sessions of arm’s-length mediation, under the supervision of

7 Mediator Hunter R. Hughes III, Esq., of Atlanta, Georgia, the parties reached agreement to the

8 proposed Consent Decree.

9

A related class action complaint, the West action, was filed at the conclusion of the

10 mediation on November 8, 2004, alleging gender discrimination by Abercrombie in employment

11 policies and practices nationwide. Although their complaint was filed at the conclusion of the

12 mediation, Plaintiffs’ West counsel engaged in significant pre-suit activity, including contacting

13 over 70 witnesses, collecting declarations from Class Members and retaining an expert witness to

14 prepare statistical analyses. West counsel also participated fully in the mediation. See

15 November 12, 2004 Declaration of Jack W. Lee In Support of Preliminary Approval of the

16 Proposed Consent Decree.

17

The EEOC filed its pattern or practice action, EEOC v. Abercrombie, alleging both

18 race and gender discrimination by Abercrombie in employment policies and practices nationwide,

19 on November 8, 2004. Prior to filing, the EEOC conducted an active investigation encompassing

20 administrative charges across the country, interviewing numerous witnesses, performing

21 independent statistical analyses, and questioning Abercrombie managers and officials. The

22 EEOC also fully participated in every mediation session.

23

Under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, Abercrombie will pay

24 approximately $40 million directly to the Class.2 In addition, Abercrombie has agreed to

25 substantial injunctive reforms, including:

26 2 After subtracting an estimated $154,767 in opt-out credits, an estimated $125,000 in 27 administrative costs beyond imputed interest, and $360,000 in awards for Class Representatives
and Charging Parties, in accordance with the Consent Decree, approximately $39,360,233 (or 28 98.4% of the fund) remains for distribution to the Class Members. See Interim Report at 6.

425190.1

- 4 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 15 of 48

1

1. Benchmarks and goals for hiring and promotion of women, Latinos,

2

African Americans, and Asian Americans, the progress toward which

3

Abercrombie will be required to report at regular intervals ;

4

2. A prohibition on using participation in fraternities or sororities as a

5

criterion for employment and a prohibition on targeting specific colleges

6

for recruitment purposes;

7

3. A new Office and Vice President of Diversity, responsible for reporting to

8

the CEO or COO on Abercrombie’s progress toward fair employment

9

practices;

10

4. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity Training for all

11

employees with hiring authority;

12

5. Advertising of jobs, revision of position descriptions and employee

13

performance evaluations for managers;

14

6. A new internal complaint procedure;

15

7. The hiring of 25 recruiters to recruit and hire female and minority

16

employees, and a requirement for Abercrombie to advertise employment

17

opportunities in media that target minorities of both genders;

18

8. Abercrombie marketing materials will reflect diversity by including

19

members of minority racial and ethnic groups;

20

9. Regular reporting and an annual Court hearing to review progress; and

21

10. A Monitor and a Special Master to oversee compliance.

22 The term of the decree is six years unless the Court relieves Abercrombie of the provisions of the

23 Decree after four and a half years.

24 III. ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE CLASS OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT.
25
A. Legal Standard 26
In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he due process clause requires that notice be ‘reasonably 27
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action 28

425190.1

- 5 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 16 of 48

1 and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust

2 Litigation, 817 F.2d 1435, 1440 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &

3 Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)), rev'd on other grounds, 490 U.S. 93 (1989).

4

This standard does not mean that the notice must recite the

language of every provision of a proposed settlement agreement.

5

Notice is satisfactory if it “generally describes the terms of the

settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints

6

to investigate and to come forward and be heard.”

7 Id. (Mendoza v. United States, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980)); Torrisi v. Tucson Elec.

8 Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994). Likewise, according to the Manual for Complex

9 Litigation, Fourth (2004) (“MCL 4th”), the Court must “‘direct notice in a reasonable manner to

10 all class members who would be bound by a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or

11 compromise’ regardless of whether the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3).”

12 Id. at § 21.312, p. 293 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)).

13

Rule 23 requires that the notice provide certain minimal information:

14

The notice should announce the terms of a proposed settlement and

state that, if approved, it will bind all class members. If the class

15

has been certified only for settlement purposes, that fact should be

disclosed. Even though a settlement is proposed, the notice should

16

outline the original claims, relief sought, and defenses so class

members can make an informed decision about whether to opt out. 17

18 Id. at p. 294.

19

B. Adequate Notice Was Given

20

Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, Claims Administrator

21 Settlement Services, Inc. (“SSI”) sent by first class mail approximately 320,000 notices of class

22 settlement, claim forms and explanation claims procedure on or before January 18, 2005 to all

23 known potential Class Members. See Declaration of Mark Patton (filed on April 8, 2005), ¶ 9; id.

24 at ¶ 4 (describing database of 171,309 employees and former employees received from defense

25 counsel); Declaration of Ron Barton (filed on April 11, 2005), ¶¶ 2-4 (describing same, compiled

26 by Abercrombie Senior Systems Engineer and sent to defense counsel). This population included

27 thousands of Class Members as well as thousands of individuals fitting the demographic profile

28 of the Class who were not Class Members.

425190.1

- 6 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 17 of 48

1

In addition, the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order required that Abercrombie

2 publish by January 18, 2005 a legal notice of class settlement, the form of which the Court

3 previously approved, in internet banner ads and the following periodicals: People, Teen People,

4 Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Parents, Vibe, Ebony, People en Español, and Maxim en Español.

5 Defendant Abercrombie timely published legal notice of class settlement. See Wayne Pines

6 Decl., ¶¶ 9-10. Furthermore, both the filing and the settlement of the case generated significant

7 nationwide media coverage.

8

Adequate notice was given. As a result of the notice provided, approximately

9 20,000 Class Members have filed claim forms, 57 opted out, and eight submitted objections.

10 IV. THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE.
11
“The compromise of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by 12
public policy.” 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS (4th ed. 13
2002) (“NEWBERG 4TH”), § 11:41, p. 87 (citing Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 14
n.14 (1981) (Title VII employment) (“In enacting Title VII, Congress expressed a strong 15
preference for encouraging voluntary settlement of employment discrimination claims.”)); Ellis v. 16
Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (“[C]ooperation and voluntary 17
compliance are the preferred means for achieving the statutory goals of Title VII.”); Churchill 18
Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Class Plaintiffs v. 19
City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992); Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm’n, 20
688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Safeco Corp. v. Van Bronkhorst, 529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 21
1976). 22
The Ninth Circuit has held that a class action settlement should be approved if the 23
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1276; MCL 4th, 24
§ 21.634, p. 322 (“At the fairness hearing, the proponents of the settlement must show that the 25
proposed settlement is “‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’”) ); 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 11:41, p. 87; 26
Moore v. City of San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265, 1271 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The sole question before the 27
district court in reviewing a settlement agreement is whether the agreement is fundamentally fair 28

425190.1

- 7 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 18 of 48

1 or just.”).

2

Trial courts are entrusted with broad discretion in determining whether a proposed

3 settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and will only be reversed for a clear abuse of

4 discretion. Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1276; Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 626; Marshall v.

5 Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 1977); 8 NEWBERG 4TH, § 24:126, p. 493-94

6 (“When appealed, a court-approved settlement rarely will be overturned. The abuse of discretion

7 standard leaves much room for judicial discretion.”); Churchill, 361 F.3d at 575. Furthermore,

8 courts should give “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the parties,” since “the

9 court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the

10 parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the

11 agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating

12 parties, and the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.”

13 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1988).

14

The Ninth Circuit has provided a nonexhaustive list of factors to guide courts’

15 discretion:

16

the strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and

likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class

17

action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement;

the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings;

18

the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a

governmental partic ipant; and the reaction of the class members to

19

the proposed settlement.

20 Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625 (internal citations omitted).

21

Newberg provides similar guidance.

22

In making a determination of whether an employment

discrimination class action settlement is fair and reasonable and to

23

safeguard properly the interests of absent class members, the

district court should evaluate: (1) the probable outcome of the

24

litigation; (2) the recommendation and experience of counsel;

25

26

(3) the amount and nature of discovery; (4) the future expense and

duration of litigation; and (5) the number of objectors, and the

27

substance of the objections.

28 8 NEWBERG 4TH, § 24:126, pp. 492-93. “Basically, the court should weigh the rewards the class

425190.1

- 8 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 19 of 48

1 could secure from the settlement against the probable costs and results of continued litigation as

2 well as consider the public policy aspects of Title VII.” Id. at 493. Newberg also advises that

3 “arm's- length bargaining” is relevant to the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. Id.,

4 § 11.41, p. 90.

5

Here, these factors support a finding that the Cons ent Decree is fair, adequate, and

6 reasonable. First, the strength of Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity, and likely

7 duration of further litigation, and the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial,

8 compared to the amount offered in settlement, all support approval. Second, the discovery

9 completed and the stage of the proceedings support the settlement because the parties have

10 adduced sufficient evidence to provide a reliable basis for assessing the relative strength of the ir

11 positions. Third, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s and the EEOC’s recommendation support final approval of

12 the Consent Decree because counsel and the EEOC are experienced in this type of complex

13 employment discrimination class action litigation. Fourth, the enthusiastic reaction of Class

14 Members and the tiny number of objections support final approval. Fifth, because the settlement

15 is the result of extensive, arm’s- length negotiations spanning six months, the Consent Decree

16 should be granted final approval.

17

A. The Consent Decree Provides Exceptional Injunctive And Monetary Relief

for the Class. 18

19

The determination of a “reasonable” settlement is not susceptible of a

20 mathematical equation yielding a particular sum. Rather, “in any case, there is a range of

21 reasonableness with respect to a settlement.” Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1972).

22 See also Zerkle v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 52 F.R.D. 151, 159 (S.D. N.Y. 1971); Glicken v.

23 Bratford, 35 F.R.D. 144, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Here, the proposed Consent Decree is reasonable

24 in part because it offers substantial concrete benefits to Class Members that they would otherwise

25 be unlikely to achieve. In particular, the injunctive relief is robust, possibly exceeding what

26 might be attainable through complete litigation of the claims. The injunctive relief obtained in

27 the proposed Decrees substantially complies with the ambitious outline of relief Plaintiffs initially

28 proposed at the beginning of mediation. See Plaintiffs’ Mediation Brief, Exhibit A. Furthermore,

425190.1

- 9 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 20 of 48

1 the monetary relief of $40 million is approximately 59% of the $69 million Plaintiffs sought in

2 mediation ($73 million less $4 million of 1998 pre-class period losses). See Plaintiffs’ Mediation

3 Brief, Table D.

4

Specifically, the injunctive relief, as noted above, provides for monitoring for six

5 years;3 hiring benchmarks and goals; a ban on recruiting from fraternities, sororities, or specific

6 colleges for recruitment purposes; a new Office and Vice President of Diversity; EEO and

7 diversity training for all employees with hiring authority; advertising of vacancies and revision of

8 job descriptions and manager performance evaluations; a new internal complaint procedure; the

9 hiring of 25 recruiters to recruit and hire female and minority employees, and targeted advertising

10 to minorities; a requirement that marketing materials will reflect diversity; regular reporting and

11 an annual Court hearing and appointment of a Monitor and a Special Master.

12

B. This Litigation Involved Substantial Potential Risks.

13

The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation are also relevant.

14 Marshall, 550 F.2d at 1173, 1178; In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Anti-trust Litig., 187 F.R.D.

15 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); In re Washington Public Power Supply Systems Securities Litigation, 720

16 F. Supp. 1379, 1387 (D. Ariz. 1989).

17

The factual and legal issues in this action are complex. The trial of Plaintiffs’

18 claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and

19 under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code §12940 et seq. — claims that

20 involve potentially tens of thousands of Class Members and which arose in hundreds of stores

21 nationwide over a period of more than five years — would require substantial preparation and

22 ultimately the presentation of a large number of witnesses.

23 3 In contrast, recent comparable consent decrees in major employment discrimination cases have 24 had shorter terms. (Copies of several such decrees and related documents are attached to the Bill
Lann Lee Decl., ¶¶ 20-34, Exs. H-V (hereinafter referred to, respectively, as Boeing consent 25 decree; Coca-Cola consent decree; Fleetwood consent decree; Group Voyagers consent decree;
Home Depot consent decree; Ingles consent decree; Mitsubishi consent decree; Publix consent 26 decree; Rent-a-Center consent decree; Shoney’s consent decree; Texaco consent decree; United
consent decree; United notice).) See, e.g., Mitsubishi consent decree at ¶ 14 (3- year term); 27 Boeing consent decree at 12 (minimum 3- year term); Coca-Cola consent decree at 46 (4-year
term); Fleetwood consent decree at 2 (4- year term); Rent-a-Center consent decree at 7-8 (4-year 28 term, with possible 1- year extension).

425190.1

- 10 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 21 of 48

1

Of particular relevance to the reasonableness of the proposed Consent Decree is

2 the fact that Defendant has available legal and factual grounds for defending this action, including

3 whether common questions exist justifying class action treatment of Abercrombie’s three

4 divisions extending to over 700 stores; whether special qualifications and interest limit the pool of

5 minority or women applicants; whether Class Members applied for Abercrombie’s relatively low-

6 paying, part-time sales associate jobs; the extent of alleged in-store segregation; difficulty of

7 assessing damages in light of the ease of mitigating harm to applicants for jobs paying slightly

8 above minimum wage; and whether emotional distress damages are available on a classwide

9 basis. Thus, Plaintiffs and the Class could recover no compensation for emotional distress

10 damages or for backpay and/or they could win only limited or no injunctive relief. By the same

11 token, Abercrombie faces the potential for a substantial jury verdict. Between these two disparate

12 extremes is a more reasonable outcome, which is this settlement.

13

Furthermore, final resolution of the case through complete litigation could easily

14 take another few years. The parties would be unlikely to be ready for trial before until 2006.

15 Even if trial were to occur then, the delay of appeals could postpone final resolution until 2008 or

16 later. By settling now, Plaintiffs and the Class are able to secure compensation and injunctive

17 relief immediately, and Abercrombie is able to achieve finality.

18

The proposed Consent Decree will yield a certain, substantial, and prompt

19 recovery for the class both in monetary relief and reform of Abercrombie’s employment policies

20 and practices. Such a result will benefit the parties and the court system.

21

C. The Discovery Completed and the Stage of Proceedings Support Final

Approval. 22

23

Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence to support the fairness, reasonableness,

24 and adequacy of the settlement, though such evidence is not necessary for final approval.

25 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 11:45, p. 127 (noting that in the context of a class action settlement, “[i]t is

26 clear that the court need not possess evidence to decide the merits of the issue, because the

27 compromise is proposed in order to avoid further litigation”).

28

As noted above, the results of Plaintiffs’ classwide discovery and expert analyses

425190.1

- 11 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 22 of 48

1 are summarized in the Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval Decl. and Plaintiffs’ Mediation Brief.

2 Class Counsel and Abercrombie reviewed the extensive evidence carefully during the litigation

3 and settlement negotiations to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. They

4 were therefore well prepared to reliably gauge the reasonableness of the Consent Decree. Their

5 judgment of the appropriateness of the monetary compensation and the sufficiency, completeness,

6 and feasibility of the injunctive relief was well- founded.

7

Thus, Plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated the Consent Decree with ample knowledge of

8 the strengths and weaknesses of their case.

9

D. The Experience and Views of Class Counsel, the EEOC, and Mediator

Support the Proposed Consent Decree. 10

11

In appraising the fairness of a proposed settlement, the view of experienced

12 counsel favoring the settlement is “entitled to considerable weight.” In re Saxon Sec. Litig., 644

13 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Linney

14 v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 1997 WL 450064 , at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 1997); Ellis, 87 F.R.D. at

15 15, 18.

16

Class Counsel are highly experienced in class action litigation generally, and

17 specifically in employment discrimination class actions. See Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval

18 Decl., ¶ 4; Declaration of Thomas A. Saenz (“Saenz Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Martin

19 D’Urso (“D’Urso Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Jack W. Lee. It is their considered opinion that

20 the proposed Consent Decree achieves the best result possible for Class Members under the

21 circumstances. Some of the Class Counsel have been prosecuting this case for roughly six years,

22 and are intimately familiar with the strengths and risks involved in the case. Likewise, the EEOC

23 has been involved in the investigation of the claims raised in this case for almost six years as well

24 and recommends this Consent Decree.

25

The EEOC’s enthusiastic participation in the settlement supports approval.

26 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 11:49, p. 154 (noting that “the court may ask for the agency’s opinion of the

27 fairness and adequacy of the settlement”). See Declaration of Gregory M. Gochanour

28 (“Gochanour Decl.”) (supporting the Consent decree as “fair, reasonable, and adequate relief for

425190.1

- 12 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 23 of 48

1 the Class,” and opining that “the result is a just one ”).

2

Mediator Hunter Hughes, himself an experienced emp loyment discrimination

3 litigator and mediator, has submitted a declaration attesting to the fairness, adequacy, and

4 reasonableness of the proposed Consent Decree. See Hughes Decl.

5

E. The Reaction of Class Members Supports the Proposed Settlement

6

All 16 Class Representatives support final approval. Class Members were given

7 reasonable notice of the settlement terms and had the opportunity to object and/or opt out, in

8 compliance with Rule 23(e)(4)(A) and the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order.

9

The overwhelmingly positive response of potential class members supports the

10 conclusion that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Approximately 20,000

11 individuals in a largely transient, college-age population submitted Claim forms. Including

12 untimely submissions and excluding rescissions, 63 individuals, or 0.31% of the total, submitted

13 opt-out statements or objections. Thus, roughly 99.69% of the response supported the Decree by

14 seeking relief under its terms.

15

It would be “extremely unusual” if no objections were submitted. See In re

16 Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litig., 79 F.R.D. 707, 712-13 (M.D. Pa. 1978), aff’d in part, 612 F.2d

17 576 (3rd Cir. 1979). Hence, for example, in Stoetzner v. United States Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115,

18 118-19 (3rd Cir. 1990), the Third Circuit held that the fact that “only” 29 members of a 281-

19 member class (10%) had objected “strongly favor[ed] settlement.” See also Boyd v. Bechtel

20 Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 624 (N.D. Cal. 1979) (that only 16% of the class objected was

21 persuasive of the adequacy of the settlement); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710

22 F. Supp. 1428, 1437 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (“[O]pposition to a class settlement--even by a majority of

23 the class — is not a bar to court approval if the settlement is fair,” citing Grant v. Bethlehem Steel

24 Corp., 823 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1987)).

25

Objections by several class members or even by a substantial percentage of class

26 members do not prevent the Court from granting final approval. See Reed v. General Motors

27 Corp., 703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1983) (affirming district court's approval of proposed class

28 settlement, despite objections by 23 of 27 named plaintiffs and nearly 40% of the class); Huguley

425190.1

- 13 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 24 of 48

1 v. General Motors Corp., 128 F.R.D. 81 (E.D. Mich. 1989), aff'd, 925 F.2d 1464 (6th Cir. 1991),

2 and aff'd, 999 F.2d 142 (6th Cir. 1993) (approving settlement over objections of approximately

3 15% of the class); Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 963 (5th Cir. 1982)

4 (affirming approval of settlement over class member and plaintiff objections); 8 NEWBERG 4TH, §

5 24:127, p. 501 (“Before approving a consent decree, the court may make adjustments for

6 objections raised, unless the settlement is found to be fair and reasonable in spite of the rais ed

7 objections.”).

8

F. The Settlement Is a Product of Extensive, Arm’s-Length Negotiations .

9

Where a settlement is reached through arm’s- length negotiations, in the absence of

10 fraud or collusion, the Court should be hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel.

11 “A presumption exists in favor of a settlement when there ha s been arm's- length bargaining and

12 no objections by the parties, and when both counsel are able to evaluate reasonably their chances

13 for success if the case were to proceed to trial.” 8 NEWBERG 4TH, § 24:126, p. 493 (citing

14 Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Dept. v. Civil Service Commission of City of New York,

15 527 F. Supp. 751 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1979)

16 (Orrick, J.) ((approving settlement of employment discrimination case negotiated by experienced

17 counsel after significant discovery, despite finding that it provided very modest relief to the

18 class); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1982).

19

The Consent Decree is the result of vigorous, extended arm’s- length negotiations

20 spanning half a year of structured mediation. The negotiations between Plaintiffs’ counsel, the

21 EEOC, and counsel for Abercrombie were conducted under the supervision of experienced

22 mediator Hunter Hughes. See Hughes Decl., ¶¶ 8-10; Gochanour Decl., ¶ 6. The parties

23 submitted mediation briefs, declarations, expert statistical reports, damages estimates and legal

24 authorities to Mr. Hughes prior to the first mediation session on April 13-14, 2004, and thereafter

25 as well. The negotiations were often heated and protracted. The settlement discussions involved

26 eight two-day mediation sessions and numerous additional telephone discussions and drafting

27 sessions. Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval Decl., ¶ 31. Extensive, good- faith settlement

28 discussions between the parties continued outside of mediation sessions. The parties exchanged

425190.1

- 14 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 25 of 48

1 numerous settlement drafts until the day the Consent Decree was signed on November 8, 2004.

2 See Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval Decl., ¶ 29. Moreover, the Court was involved in

3 regulating the mediation schedule, extending several times the Court’s deadlines.

4

The EEOC’s participation in the negotiations weighs in favor of finding a class

5 settlement fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Here, the

6 government entity specifically charged with enfo rcing Title VII for private employees like

7 Abercrombie, is a signatory to the proposed Decree.

8

The intensive efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the EEOC, and Defendant’s counsel to

9 resolve this case have resulted in a fair and comprehensive settlement that provides significant

10 injunctive and monetary relief for the class members.

11 V. THE OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT.

12

Only eight objections were filed by Class Members, including two that were

13 received late. We discuss each of the objections in turn, but note initially that most of the

14 objections are conclusory. “General objections without factual or legal substantiation carry little

15 weight.” 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 11:58.

16

A. Objections of Three Minority Class Members with Disabilities.

17

Three minority Class Members with disabilities objected to the proposed Decree

18 because the Decree does not address disability discrimination. See Objections of Esteban Diaz,

19 Tony Gómez, and Maria I. Hernandez (included in Interim Report). Those objections stated that

20 they would make claim forms for monetary relief as minority Class Members, but that they would

21 continue to pursue their EEOC charges raising disability discrimination against Abercrombie.

22

The instant cases concern discrimination on the basis of race, national origin or

23 gender. Neither the three related complaints, the underlying administrative charges of named

24 Plaintiffs, nor the proposed Decree address claims of discrimination on the basis of disability.

25 Nor does the Decree bar these or other individuals from pursuing disability claims against

26 Abercrombie in subsequent proceedings. The release provision for Class Members is limited to

27 claims of “alleged race, color, national origin or gender discrimination. ” Consent Decree,

28 XVIII.A.

425190.1

- 15 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 26 of 48

1

These objections do not warrant any action by the Court because, as these

2 objectors themselves admit, they can continue asserting their disability claims notwithstanding

3 the proposed Decree.

4

B. Late Objections of Amani J. King and Efe Agindotan.

5

Amani J. King filed a late objection (received by the Claims Administrator on

6 March 10, 2005) to the $40 million monetary relief as not sufficient without any supporting data.

7 Efe Agindotan filed a late objection (received by the Claims Administrator on March 22, 2005)

8 “claiming the amount of $250,000.00 USD.”

9

“Inadequacy of the fund may be attacked on the basis that the circumstances

10 indicate that the plaintiff's likelihood of recovery is greater than suggested by the proponents, or

11 that the potential recovery of damages has been undervalued and therefore underestimated.”

12 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 11:58; City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 356 F. Supp. 1380 (S.D.N.Y. 1972),

13 aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds,

14 495 F.2d 448 (antitrust) (approving settlement that represented 3.2 to 3.8% of possible damages).

15

In this case, King offers no factual support for his claim that the settlement is

16 insufficient. In fact, as noted above, the $40 million in monetary relief Plaintiffs ultimately

17 obtained is approximately three- fifths of Plaintiffs’ initial estimate of loss, in spite of Defendants’

18 substantial defenses. Similarly, Agindotan offers no factual support for his personal claim of

19 entitlement to a quarter of a million dollars, nor did he opt out to bring his own claim.

20

C. Objection of Elizabeth Guleke.

21

Objector Elizabeth Guleke, represented by her father James O. Guleke II, filed a

22 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (because she is a Texas resident) and a request

23 for exclusion, as well as objecting to the proposed Decree. Plaintiffs treat the motion to dismiss

24 and request for exclusion as an opt-out notice.

25

Guleke objects to the “binding” effect upon her of the injunctive relief, questions

26 whether Class Members obtain any “real” benefit from the Decree, objects to disclosing private

27 information during the implementation of the Decree, and argues that the appointment of

28 Mediator Hunter Hughes as Special Master is inappropriate. First, the binding effect of the

425190.1

- 16 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 27 of 48

1 Decree’s reforms to Abercromb ie’s employment system result from Rule 23(b)(2), not the

2 Decree. In any event, the binding effect is largely theoretical for a former employee such as

3 Guleke. Second, Plaintiffs submit that the Decree’s benefits are not only real but also substantial.

4 Moreover, Guleke has no standing to object because she has not submitted a claim form and has

5 excluded herself from the monetary relief. Third, there is no evidence at all of abuse of Class

6 Members’ privacy interests by the Claims Administrator SSI, and, again, Guleke has no standing

7 to raise issues concerning the claims procedure.

8

Fourth, Guleke’s opposition to the parties’ proposal that the Court appoint

9 Mr. Hughes as Special Master for implementation of the Consent Decree is meritless. She argues

10 that a mediator should not disclose mediation communications to a Special Master “appointed to

11 resolve all disputes arising under the Decree.” Guleke’s position stems from a misreading of the

12 Decree and a misconception of the legal principles governing consent decree implementation.

13 She is wrong that the Special Master will resolve all disputes; Section X.B. makes clear that the

14 Court itself is the ultimate arbiter of disputes under the Decree. Furthermore, the parties’ joint

15 proposal of Mr. Hughes as Special Master waives any objections in view of the advantages of his

16 knowledge and experience. Again, neither party nor the EEOC objects to the fact that Mr.

17 Hughes’s fee will be paid by Abercrombie. Nor is there any basis for analogizing Mr. Hughes’

18 prior service as the parties’ neutral mediator to serving as a lawyer for a party. In short, there is

19 neither a conflict of interest nor any appearance of impropriety.

20

D. The Objection of Rachel Potter.

21

Rachel Potter (a.k.a. “Rachel Lee Hoop”)4 and Leigh Foster, represented by some

22 of the same counsel, submitted substantially overlapping objections on March 7, 2005, each of

23 which is less than four pages, addressing a series of perceived shortcomings of the Consent

24 Decree in one or two paragraphs.5 The objections were conclusory and cited no legal authority.

25 4 See Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. F (attaching Claim form of Rachel Lee Hoop (which lists 26 “Rachel Lee Potter” as a former name)).
5 By agreement of the parties, Foster’s counsel has withdrawn her objection subject to the Court’s 27 approval in exchange for the written assurance of Plaintiffs’ Counsel to provide notice and an
opportunity to comment upon any proposed modification of the Decree and to have the comments 28 brought to the attention of the Special Master and the Court, as well as Plaintiffs’ Counsels’

425190.1

- 17 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 28 of 48

1 The lone objection with merit is the discovery of a self-described “typographical” error, in which

2 the letter “D” should be changed to “C.” (The parties have agreed to make this change, subject to

3 the Court’s approval.)6

4

1. The Proposed Consent Decree Is Sufficiently Clear.

5

Potter objects that the Decree “is simply inadequate,” arguing that the 60-page

6 Consent Decree and the Notice “do not state how much money the class member is to potentially

7 receive.” Potter Objection, at 2. Potter also asserts that the Allocation Plan is “vague and

8 unclear,” Potter Objection, at 3, but specifies no particular phrase that is vague or unclear and

9 suggests no improvements to the Consent Decree. Potter’s counsel could have easily called Class

10 Counsel, Abercrombie’s counsel, the EEOC, or the Claims Administrator to better understand the

11 Consent Decree. Her counsel did not.7 See Interrogatory Responses of Rachel Potter, pp. 10-11

12 (answering only “None” or that “I spoke with my attorney” in response to interrogatories

13 regarding the effort she made to understand allocation to her or to the class members generally

14 under the Decree). Thousands of other Class Members chose the straightforward route of calling

15 for information. See Interim Report at 2-3 (summarizing over 5,000 instances of people

16 contacting Claims Administrator for information).

17

Notice need only provide “general” information about a settlement. See, e.g.,

18 Mendoza v. United Stat es, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (“very general description of the

19 proposed settlement” satisfies standards); In re Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig., 150 F.R.D.

20 57, 60 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (Class notice “need only describe the terms of the settlement

21 generally.”).) “It is not necessary to include all of the details of the settlement, but only to ‘fairly

22 apprise’ class members of the terms of the settlement.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.83[2]

23 payment of $15,000 in attorneys’ fees. See Motion For Order Approving Withdrawal of
24 Objection Submitted By Leigh Foster, filed on April 11, 2005. 6 Potter also complains, without factual support, that the negotiated attorneys’ fees are
25 “excessive” and should “better correspond to the actual value” conferred, without specifying what a more appropriate fee would be. Potter Objection, at 5. This objection is addressed above.
26 7 Potter also complains that Exhibit C was not posted on the Claims Administrator’s website. It 27 was available from Counsel, the Clerk’s Office and the Claims Administrator, but her counsel
chose not to request it. See Interrogatory Responses of Rachel Potter, p. 10 (Bill Lann Lee Decl., 28 ¶ 18, Ex. G).

425190.1

- 18 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 29 of 48

1 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1999) (quoting Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1013 (10th Cir. 1993)

2 (settlement notice was not deficient simply because it failed to specify exact formula to be used in

3 calculating amounts to be awarded to individual class members)). “[F]requently, . . . settlements

4 provide only the basic principles for determining [class member] awards, contemplating further

5 proceedings to ascertain the factual matters on which the awards depend.” MCL 4th, § 32.465, p.

6 597; 3 NEWBERG 4TH, § 8:32, at p. 265 (“It is unnecessary for the settlement distribution formula

7 to specify precisely the amount that each individual class member may expect to recover.”).

8 “Often, . . . the details of allocation and distribution are not established until after the settlement is

9 approved.” MCL 4th, § 21.313, pp. 295-96. Here, the Notice approved by the Court explained

10 the settlement process and monetary relief factors in significant detail.8

11

Usually, it is impossible for an individual class member to determine their

12 individual recovery (or even the average recovery) ex ante, because the number of claimants is

13 unknowable ex ante. See, e.g., United notice, p. 2 (explaining allocation as dependent on future

14 individualized fact determinations); Mitsubishi consent decree, ¶ 24 (explaining discretionary

15 allocation based on EEOC’s case-by-case determination of each claim’s value, based on five

16 factors); Rent-a-Center consent decree, p. 15 (providing individual monetary recovery contingent

17 on number of claimants and attorneys’ fees and costs to be taken out of fund); Boeing consent

18 decree, p. 18, 21-23 (same).

19

The proposed Decree is not vague. In addition to providing the total class

20 recovery, the proposed Decree provided the specific factors that would be used to evaluate

21 claims. These factors are: “length of service with Abercrombie; discrimination claims based on

22 race, national origin or gender in promotion, assignment, hire or termination; any personal injury,

23 such as emotional distress, suffered as a result of the discrimination; and any time or effort

24 devoted to the litigation.” Consent Decree at 56. (Potter’s counsel does not appear to have read

25 the Decree with a great amount of care, erroneously claiming that Plaintiffs’ fees and costs total

26 8 Potter’s objection also lacks sufficient support because she failed to “specify what amount 27 would fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle [her] monetary claims,” or to “state on what
grounds [s]he deserve s a larger share of the settlement funds.” Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 28 87 F.R.D. 15, 20 (N.D. Cal. 1980).

425190.1

- 19 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 30 of 48

1 $40 million. Potter Objection, at p. 4 n.1.)

2

2. The Court Retains Jurisdiction Over the Parties And Has Sole

Authority To Modify the Terms of the Consent Decree. 3

Potter misreads the Consent Decree to permit the parties to unilaterally modify the

4

60-page proposal and then objects to its own misreading.

5

First, Potter misconstrues Section VI.B., asserting that it allows the parties to

6

collusively abort the Consent decree’s term without Court approval, after payment of all

7

attorneys’ fees, Potter Objection, at 3, reading the first sentence in isolation. However, “[u]nless

8

and until the court issues an order granting the motion to be relieved, all provisions of the Decree

9

shall remain in full force and effect.” Section VI.B., at p. 9.

10

Second, Potter similarly argues that Section IX.B.2. allows the parties to modify

11

the Consent decree without Court approval. Potter Objection, at 3-4. This ignores the remainder

12

of the paragraph, which makes clear that Court approval is required to effectuate a modification.

13

More importantly, a consent decree is an order of the court. Only the court may

14

amend its own order. Decrees and commentators references to the parties’ ability to modify a

15

decree impliedly assume that such modifications require court approval. See, e.g., 8 NEWBERG

16

4TH, § 24:126, p. 494 (“Consent decrees that are approved as part of a class settlement may be

17

modified based on the experience of the parties implementing the decree.”) (citing Alaniz v.

18

California Processors, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 269 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (Title VII employment class action)

19

(approving certain modifications in consent decree agreed upon by the parties).

20

In fact, this Court approved a Consent Decree that contained almost identical

21

language in Butler v. Home Depot, Case Nos. C-94-4335 SI, C-95-2182 SI (N.D. Cal.) (“Class

22

Counsel and Home Depot may jointly agree to modify the Decree. . . .”). See Bill Lann Lee

23

Decl., ¶¶ 24-25, Exs. L-M (attaching consent decree and subsequent order in which the Court

24

modified two aspects of that Consent Decree in response to the parties’ stipulated proposed

25

order). Similar modification language has been used in other employment discrimination consent

26

decrees. See, e.g., Boeing consent decree at 63 (allowing the parties to “negotiate in good faith

27

over modifications that will ensure that the objectives of this Decree may be achieved”); Publix

28

425190.1

- 20 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 31 of 48

1 consent decree at 30 (providing that class counsel, the EEOC, and the defendant “may jointly

2 agree to modify the Decree”); Ingles consent decree at 14 (same, without EEOC).

3

3. The Release Is Narrow, Protecting Class Members’ Rights To the

Maximum Extent Feasible. 4

Potter next asserts that the release is “far too broad,” Potter Objection, at 4, 5
without specifying how the release is overbroad, by, for example, pointing to specific types of 6
claims (whether hers or hypothetical) that might be released. In actuality, the release is narrow. 7
Here, the release is limited to claims arising out of conduct during the liability period alleging 8

discrimination by race, color, national origin, and/or gender in employment. Section VIII.A., at 9

pp. 10-11. It explicitly excludes harassment claims. It does not release disability discrimination, 10
age discrimination, minimum wage, or overtime claims, for example. (In contrast, the named 11
Plaintiffs’ release is broader.) 12

Class action settlements commonly release “any and all related civil claims the 13

plaintiffs had against the settling defendant[] based on the same facts.” In re Baldwin-United 14
Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 337 (2d Cir. 1985); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 15
643 F.2d 195, 221 (5th Cir. 1981). The release “may refer to all claims, both potential and actual, 16
that may have been raised in the pending action with respect to the matter in controversy.” 17

4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 12:15, pp. 310-11; id. at 312 & 312 n.6 (noting that it is typical for the 18
judgment to embrace “the claims that were asserted or that may arise out of the transactions or 19
events pleaded in the complaint”). 20
Comparable major employment discrimination settlements have often included 21

much broader releases than those here. See, e.g., Roberts v. Texaco Inc., 94 Civ. 2015 at 5 (CLB) 22

(S.D.N.Y.) (releasing age, disability, gender, and religion discrimination claims in racial 23
discrimination class action); Coca-Cola consent decree at 31 n.10 (releasing “all employment 24
claims” including workers’ compensation, age, disability, gender, and religion discrimination, 25

libel, slander, assault and invasion of privacy). 26

4. Plaintiffs Agree that the Single-Letter Typographical Error Should Be

27

Corrected.

28

Potter points out a typographical error in Section VIII.C. Potter Objection, at 4.

425190.1

- 21 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 32 of 48

1 The last sentence begins, “This Section VIII.D.” Because the sentence is within Section VIII.C.,

2 the letter “D” should be changed to “C.”9 As described in the Motion For Order Approving

3 Withdrawal of Objection Submitted By Leigh Foster, filed on April 11, 2005, this change has

4 already been addressed through the discussions between Class Counsel and Objector Foster’s

5 counsel.

6

5. The Monitoring Mechanisms Are Adequate.

7

Potter argues that the monitoring mechanisms are inadequa te for failing to award

8 attorneys’ fees to successful challenges, asserting that the fixed payment to Class Counsel for

9 such future challenges is an insufficient incentive for Class Counsel to uphold their duty. Potter

10 Objection, at 4-5. This criticism is meritless.

11

As an initial matter, the Consent Decree provides multiple overlapping

12 enforcement mechanisms, which together ensure that Class Members’ interests are more than

13 adequately protected: (1) a Court-appointed Monitor, (2) a Court-appointed Special Master,

14 (3) judicial oversight, including annual status reports and hearings, (4) regular compliance

15 meetings, (5) extensive reporting and recordkeeping, and (6) oversight by Class Counsel and

16 EEOC.

17

Class Counsel will satisfy their ongoing obligations to the Class by properly

18 seeking out and presenting instances of noncompliance to the Special Master. The liquidated

19 $600,000 allocated for future attorneys’ fees is staggered in six declining annual payments from

20 2005 to 2010. Section XVIII.B., p. 59. The Home Depot Consent Decree contained a similar

21 provision. Id. at 82 (staggering payments over several years after final approval date). The

22 Court, which will hold annual hearings, will of course be able to gauge whether Class Counsel are

23 fulfilling their duties.

24

Potter also criticizes omitting the EEOC from seeking fees. Potter Objection, at

25 p. 4. However, the EEOC is precluded by statute from recovering fees under Title VII. 42 U.S.C.

26

27 9 Although Objectors Foster and Potter could have brought it to the parties’ attention by a simple phone call or other informal contact, Objectors instead chose to bring a formal objection to the
28 Consent Decree.

425190.1

- 22 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 33 of 48

1 § 2000e-5(k) (permitting parties, but not the EEOC, to recover costs and attorney's fees). This

2 fact will not prevent the EEOC from fulfilling its duties under the Consent Decree.

3

6. The 125% Opt-Out Credit Is Reasonable.

4

Potter further asserts that the 125% credit that Abercrombie receives for each opt-

5 out is excessive because the “percentage returned . . . to Abercrombie should never exceed the

6 amount paid to [the] average Class Member.” Potter Objection, at 3. Potter cites no authority or

7 logic. To the contrary, a 125% credit is reasonable because opt-outs are likely to litigate their

8 claims individually, imposing defense costs on Abercrombie and exposing Abercrombie to

9 greater-than-average liability risk.

10

“A lump sum settlement offer by defendants may contain a provision that entitles

11 the defendants to reduce the settlement fund on exclusion of a substantial portion of class claims.”

12 4 NEWBERG 4TH, § 12:13, p. 307; id. at p. 308 (citing State of W. Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 314

13 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (approving reduction of settlement from $100 million to $83

14 million based on opt-out credits)). Similar employment discrimination class actions have similar

15 provisions. For example, the Publix consent decree provided for an opt-out credit to the

16 defendant of $20,000-150,000 per class member who opted out, up to a total of $4,000,000 in opt-

17 out credits. Id. at 106-08. Similarly, in Ingles, the defendant received $37,500 or $5,000 for each

18 opt-out, up to a total of $1,000,000. Id. at 67.

19

In the instant case, the Claims Administrator has calculated that average Class

20 Member awards should range from $1,449 to $2,757. Interim Report at 6-7. The average opt-out

21 credits therefore range from $1,811 to $3,446. These amounts do not provide Abercrombie

22 generous amounts to defend individual cases. The objection to the size of the opt-out credit is

23 without merit.

24 VI. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CHARGING PARTY AWARDS ARE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE.
25
In accordance with routine class action practice, the parties propose that the named 26
plaintiffs receive awards to provide fair compensation for their contribution to the litigation. 27
These awards are in place of their recovery as Class members, and compensate them for their 28

425190.1

- 23 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 34 of 48

1 investment of time and effort, their exposure to the risks of retaliation and harassment, the

2 invaluable service they provided during the pre- and post- filing investigation of potential

3 discrimination, and their broader claims releases.

4

“Settlement agreements in employment discrimination class actions may contain

5 provisions awarding monetary recoveries and other special benefits to named plaintiffs for their

6 unique claims.” 8 NEWBERG, § 24:129, p. 504-05; cf. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S.

7 591, 617 (1997) (“The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the

8 problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo

9 action prosecuting his or her rights.”). The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of

10 representative plaintiff awards in Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003), affirming that

11 named plaintiffs can receive reasonable incentive awards. In order to determine whether an

12 award was reasonable, the Ninth Circuit held that a court must individually evaluate the awards,

13 considering relevant factors, including each plaintiff’s actions for the interests of the class, the

14 degree of benefit to the class by those actions, the amount of time and energy a plaintiff has

15 expended for the litigation, and reasonable fears of workplace retaliation. Staton, 327 F.3d at

16 977.

17

In accordance with Staton, Plaintiffs’ counsel made individualized determinations

18 of each named Plaintiff and Charging Party award based on several factors, including an

19 assessment of their claims, pendency of administrative charges, participation in media outreach to

20 the Class, deposition and other involvement in investigative proceedings, or preparing written

21 discovery. These determinations are summarized in Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. B.

22

In Ingram v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.R.D. 685 (N.D. Ga. 2001), the Court approved

23 incentive awards of $300,000 to each named plaintiff in recognition of the services they provided

24 to the class by responding to discovery, participating in the mediation process and taking the risk

25 of stepping forward on behalf of the class. Id. at 694. In Boeing, the consent decree stated that

26 the 12 named plaintiffs would apply for awards of $100,000 each, for a total of $1.2 million, or

27 1.6% of the $75 million fund. Id. at 26. (This was partly in compensation for the broader release

28 of claims that they made. Id. at 27.) In Publix, each of the 12 named plaintiffs who did not opt

425190.1

- 24 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 35 of 48

1 out received $67,710, taken from the total monetary fund of $63.5 million (for a total of 1.3%).

2 Id. at 96-97. The United consent decree provided payments of $3,350,663 to the 13 named

3 plaintiffs, or 11.1% of the total, for an average of roughly $258,000 per named plaintiff. United

4 notice p. 2. The Rent-a-Center, consent decree provided payments of $100,000 each to 19 named

5 plaintiffs and 3 charging parties (for a total of $2.2 million), and $55,000 each to several other

6 named plaintiffs. Id. at 12-13. Likewise, this Court recently ordered named plaintiff awards of

7 $30,000 and $28,125 (above and beyond their compensation as class members) to two named

8 plaintiffs in an overtime pay class action. Scherrer, at 12.10

9

“[I]t is not uncommon for class members with prior charges of discrimination to

10 receive special relief in settlement.” League of Martin v. City of Milwaukee, 588 F. Supp. 1004,

11 1024 (E.D. Wis. 1984) (Title VII) (holding that individual relief for a named plaintiff, who “filed

12 the EEOC charge upon which this lawsuit is based and has been instrumental in prosecuting this

13 lawsuit since the date it was filed,” was appropriate); Kyriazi v. Western Elec. Co., 527 F. Supp.

14 18, 20 (D.N.J. 1981) (Title VII) (ordering back pay of $103,507 and reinstatement for single

15 named plaintiff in addition to $7 million settlement for which 2000 potential class members

16 submitted claim forms); Women's Comm. For Equal Employment Opportunity v. National

17 Broadcasting Co., 76 F.R.D. 173, 180 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (Title VII) (approving awards ranging

18

19 10 See also In Re S. Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270, 272 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (approving $303,000 payment to each class representative plaintiff in employment case settling before class
20 certification); Martens v. Smith Barney, No. 96 Civ. 3779, 1998 WL 1661385 *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1998) and 181 F.R.D. 243, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (approving payments of up to $150,000 for
21 named plaintiffs, for a total of $1.9 million in incentive payments for employment case settling prior to class certification); Roberts v. Texaco, 979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (approving
22 incentive payments up to $85,000 for named plaintiffs in employment case settling prior to class certification); Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
23 (approving $50,000 participation award); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F.Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (award of $20,000 each to two class representatives); Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.,
24 59 F.R.D. 616, 617 (W.D. Pa. 1973), aff’d, 494 F.2d 799 (3d Cir.) (payments of $17,500 each to individual class members who aided in advancing Title VII case); Enterprise Energy Corp. v.
25 Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 250 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (approving $50,000 awards to named plaintiffs, from settlement with current cash value of $32 million in consumer
26 case); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366, 374 (S.D. Ohio 1990) (approving $35,000 to $55,000 awards to corporate named plaintiffs, from settlement of
27 $18 million in consumer case); Cimarron Pipeline Const., Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Ins., 1993 WL 355466, at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 8, 1993) (approving $10,000
28 awards to corporate named plaintiffs, from settlement of $35 million in securities case).

425190.1

- 25 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 36 of 48

1 from $1,336 to $35,174 for named plaintiffs, equaling roughly 71% of their total damages, in

2 addition to settlement of $1.5 million plus injunctive relief).

3

In sum, the factors courts use in determining the amount of incentive payments

4 include (1) a comparison between the incentive awards and the range of monetary recovery

5 available to the class; Ingram, 200 F.R.D. at 694; Roberts, 979 F. Supp. at 204; (2) time and effort

6 put into the litigation; Van Vranken, 901 F. Supp. at 299; Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016

7 (7th Cir. 1998); (3) whether the litigation will further the public policy underlying the statutory

8 scheme, Roberts, 979 F. Supp. at 201 n.25; (4) risks of retaliation, Roberts, 979 F. Supp. at 202,

9 Cook, 142 F.3d at 1016; and (5) compromise of unique individual claims, Women’s Comm. for

10 Equal Employment Opportunity v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 76 F.R.D. 173, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

11

The average amount awarded to the Class Representatives in this litigation is less

12 than $16,000, inclusive of monetary relief for their claims, which is well within the range of

13 awards courts have permitted named plaintiffs. See Exhibit C to Consent Decree (listing

14 individual Named Plaintiff and Charging Party awards). The valuable efforts of the class

15 representatives and charging parties, their willingness to litigate and pursue their representative

16 claims, and the strength of their claims have resulted in a settlement that will benefit all

17 Settlement Class Members. Bill Lann Lee Preliminary Approval Decl., ¶ 32. The payment of

18 approximately 0.9% of the $40 million total to 16 Class Representatives additional Charging

19 Parties is appropriate. Class Representatives and Charging Parties, unlike Class Members, are

20 required to execute broader releases and to forego payments under the normal Claims process.

21 VII. THE PROPOSED FEE IS LIKEWISE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE.

22

“Attorneys' fees provisions included in proposed class action settlement

23 agreements are, like every other aspect of such agreements, subject to the determination whether

24 the settlement is "fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d

25 938, 963 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)). To be fair, adequate, and reasonable,

26 the fees should be “not unreasonably high.” Id. at 964.

27

Adequate compensation for Class counsel is socially beneficial:

28

425190.1

- 26 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 37 of 48

1

The contingent fee and the class action are “the poor man's keys to

the courthouse.” Both vehicles allow the average citizen and

2

taxpayer to have their injuries redressed and their rights protected.

Both permit persons of limited resources to obtain competent legal

3

counsel, an essential ingredient in our adversary system of justice.

4 Muehler v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 1370, 1375 (D. Minn. 1985).
5 Where, as here, counsel’s efforts create a fund and/or nonmonetary benefits
6 available to a class, “the district court has discretion to use either [the percentage or the lodestar]
7 method.” In re Washington Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir.
8 1994). Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 (1984) (noting that the traditional method for
9 calculating a common fund fee is to award a percentage of the total fund); Six (6) Mexican
10 Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). “Whether a
11 court applies the lodestar or the percentage method, ‘we require only that fee awards in common
12 fund cases be reasonable under the circumstances.’” In re Washington Public Power Supply
13 System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1294 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Florida v. Dunne, 915 F.2d
14 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1990)).
15 First, the lodestar method involves multiplying the number of hours reasonably
16 expended by the reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). The court
17 may reduce the hours claimed where the time was not reasonably expended, but must provide an
18 explanation for the reduction. Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). The
19 hourly rates used must be “in line with those prevailing in the community for services by lawyers
20 of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum, 465 U.S. at 886, 895.
21 “[A]pplying the attorneys’ current rates” is appropriate as a means of compensating for the delay
22 in payment. In re Washington Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th
23 Cir. 1994).
24 The next step in the lodestar method is to determine whether to grant a multiplier,
25 based the Kerr factors (listed below) that are not accounted for in the lodestar determination.
26 Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Washington Public
27 Power Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1303 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that district court
28

425190.1

- 27 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 38 of 48

1 abused its discretion in denying a lodestar multiplier).11

2

Second, the percentage-of-fund method involves awarding a reasonable percentage

3 of the fund to the attorneys. The Ninth Circuit has approved of the approach of setting the

4 benchmark percentage-based fee awards at “25 percent . . .[, which] can then be adjusted upward

5 or downward to account for any unusual circumstances involved in this case.” Paul, Johnson,

6 Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, fees in comparable

7 cases (as a percent of total recovery) are particularly relevant. Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 290 F.3d

8 1043, 1050 n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (approving fee of 28% of $97 million recovery) (surveying 34

9 recent “megafund” cases valued at $50-200 million in recovery, and finding that “most [fee]

10 awards” are between 10% and 30% of the total recovery, and “a bare majority” are “clustered in

11 the 20-30% range”).12 “[O]ne purpose of the percentage method is to encourage early settlements

12 by not penalizing efficient counsel, thus ensuring that competent counsel continue to be willing to

13 undertake risky, complex, and novel litigation.” MCL 4th, § 14.122, p. 193 (citing Deposit Guar.

14 Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 338-39 (1980) (recognizing the importance of a financial

15 incentive to entice qualified attorneys to devote their time to complex, time-consuming cases in

16 which they risk nonpayment)).

17

In the instant case, Plaintiffs used a lodestar method to determine the fee after the

18 substantial injunctive and monetary relief had been negotiated. Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶ 16;

19 Hughes Decl., ¶ 11; Gochanour Decl., ¶ 7. A percentage-based cross-check provides a means of

20 confirming the reasonableness of the fee. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029 (approving of the district

21 11 Where plaintiffs attain relief under both federal and California state law, it is appropriate to enhance the lodestar fee with a multiplier based on state law, even though the multiplier is not
22 available under the federal substantive law. Mangold v. California Public Utilities Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming multiplier of two, where plaintiffs brought both
23 ADEA and FEHA claims); Scherer, at 3 (same).
24 12 Authority in other Circuits is consistent. In re Safety Components Int’l, Inc., 166 F. Supp.2d 72, 101-04 (D.N.J. 2001) (surveying percentage of fund awards across Third Circuit and finding
25 awards well above 25 percent to be common) ; In re Warner Communications Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff’d, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1986) (“[t]raditionally, courts in this
26 Circuit and elsewhere have awarded fees in the 20%-50% range in class actions”); Manners v. American Gen. Life Ins. Co., 1999 WL 33581944, at *29 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 11, 1999) (citing
27 cases and stating that “throughout the Sixth Circuit, attorneys’ fees in class actions have ranged from 20%-50%”); Wise v. Popoff, 835 F. Supp. 977, 980 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (holding that courts
28 routinely award fees ranging from 20-50 percent of the common fund).

425190.1

- 28 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 39 of 48

1 court’s apparent review of the negotiated fees under a lodestar methodology, then conducting a

2 brief percentage review as a cross-check); cf. MCL 4th, § 14.121, p. 178 (noting that “seven

3 courts of appeals permit awarding fees by either the percentage- fee or lodestar method or both

4 (generally using the lodestar as a cross-check)”).

5

Under either method, the court should gauge the reasonableness of the fee by

6 considering the factors listed in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975):

7

(1) the time and labor required,

(2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,

8

(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,

(4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to

9

acceptance of the case,

(5) the customary fee,

10

(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent,

(7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances,

11

(8) the amount involved and the results obtained,

(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys,

12

(10) the 'undesirability' of the case,

(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the

13

client, and

(12) awards in similar cases. 14

Id. at 70 (lodestar method); Loring v. City of Scottsdale, Ariz., 721 F.2d 274, 275 (9th Cir. 1983) 15

(percentage method) (citations omitted). Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 are generally accounted for in 16

the lodestar, and are not necessary to the determination of the multiplier here. They are discussed 17

below because of their relevance to the percentage determination. 18

A. The Time and Labor Required Were Substantial. 19

Class counsel expended substantial time and labor in securing the significant relief 20

for the Class. In total, the private firms and public interest organizations invested approximately 21

13,187 hours of attorney, law clerk, and support staff time. See declarations of Class Counsel. 22

MALDEF in particular has prosecuted the case for six years, since 1999, when the first charge of 23

discrimination was filed with the EEOC. See Saenz Decl., ¶ 12. Once the case was filed, Class 24

Counsel quickly and intensively conducted extensive class discovery in both cases, and engaged 25

in substantial research into the factual and legal issues, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ Mediation 26

Brief. During the six- month mediation, Class Counsel continued to prepare for class certification 27

and trial. Notably, Class counsel prepared and collected over 170 signed Class Member and 28

425190.1

- 29 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 40 of 48

1 witness declarations, and conducted hundreds of other interviews. See Plaintiffs also expended

2 significant resources in extensive expert statistical, industrial, psychological, and sociological

3 analyses of Defendant’s employment data and employment practices. See, e.g., Bill Lann Lee

4 Preliminary Approval Decl., ¶¶ 10, 16.

5

B. The Questions Involved Were Novel and Difficult.

6

The questions involved raised novel and difficult issues. Plaintiffs alleged “image

7 discrimination,” a form of subjective stereotyping. Abercrombie was in a position to defend

8 against substantial backpay exposure with evidence of the opportunity for easy mitigation of

9 damages due to the low-age and part-time nature of the jobs, high industry turnover, and general

10 labor pool mobility. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ emotional distress claims were susceptible to attack

11 at the class certification stage on commonality grounds, and at the merits stage on grounds of

12 provability and degree of harm.

13

C. The Case Required Significant Skill to Perform the Legal Service Properly.

14

The prosecution of this case required significant legal skill, as indicated in the

15 previous factor, and the staying power and managerial competence to pursue the litigation in

16 coordinated fashion with a large team of private and public interest co-counsel, and against a

17 determined adversary. The case also required significant negotiation skills and knowledge of

18 remedial options to conduct a successful protracted negotiation in the extended mediation.

19

D. Class Counsel Were Precluded From Other Employment Due to Acceptance

of the Case. 20

The attorneys who took the laboring oar in the litigation were precluded from other 21

employment by their substantial investment of time and resources in this litigation once the action 22

was filed. 23

E. The Customary Fee and Awards in Similar Cases, Whether Measured Under

24

the Lodestar Method or the Percentage Method, Support the Fee Application.

25

The customary fee in complex employment discrimination class action cases – as

26 confirmed in similar cases13 – is measured either by the lodestar method or as a percentage of the

27 fund generated. Under either method, the fee is reasonable.

28 13 The fifth and twelfth Kerr factors are addressed together here.

425190.1

- 30 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 41 of 48

1

1. The fee is reasonable under the lodestar-multiplier method.

2

The fee request is reasonable in light of the amount of time and expense invested

3 by Class Counsel during the course of investigation and litigation. Class Counsel conducted

4 extensive discovery, including interviewing hundreds of witnesses and potential class members to

5 secure over 170 signed declarations. Class Counsel invested significant resources of time and

6 money in legal, statistical, industrial, psychological, and sociological analyses of the case, and in

7 extensive negotiations. These efforts are all reflected in counsel’s contemporaneously-kept time 8 records. See Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶¶ 9-16, Exs. C-E (attaching fee and cost data for Lieff, 9 Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP); Saenz Decl., ¶¶ 11-19, Exs. B, C, & D (attaching fee and 10 cost data for Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund); Declaration of Kimberly 11 West-Faulcon, ¶¶ 11, 16, Exs. C & D (attaching fee and cost data for NAACP Legal Defense and

12 Educational Fund); Declaration of Minah Park, ¶¶ 14-15, Exs. A & B (attaching fee and cost data 13 for Asian Pacific American Legal Center); D’Urso Decl., ¶¶ 10, 15, Ex. A (attaching fee and cost 14 data for Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.); Declaration of Barry Goldstein, ¶ 10, Ex. C (attaching fee 15 data for Barry Goldstein); Declaration of Jack Lee, ¶¶ 21, 26, Exs. A & C (attaching fee and cost 16 data for Minami, Lew & Tamaki LLP); Declaration of Sidney L. Gold, ¶ 10, Ex. A (attaching fee

17 data for Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.); Declaration of Bryan Clobes, ¶¶ 11, 16, Exs. B & E

18 (attaching fee data for Miller Faucher); Declaration of Cleo Fields, ¶¶ 12, 17, Ex. A & B 19 (attaching fee and cost data for Rainbow/PUSH Coalition); Declaration of James Keller, ¶¶ 11, 20 16, Ex. A (attaching fee and cost data for Gottesman & Associates).14 For the Court’s 21 convenience Exhibit 2 to this document contains a summary compilation of the firms’ and 22 nonprofit organizations’ hours, lodestars, and costs.

23

The raw lodestar for Class Counsel amounts to $4,072,304. The Consent Decree

24 provides for fees and costs together of $7,250,000. Total costs equal roughly $540,000, leaving

25

26

27 14 Calculation of a lodestar based on current hourly rates is appropriate as a means of compensating for delay in payment. Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1989);
28 Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991).

425190.1

- 31 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 42 of 48

1 approximately $6,710,000 as fees.15 This corresponds to a 1.65 multiplier on the raw lodestar

2 amount.

3

When awarding fees based on California law, such as the FEHA claims pleaded by

4 Plaintiffs here, the trial court has substantial discretion to adjust the lodestar. PLCM Group, Inc.

5 v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095-96 (2000); Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc., 82 Cal. App. 4th 19,

6 40-45 (2002). The court may augment the lodestar upon consideration of various factors,

7 including, but not limited to, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill

8 displayed in presenting them, and the contingent nature of the fee award, both from the point

9 view of eventual victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an

10 award. Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d at 25, 49 (1977). In California, courts regularly use a

11 multiplier of 2.0 or greater in statutory fee cases to approximate market fees. See, e.g., Mangold

12 v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478-79 (9th Cir. 1995) (2.0); City of Oakland v.

13 Oakland Raiders, 203 Cal. App. 3d 78, 82-85 (1988) (2.34); Coalition for Los Angeles County

14 Planning in the Pub. Interest v. Bd. of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, 76 Cal. App. 3d 241,

15 251 (1977) (slightly above 2.0). In fact, “[m]ultipliers in the 3-4 range are common in lodestar

16 awards for lengthy and complex class action litigation.” Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,

17 901 F. Supp. 294, 298 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Wershba v Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224,

18 255 (2001) (“Multipliers can range from 2 to 4 or even higher.”); In re Unisys Corp. Retiree

19 Medical Benefits ERISA Litig., 886 F. Supp. 445, 482 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (noting that “the range of

20 multipliers in large and complicated class actions has ranged from 2.26 to 4.5”) (citing Behrens v.

21 Wometco Enterprises, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534, 549 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (listing 9 cases in that range and

22 awarding a 3.0 multiplier)).

23

By comparison, this Court in Scherrer v. Group Voyagers, Inc., No. C 99-04834,

24 (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2005), a class action asserting employees’ overtime pay rights, awarded

25

26 15 At the time of the Preliminary Approval hearing, Class Counsel estimated that approximately $400,000 of this amount would be allocated to costs. Since that time, Class Counsel have
27 received bills for further costs, and the total cost figure is roughly $540,000 at this point. Regardless, because the fees and costs amount is fixed, the increased costs do not change the
28 amount paid by Abercrombie or the amounts recovered by the Class Members.

425190.1

- 32 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 43 of 48

1 $3,286,916 in fees after a settlement for $14-15 million. Id. at 2, 10 (Bill Lann Lee Decl., ¶ ___,

2 Ex. K). There, the Court granted a multiplier of 1.4 based on an analysis of the Kerr factors.

3 Group Voyagers is distinguishable in four ways. First, Abercrombie Class counsel was efficient,

4 bringing this complex case to resolution prior to moving for class certification less than two years

5 after filing, whereas the parties in Group Voyagers spent more than four years and “wasteful[ly]”

6 went to the brink of trial twice. Id. at 10. Second, Abercrombie Class counsel secured substantial

7 injunctive relief to prevent recurrence of alleged discriminatory policies and practices and six-

8 year monitoring, whereas the relief in Group Voyagers was solely monetary. Id. at 1-2. Third,

9 the effective percentage of total recovery sought here (14%) is less than that sought (30-31%) or

10 actually awarded (18-19%) in Group Voyagers. Fourth, comparable complex employment

11 discrimination consent decrees, as discussed below, have involved higher percentage awards.

12

2. The fee is also reasonable under the percentage method.

13

As outlined above, the Ninth Circuit benchmark percentage award is 25%. Paul,

14 Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d at 272; Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 290 F.3d at 1050 n.4

15 (finding that “a bare majority” of recent awards in “mega fund” cases are “clustered in the 20-

16 30% range”). The Manual for Complex Litigation observes that “[a]ttorney fees awarded under

17 the percentage method are often between 25% and 30% of the fund.” MCL 4th § 14.121, p. 188

18 (“Awarding attorneys 25% of a common fund represents a typical benchmark.”); id. at p. 188

19 n.488 (citing In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) for the proposition

20 that the benchmark is “25% with adjustments up to 33% for complexity, risk, and nonmonetary

21 results”).

22

Recent comparable employment discrimination settlements have provided higher

23 fees than that sought by Plaintiffs’ Counsel as a percent of the total fund paid by defendant,

24 generally ranging from 18 to 25%, even where the absolute amounts were higher. See, e.g.,

25 Boeing at 56 (stating class counsel’s intent to seek 25% of the fund as fees, up to $15 million,

26 plus costs up to $3 million); Publix at 109-10 (providing 22% or $18 million in fees and costs for

27 work performed before and after approval date on top of $63.5 million in monetary relief); Rent-

28 a-Center at 58 (providing up to 22%, or fee up to $10.5 million, plus costs of up to $775,000, to

425190.1

- 33 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 44 of 48

1 be paid out of the settlement fund of $47 million); Shoney’s at 60; 86-89 (awarding 20%, or $25.5

2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs on top of a monetary fund of $105 million) ; Coca-Cola at 36-

3 37 (awarding 18%, or $20 million on top of $90 million in monetary relief).

4

Here, the amount payable by Abercrombie for the Class’s benefit is roughly

5 $49.45 million. 16 The proposed, effective percentage fee of 14% of total monetary recovery is

6 reasonable in light of the customary fee in comparable contingent employment discrimination and

7 other cases.17

8

F. The Contingent Nature of the Fee Supports the Proposed Award.

9

The contingent nature of the case also supports the fee request. As described

10 above, Class Counsel were not guaranteed success once they filed suit. Bill Lann Lee

11 Preliminary Approval Decl., ¶¶ 33-34 (describing risk at trial and appellate stages, and substantial

12 potential difficulty and delay in achieving significant injunctive relief). Furthermore, Plaintiffs

13 faced a determined opponent with substantial defenses.

14

Reward for contingency risk in cases such as this one is appropriate in the Ninth

15 Circuit. “It is an established practice in the private legal market to reward attorneys for taking the

16 risk of non-payment by paying them a premium over their normal hourly rates for winning

17 contingency cases. Contingent fees that may far exceed the market value of the services if

18 rendered on a non-contingent basis are accepted in the legal profession as a legitimate way of

19 assuring competent representation for plaintiffs who could not afford to pay on an hourly basis

20 regardless whether they win or lose.” In re Washington Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig.,

21 19 F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Richard Posner, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW § 21.9,

22 at 534-35 (3d ed. 1986) and other authority); In re Cont’l Ill. Sec. Litig., 962 F.2d 566, 569 (7th

23 Cir. 1992) (“[T]he failure to make any provision for risk of loss may result in systematic

24 undercompensation of Class Counsel in a class action case, where as we have said the only fee

25 16 The monetary relief of $40,000,000, plus fees and costs of $7,250,000, plus $600,000 for future monitoring, plus $600,000 in notice costs paid by Abercrombie, plus imputed interest for one
26 year at 2.5% of roughly $1,000,000, equals approximately $49,450,000.
27 17 The denominator of the percentage calculation includes the fees and costs because “those fees are still best viewed as an aspect of the class’ recovery.” In re General Motors Corp. Pick-up
28 Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 821 (3rd Cir. 1995).

425190.1

- 34 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 45 of 48

1 that counsel can obtain is, in the nature of the case, a contingent one.”); In re Shell Oil Refinery,

2 155 F.R.D. 552, 571 (E.D. La. 1993) (observing that the contingency fee system “permits a

3 greater recovery for successful cases, thereby rewarding investment in successes and offsetting

4 the losses from unsuccessful cases.”). Such is the law in California as well. Ketchum v. Moses,

5 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131-32 (2001).

6

G. The Time Limitations Imposed by the Client and the Circumstances Support

the Fee Award. 7

The compressed and overlapping discovery, mediation, and class certification 8

phases of the litigation resulted from the Court’s pretrial schedule. The parties reached settlement 9

prior to class certification, saving the parties and the Court time and resources. 10

H. The Amount Involved Was Substantial and the Results Obtained Were

11

Exceptional, Including $40 million for the Class as Well as Robust Injunctive

Relief. 12

The amount involved and results obtained strongly support the fee award. Class 13

Counsel secured substantial injunctive relief, as described above, as well as the approximately 14

$40 million in cash compensation for the Class, separate from fees or costs. The value of the 15

forward-looking injunctive relief is not quantifiable, and will inure to the benefit of Class 16

Members and other minority and female applicants and employees of Abercrombie for years to 17

come. 18

Courts customarily take nonmonetary relief into account when valuing the benefit 19

conferred upon the class. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1049 (noting that a higher fee was warranted in 20

part because “counsel’s performance generated benefits beyond the cash settlement fund,” such as 21

the defendant’s agreement to hire class members and “change its personnel classification 22

practices”); id. (an upward adjustment to the lodestar is appropriate “to reflect the benefits to the 23

public flowing from [the] litigation”) (quoting Bebchick v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n, 24

805 F.2d 396, 408 (D.C. Cir. 1986)); Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 364 (9th Cir. 25

1996) (instructing district court, “in determining a reasonable fee award on remand,” to “consider 26

not only the monetary results but also the significant nonmonetary results [plaintiff] achieved for 27

himself and other members of society”) ("[A] civil rights plaintiff seeks to vindicate important 28

425190.1

- 35 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 46 of 48

1 civil and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms.") (quoting Riverside

2 v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986) (plurality opinion)); Loring v. City of Scottsdale, Ariz., 721

3 F.2d 274, 275 (9th Cir. 1983) (reversing district court’s fee determination for failure to take into

4 account nonmonetary benefits to class).

5

I. Class Counsel Have a High Degree of Experience, Reputation, and Ability.

6

Class counsel’s experience, reputation, and ability also justify the fee award. The

7 attorneys contributing the bulk of the work to the case, Bill Lann Lee for Lieff, Cabraser,

8 Heimann & Bernstein, Thomas A. Saenz of MALDEF, and Martin D’Urso of Kohn, Swift &

9 Graf, have extensive experience litigating complex employment discrimination class actions, and

10 other class actions in general. See their Declarations.

11

J. The Case Was Somewhat Undesirable.

12

The undesirability of the case is a minor factor supporting the award.

13 Abercrombie is a well-established, huge corporation that had withstood the charges of

14 discrimination on file with the EEOC until these lawsuits were filed.

15

K. Class Counsel’s Professional Relationship with the Class Representatives Was

Longstanding. 16

As described above, the nature and length of the professional relationships 17

between Class Counsel and the Class Representatives support the fee award. Class Counsel 18

worked diligently not only to pursue compensation for the Class Representatives but also to seek 19

substantial programmatic changes in Abercrombie’s approach to hiring, promotions, and 20

diversity, in accordance with their clients’ wishes. 21

CONCLUSION 22

For all the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that this Court grant 23

final approval to the Consent Decree with the following exceptions: [to be provided]. 24

25

26

27

28

425190.1

- 36 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 47 of 48

1 Respectfully submitted,

2 Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)
3 Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Elizabeth A. Alexander (pro hac vice)
4 Jahan C. Sagafi (SBN 224887) Nirej S. Sekhon (SBN 213358)
5 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
6 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
7 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
8 Thomas A. Saenz (SBN 159430)
9 Shaheena Ahmad Simons (SBN 225520) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
10 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street
11 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512
12 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Julie Su Minah Park ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL
CENTER 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
Kimberly West-Faulcon NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017

13 Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D’Urso
14 Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
15 One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107
16 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
17 Jack W. Lee, Esq. (SBN 071626)
18 Lisa Duarte, Esq. (SBN 169750) John Ota, Esq. (SBN 195532)
19 MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor
20 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000
21 Facsimile: Fax (415) 398-3887

Bryan L. Clobes Melody Forrester Jeffrey D. Lerner MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Cleo Fields THE FIELDS LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 2147 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA

22 James F. Keller Zachary Gottesman
23 GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES 2121 URS Center
24 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202
25
26
27
28

Sidney L. Gold Traci M. Greenberg SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
Barry L. Goldstein GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,
BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Avenue Oakland, CA 94612

425190.1

- 37 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 48 of 48

1

Dated: April 11, 2005

2

By: /s/ Bill Lann Lee

Bill Lann Lee

3

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

425190.1

- 38 -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLTFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROP OSED CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125E-X2HIBFIiTle1d 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 68

! :;<< =>?? =ee A0:/ !+)%&#B Ce<<D E. 3eFGHID A0:/ !(!(!'B
# 1Je K. -eFJ>?teM A0:/ !'%(+*B 1<;M>NetO 5. 5<eP>?IeF AQFH O>R J;ReB
$ S>O>? -. 0>T>U; A0:/ ##%))(B /;FeV 0. 0eWOH? A0:/ #!$$&)B
% =71XX8 -5:450148 K17E5// 9 :14/0217/8 ==Y
& #(& :>tteFD 0tFeet8 $+tO X<HHF 0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!!!6$$$*
' 2e<eQOH?e[ A%!&B *&'6!+++ X>Rs;G;<e[ A%!&B *&'6!++)
( 2OHG>s 5. 0>e?M A0:/ !&*%$+B
) 0O>Oee?> 5OG>I 0;GH?s A0:/ ##&&#+B E1\7-5/ 5E147-5/ =1]5= 31X1/01
* 5/3 13^-527./5= X^/3 '$% 0H_tO 0QF;?T 0tFeet
!+ =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!% 2e<eQOH?e[ A#!$B '#*6#&!#
!! X>Rs;G;<e[ A#!$B '#*6+#''
!# SHseQO -. CHO? E>Ft;? S. 3`^FsH
!$ K;<>FD -HOe? C.K/8 0a7X2 9 ]45X8 Y.-.
!% .?e 0H_tO :FH>I 0tFeet8 0_;te #!++ YO;<>Ie<QO;>8 Y5 !*!+(
!& 2e<eQOH?e[ A#!&B #$)6!(++ X>Rs;G;<e[ A#!&B #$)6!*')
!' S>RW a. =ee8 1sq. A0:/ +(!'#'B
!( =;s> 3_>Fte8 1sq. A0:/ !'*(&+B SHO? .t>8 1sq. A0:/ !*&&$#B
!) E7/5E78 =1a 9 25E5C7 ==Y $'+ YHst 0tFeet8 )tO X<HHF
!* 0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!+) 2e<eQOH?e[ A%!&B ())6*+++
#+ X>Rs;G;<e[ X>P A%!&B $*)6$))(

3H_T<>s 4. cH_?T 0>?IF> 5. Ce>F?eD X541==5 :45^/ 9 E5421=8 ==Y 4_ss :_;<I;?T8 $+tO X<HHF #$& EH?tTHGeFD 0tFeet 0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!+% 2e<eQOH?e[ A%!&B *&%6%%++ X>Rs;G;<e[ A%!&B *&%6%%)!
2OHG>s :Fe??>? 4;IT<eD SH?>tO>? E. /HFG>? 0>?IF> S. 5?IeFsH? E>FW 5. C?_eJe d.4c08 052148 01cE.^4 9 Y1501 ==Y &# 1>st ]>D 0tFeet Y... :HP !++) -H<_GN_s8 .K %$#!'6!++) 2e<eQOH?e[ '!%6%'%6'%++ X>Rs;G;<e[ '!%6%'%6'$&+
5??> c. Y>FW A0:/ !'%#%#B YeteF X. =>_F> A0:/ !!'%#'B ^.0. 1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c -.EE7007./ #&& 1>st 2eGQ<e 0tFeet8 %tO X<HHF =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!#
SHO? -. Ke?IF;RWsH? A7= 0:/ !!)(&)*B ]FeTHFD E. ]HRO>?H_F A7= 0:/ '#!+)+%B ^.0. 1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c -.EE7007./ &++ aest E>I;sH? 0tFeet8 0_;te #)++ -O;R>TH8 7= '+''!

#! Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants f5II;t;H?>< RH_?se< <;steI H? s;T?>t_Fe Q>Teg

##

^/7213 025210 370247-2 -.^42

/.42K14/ 370247-2 .X -5=7X.4/75

#$

#% 13^543. ]./h5=1h8 5/2K./c

#&

.-5EY.8 1/-54/5-7./ ]^271441h8 S.K5/ E./2.c58 S^5/-54=.0 ]iE1h6

#'

E./21S5/.8 S1//7X14 =^8 5^027/ -K^8 7dc /]^c1/8 5/]1=7/1 a^8 147- X7]K28

#(

-54=5 ]4^::8 35d73 -^=Y1YY148 Y5247-1 3.^]=5008 >?I 4.:574

#) 0K144.38 :45/3c K5aC >?I 5/341

->se /Hs. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ >?I +%6%($!
CONSENT DECREE

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 2 of 68

! 0211=18 H? NeO><U HU tOeGse<Jes >?I ><< HtOeFs s;G;<>F<D s;t_>teI8
# Y<>;?t;UUs8
$ J.
% 5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K 02.4108 7/-.8 59X
& -5=7X.4/758 ==-8 59X .K7.8 7/-.8 >?I 5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K E5/5]1E1/2
' -..8

(

3eUe?I>?ts.

)
1=7h5:12K a102 >?I S1//7X14 =^8 *
Y<>;?t;UUs8 !+
J. !!
5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K 02.4108 7/-.8 59X !# -5=7X.4/758 ==-8 59X .K7.8 7/-.8 >?I
5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K E5/5]1E1/2 !$ -..8

!%

3eUe?I>?ts.

!&
1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c !' -.EE7007./8

!(

J.

!) 5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K 02.4108 7/-.8 59X
-5=7X.4/758 ==-8 59X .K7.8 7/-.8 >?I !* 5:14-4.E:71 9 X72-K E5/5]1E1/2
-.. #+
3eUe?I>?ts. #!

##

#$

#%

#&

#'

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 3 of 68

!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

#

Page

$ 7. 7/24.3^-27./ .............................................................................................................. !

% 77. Y^4Y.010 .X 2K1 -./01/2 31-411 ...................................................................... ! 777. 31X7/727./0.................................................................................................................... #
& 7d. =727]527./ :5-C]4.^/3......................................................................................... %

'

5. 2Oe ]H?M><eM =;t;T>t;H?.......................................................................................... %

( ) d.

:. 2Oe 11.- =;t;T>t;H? .............................................................................................. ' -. 2Oe aest =;t;T>t;H? ................................................................................................ ( S^47037-27./.................................................................................................................. )

* d7. 1XX1-27d1 35210 5/3 3^4527./ .X 2K1 31-411........................................... )

!+ d77. 0122=1E1/2 -=500 ..................................................................................................... *

d777. 41=1501 .X -=57E0 7/ Y47d521 5-27./0 5/3 11.- 5-27./ .................... !+

!!

5. 4e<e>se HU -<>;Gs ND 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss................................................................. !+

!#

:. 4e<e>se HU -<>;Gs ND Y<>;?t;UUs ............................................................................. !!

!$

-. ^?W?Hj? -<>;Gs................................................................................................... !#

3. 11.- 4e<e>se....................................................................................................... !#

!%

1. /H 2H<<;?T HU K>F>ssGe?t -<>;Gs......................................................................... !$

!&

X. /H :>F tH X_t_Fe -<>;Gs ....................................................................................... !$

!' 7\. E70-1==5/1.^0 Y4.d707./0................................................................................. !$

5. /H 5IG;ss;H? HU =;>N;<;tD .................................................................................... !$

!(

:. EHI;U;R>t;H? >?I 0eJeF>N;<;tD HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee .......................................... !%

!)

-. 3_tD tH 0_QQHFt >?I 3eUe?I tOe 3eRFee ............................................................... !&

!* \.
#+

3. 1PeR_t;H? 7? -H_?teFQ>Fts..................................................................................... !& ]1/145= 1e^725:=1 Y4.d707./0 ........................................................................ !& 5. ]e?eF>< 7?V_?Rt;Je YFHJ;s;H?s ............................................................................... !&

#!

:. 3;sQ_te 4esH<_t;H? >?I 1?UHFReGe?t YFHReI_Fes................................................. !'

##

-. E>FWet;?T .............................................................................................................. !*

\7. 5:14-4.E:71`0 7/214/5= Y4.-13^410 X.4 7EY=1E1/27/]

#$

1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 5/3 37d14072c Y45-27-10 .......................................... #+

#%

5. -Fe>t;H? HU .UU;Re HU 3;JeFs;tD ............................................................................. #+

:. /Ht;Re >?I YHst;?T ................................................................................................ ##

#&

-. 11. >?I 3;JeFs;tD 2F>;?;?T ................................................................................. #$

#'

3. 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe ............................................................................... #&

#(

1. YeFUHFG>?Re 1J><_>t;H?s ...................................................................................... #)

#)

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 5/3 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 4 of 68

!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARH?t;?_eIB

#

Page

$ \77. S.: 5/5=c0708 E7/7E^E 1=7]7:7=72c 41e^741E1/208 S.:

-47214758 41-4^72E1/28 K747/]8 S.: 5007]/E1/20 5/3

%

E5/5]1475= Y4.E.27./ 5/3 025XX7/] ......................................................... #)

&

5. SHN 5?><Ds;s >?I SHN -F;teF;>................................................................................ #)

:. 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T......................................................................................... #*

'

-. E>?>TeF;>< YFHGHt;H?s ......................................................................................... $!

( \777. 5XX74E527d1 41-4^727/] 1XX.420 .................................................................... $!

)

5. 3;JeFs;tD 4eRF_;teFs .............................................................................................. $!

:. 5IJeFt;seGe?ts...................................................................................................... $#

*

-. 4eRF_;t;?T 1Je?ts .................................................................................................. $#

!+

3. 3;JeFs;tD -H?s_<t>?t ............................................................................................. $#

!!

1. 3HR_Ge?t>t;H? ...................................................................................................... $#

\7d. :1/-KE54C0 ............................................................................................................... $$

!#

5. ]e?eF>< YF;?R;Q<es ................................................................................................. $$

!$

:. 7?teF;G K;F;?T ]H><s ............................................................................................. $%

!%

-. 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te ]H><s ............................................................................................ $)

\d. 41Y.427/]8 41-.43C11Y7/]8 5/3 -.EY=75/-1 E1127/]0 ...................... $*

!&

5. 3HR_Ge?ts 2H :e YFeseFJeI XHF 2Oe 3_F>t;H? HU 2Oe 3eRFee ............................ $*

!'

:. 3HR_Ge?ts tH :e E>;?t>;?eI UHF 2jH ce>Fs ....................................................... $*

!(

-. 5RRess tH 3HR_Ge?ts ............................................................................................ $*

3. 4eQHFt;?T 0ROeI_<e ............................................................................................... %+

!)

1. -H?te?ts HU tOe 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFts.................................................... %+

!*

X. -HGQ<;>?Re Eeet;?Ts............................................................................................ %#

#+

]. 0t>t_s -H?UeFe?Re j;tO -H_Ft ............................................................................... %$

\d7. E./72.47/] .X 7EY=1E1/2527./ ...................................................................... %$

#!

5. -H_Ft65QQH;?teI EH?;tHF ..................................................................................... %$

## \d77. E./1254c 41=71X8 /.27-1 5/3 -=57E0 Y4.-13^41 .................................. %(

#$

5. 1st>N<;sOGe?t HU 0ett<eGe?t X_?I ........................................................................ %(

:. 3;stF;N_t;H? HU 0ett<eGe?t X_?I............................................................................ %*

#%

!. -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes >?I 11.- -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es.................................. %*

#&

#. 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss ........................................................................................ %*

#'

-. /Ht;Re .................................................................................................................... %*

!. E>;<eI /Ht;Re............................................................................................ %*

#(

#. Y_N<;sOeI /Ht;Re ....................................................................................... &+

#)

3. .NVeRt;H?s >?I 1PR<_s;H?s .................................................................................... &+

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 5 of 68

!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARH?t;?_eIB

#

Page

$

!. .NVeRt;H?s ................................................................................................. &+

%

#. 1PR<_s;H?s ................................................................................................. &!

$. 4esR;ss;H? HU -<>ss EeGNeF .Qt6._ts ..................................................... &!

&

%. .Qt6._t -FeI;ts......................................................................................... &#

'

&. 3eUe?I>?t`s 4esR;ss;H? HU 5TFeeGe?t ...................................................... &#

(

1. -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>t;H? .......................................................................................... &$

X. 0_NG;ss;H? HU -<>;G XHFGs.................................................................................. &$

)

]. 3eRe>seI -<>;G>?ts .............................................................................................. &%

*

K. 3eteFG;?;?T 1<;T;N;<;tD ......................................................................................... &%

!+

7. =>te6X;<eI -<>;Gs.................................................................................................. &&

S. 5QQe><s HU -<>;Gs 1<;T;N;<;tD................................................................................ &&

!!

C. -<>;G>?t 7?UHFG>t;H? YFHJ;IeI ND 5NeFRFHGN;e ................................................. &&

!#

=. 5<<HR>t;H? Y<>?...................................................................................................... &'

!$

E. 3;stF;N_t;H? HU tOe EH?et>FD 5j>FIs ................................................................... &'

/. 5<<HR>t;H? HU EH?et>FD 5j>FIs............................................................................ &(

!%

.. -D YFes X_?I ......................................................................................................... &(

!&

Y. 4eQHFt UFHG -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ....................................................................... &)

!' \d777. 522.4/1c0` X1108 -.020 5/3 1\Y1/010 ........................................................ &)

5. :>s;s UHF 5j>FI HU Xees8 -Hsts >?I 1PQe?ses ...................................................... &)

!(

:. Y>DGe?t HU 5j>FI................................................................................................. &*

!)

!*

#+

#!

##

#$

#%

#&

#'

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 6 of 68

! I. INTRODUCTION

#

2O;s -H?se?t 3eRFee Ak3eRFeelB O>s Nee? JH<_?t>F;<D e?teFeI ;?tH ND tOe Q>Ft;es UHF tOe

$ Q_FQHse HU U;?><<D FesH<J;?T tOe <;t;T>t;H? Netjee? tOeG.

%

2O;s -H?se?t 3eRFee ;?R<_Ies > VH;?t st>teGe?t HU tOe Q_FQHses HU tOe 3eRFee8 >

& IesRF;Qt;H? HU tOe O;stHFD HU tOe <;t;T>t;H?8 >?I J>F;H_s s_Nst>?t;Je QFHJ;s;H?s >TFeeI _QH? ND tOe

' Q>Ft;es. 5s > Fes_<t HU ?eTHt;>t;H?s s_QeFJ;seI ND > GeI;>tHF8 tOe Q>Ft;es O>Je Fe>ROeI > JH<_?t>FD

( >TFeeGe?t tO>t ;s RH?t>;?eI ;? tO;s 3eRFee.

) II. PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE

*

2Oe Q>Ft;es O>Je e?teFeI ;?tH tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee UHF tOe UH<<Hj;?T Q_FQHses[

!+

5.! 2H FesH<Je ><< I;sQ_tes RHJeFeI ND tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee ;? s_RO > j>D >s tH >JH;I

!! U_FtOeF ePQe?s;Je >?I QFHtF>RteI <;t;T>t;H?.

!#

:.! 2H e?s_Fe eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD UHF 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>?

!$ 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs8 >?I jHGe? >QQ<D;?T tH8 >?I jHFW;?T j;tO;?8 stHFes HQeF>teI ND IeUe?I>?ts.

!%

-.! 2H e?s_Fe eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD UHF 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8 =>t;?H

!& jHGe? >?I 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? >QQ<D;?T tH8 >?I jHFW;?T j;tO;?8 stHFes HQeF>teI ND

!' IeUe?I>?ts.

!(

3.! 2H QFHJ;Ie UHF tOe ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU FeRF_;tGe?t8 se<eRt;H? >?I QeFsH??e< sDsteGs

!) tO>t j;<< e?s_Fe tO>t 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs >?I jHGe? >Fe RH?s;IeFeI UHF

!* FeRF_;tGe?t8 O;Fe8 VHN >ss;T?Ge?t >?I G>?>TeF;>< QFHGHt;H? UHF jO;RO tOeD >Fe ;?teFesteI >?I

#+ q_><;U;eI H? > ?H?6I;sRF;G;?>tHFD N>s;s.

#!

1.! 2H QFHJ;Ie UHF ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU FeRF_;tGe?t8 se<eRt;H? >?I QeFsH??e< sDsteGs

## tO>t j;<< e?s_Fe tO>t 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8 =>t;?H jHGe?8 >?I 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? >Fe

#$ RH?s;IeFeI UHF FeRF_;tGe?t8 O;Fe8 VHN >ss;T?Ge?t >?I G>?>TeF;>< QFHGHt;H? UHF jO;RO tOeD >Fe

#% ;?teFesteI >?I q_><;U;eI H? > ?H?6I;sRF;G;?>tHFD N>s;s.

#&

X.! 2H RFe>te >? ePQeI;teI >?I eUU;R;e?t QFHReI_Fe UHF ;GQ<eGe?t;?T eq_;t>N<e Fe<;eU

#' Q_Fs_>?t tH tOe teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFeem >?I

#(

].! 2H QFHJ;Ie U;?><;tD tH tOe FesH<_t;H? HU ><< R<>;Gs >?I IeUe?ses >sseFteI ;? tOese

#) R;J;< >Rt;H?s.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 7 of 68

! III. DEFINITIONS

#

5.! k5NeFRFHGN;el HF tOe k-HGQ>?Dl Ge>?s 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO 0tHFes8 7?R.m 59X

$ -><;UHF?;>8 ==-m 59X .O;H8 7?R.m >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO E>?>TeGe?t -H.8 >s je<< >s e>RO HU

% tOe;F Q>Fe?ts8 s_Ns;I;>F;es8 >UU;<;>tes8 HUU;ReFs8 I;FeRtHFs8 >Te?ts8 G>?>TeGe?t8 s_RRessHFs >?I

& >ss;T?s >?I tOHse ;? >Rt;Je RH?ReFt HF Q>Ft;R;Q>t;H? j;tO tOeG8 HF >?D HU tOeG. 2Oe teFGs HU tO;s

' 3eRFee RHJeF ><< stHFes HQeF>teI ND 5NeFRFHGN;e jOetOeF _?IeF tOe ?>Ge 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO8

( KH<<;steF8 >NeFRFHGN;e8 HF >?D HtOeF RH?ReQt HQeF>teI ND 5NeFRFHGN;e.

)

:.! k5IJeFse ;GQ>Rtl sO><< Ne IeU;?eI ;? > G>??eF RH?s;ste?t j;tO 2;t<e d77 <>j.

*

-.! k5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?l Ge>?s ><< QeFsH?s O>J;?T HF;T;?s ;? >?D HU tOe N<>RW F>R;><

!+ TFH_Qs HU 5UF;R>.

!!

3.! k5QQFHJ>< 3>tel Ge>?s tOe I>te _QH? jO;RO tOe -H_Ft s;T?s tO;s 3eRFee8 O>J;?T

!# IeteFG;?eI tO>t ;t ;s U>;F8 >Ieq_>te >?I Fe>sH?>N<e >UteF[ A;B ?Ht;Re tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ssm A;;B

!$ HQQHFt_?;tD tH HQt H_t HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss j;tO FesQeRt tH GH?et>FD Fe<;eUm A;;;B HQQHFt_?;tD tH

!% s_NG;t t;Ge<D HNVeRt;H? tH tOe 3eRFeem A;JB >QQFHQF;>te I;sRHJeFD HU tOe sQeR;U;Rs HU >?D s_RO

!& t;Ge<D HNVeRt;H?sm >?I AJB > Oe>F;?T H? tOe U>;F?ess HU tOe sett<eGe?t.

!'

1.! k5s;>? 5GeF;R>?l Ge>?s ><< QeFsH?s O>J;?T HF;T;?s ;? >?D HU tOe HF;T;?>< QeHQ<es

!( HU tOe X>F 1>st8 0H_tOe>st 5s;>8 tOe 7?I;>? 0_NRH?t;?e?t8 HF tOe Y>R;U;R 7s<>?Is. 2O;s >Fe>

!) ;?R<_Ies8 N_t ;s ?Ht <;G;teI tH8 -O;?>8 7?I;>8 S>Q>?8 CHFe>8 tOe YO;<;QQ;?e 7s<>?Is8 >?I 0>GH>.

!*

X.! k5ssHR;>tesl Ge>?s ><< ;?6stHFe OH_F<D HF G>?>TeF;>< eGQ<HDees.

#+

].! k:e?ROG>FW YHs;t;H?sl Ge>?s :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je >?I E>?>TeF6;?62F>;?;?T

#! QHs;t;H?s.

##

K.!

k:est 1UUHFtsl Ge>?s ;GQ<eGe?t;?T >?I >Ieq_>te<D U_?I;?T > Q<>? Fe>sH?>N<D

#$ Ies;T?eI tH RHGQ<D j;tO ><< tOe sQeR;U;R HNVeRt;Jes tH jO;RO tOe Nest eUUHFts >Fe I;FeRteI.

#%

7.! k-O>FT;?T Y>FtDl Ge>?s =eW;sO> :H?I_F>?t8 2HFFeD 3;RWsH?8 0t>?<eD 1<GHFe8

#& 2;GHtOD ]FeeF8 1F;R S>sH? >?I S>sH? /He<.

#'

S.! k-<>ss -H_?se<l Ge>?s ><< RH_?se< HU FeRHFI UHF tOe -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes ;? tOe

#( YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 8 of 68

!

C.! k-<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jesl HF kY<>;?t;UUsl Ge>?s 1I_>FIH ]H?M><eM8 5?tOH?D

# .R>GQH8 1?R>F?>R;H? ]_t;eFFeM8 :F>?ID K>jW8 SHO>? EH?tHD>8 S_>?R>F<Hs ]nGeM6EH?teV>?H8

$ Se??;UeF =_8 5_st;? -O_8 7JD /T_De?8 5?Te<;?e a_8 1F;R X;TOt8 ->F<> ]F_NN8 3>J;I -_<QeQQeF8

% Y>tF;Re 3H_T<>ss8 4HN>;F 0OeFFHI8 5?IFe 0tee<e8 >?I 1<;M>NetO aest.

&

=.! k-H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?l Ge>?s tOe YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s >?I tOe 11.- -;J;<

' 5Rt;H? tO>t tOe Q>Ft;es st;Q_<>te tOeD j;<< GHJe8 HF O>Je ><Fe>ID GHJeI8 tH RH?sH<;I>te NeUHFe

( S_ITe 0_s>? 7<<stH? UHF Q_FQHses HU >QQFHJ>< >?I HJeFs;TOt HU tO;s sett<eGe?t.

)

E.! k-H_Ftl Ge>?s tOe ^?;teI 0t>tes 3;stF;Rt -H_Ft UHF tOe /HFtOeF? 3;stF;Rt HU

* -><;UHF?;>.

!+

/.! k11.- -;J;< 5Rt;H?l Ge>?s EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.8 /.3. -><.

!! ->se /H. +%6%($!.

!#

..! kX;?>< 5QQFHJ><l Ge>?s tOe e?tFD HU tO;s 3eRFee H? tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te ND tOe

!$ ^?;teI 0t>tes 3;stF;Rt -H_Ft UHF tOe /HFtOeF? 3;stF;Rt HU -><;UHF?;>8 >?I e;tOeF[ A!B tOe ePQ;F>t;H?

!% HU tOe t;Ge UHF U;<;?T HU > I;FeRt >QQe>< UFHG tOe -H_Ft`s >QQFHJ>< HU tOe 3eRFee j;tOH_t tOe U;<;?T

!& HU > ?Ht;Re HU >QQe><8 HF A#B ;U > t;Ge<D I;FeRt >QQe>< ;s U;<eI8 tOe U;?>< FesH<_t;H? HU tOe >QQe><

!' A;?R<_I;?T >?D Feq_ests UHF FeOe>F;?T >?IoHF Qet;t;H?s UHF > jF;t HU ReFt;HF>F;B8 Fes_<t;?T ;? U;?><

!( V_I;R;>< >QQFHJ>< HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee.

!)

Y.! k]HHI X>;tO .UUeFl Ge>?s >? HUUeF HU eGQ<HDGe?t 66 _?IeF tOe s>Ge teFGs >?I

!* RH?I;t;H?s HU eGQ<HDGe?t Ae.T.8 OH_Fs8 sO;Uts HF <HR>t;H?s HUUeFeIB HUUeFeI tH s;G;<>F<D s;t_>teI

#+ ;?I;J;I_><s jOH FeRe;Je eGQ<HDGe?t HUUeFs 66 tO>t ;s G>Ie tH >? ;?I;J;I_>< jOH O>s s_NG;tteI >

#! jF;tte? HF e<eRtFH?;R >QQ<;R>t;H? UHF > VHN.

##

e.! k=>t;?Hl Ge>?s ><< QeFsH?s HU EeP;R>?8 Y_eFtH 4;R>?8 -_N>?8 -e?tF>< 5GeF;R>?8

#$ 0H_tO 5GeF;R>? HF HtOeF 0Q>?;sO R_<t_Fe HF HF;T;?8 FeT>FI<ess HU F>Re.

#%

4.! k=e>I -H_?se<l Ge>?s =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9 :eF?ste;?8 ==Ym tOe EeP;R>?

#& 5GeF;R>? =eT>< 3eUe?se >?I 1I_R>t;H?>< X_?I AE5=31XBm >?I CHO?8 0j;Ut 9 ]F>U

#' FeQFese?t;?T tOe Gonzalez E;?HF;tD R<>ssm >?I E;?>G;8 =ej 9 2>G>W; FeQFese?t;?T tOe West

#( Te?IeF R<>ss.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 9 of 68

!

0.! kE;?HF;tDl Ge>?s ><< 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 >?I =>t;?Hs.

# kE;?HF;tD ]FH_Ql Ge>?s e>RO HU tOese tOFee TFH_Qs.

$

2.! kE;?HF;tD aHGe?l Ge>?s 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? UeG><es8 =>t;?> UeG><es8 >?I 5s;>?

% 5GeF;R>? UeG><es.

&

^.! kYFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>tel Ge>?s tOe I>te _QH? jO;RO tOe -H_Ft e?teFs >?

' .FIeF QFe<;G;?>F;<D >QQFHJ;?T tO;s 3eRFee8 Qe?I;?T ?Ht;Re A>? HQQHFt_?;tD tH HQt H_t HU tOe

( ?Ht;ReB8 >? HQQHFt_?;tD tH HQt H_t HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss HF s_NG;t HNVeRt;H?s tH tOe 3eRFee8 >?I

) > U>;F?ess Oe>F;?T tOeFeH?.

*

d.! kYF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?sl Ge>?s Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.8 /.3.

!+ -><. ->se /H. +$6#)!(607 >?I West v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.8 /.3. -><. ->se /H. +%6

!! %($+.

!#

a.! k4e<e>sel Ge>?s tOe 4e<e>se HU -<>;Gs set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? d777 HU tOe 3eRFee.

!$

\.! k0ett<eGe?t -<>ssl Ge>?s tOHse QeFsH?s IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? d77 HU tOe 3eRFee.

!% k0ett<eGe?t -<>ss EeGNeFsl Ge>?s e>RO >?I eJeFD QeFsH? IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? d77 HU tOe

!& 3eRFee.

!'

c.! k2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8l kYeF;HI HU tOe 3eRFeel HF k3_F>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFeel ;s tOe

!( QeF;HI UFHG tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te _?t;< tOe ePQ;F>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee _?IeF 0eRt;H? d7.

!) IV. LITIGATION BACKGROUND

!*

A. The Gonzalez Litigation

#+

.? S_?e !'8 #++$8 Y<>;?t;UUs U;<eI tOe Gonzalez R>se ;? tOe /HFtOeF? 3;stF;Rt HU -><;UHF?;>8

#! ><<eT;?T J;H<>t;H?s HU %# ^.0.-. p !*)! >?I tOe -><;UHF?;> X>;F 1GQ<HDGe?t >?I KH_s;?T 5Rt8

## >?I QFHJ;I;?T ?Ht;Re HU Y<>;?t;UUs` ;?te?t tH NF;?T R<>;Gs _?IeF 2;t<e d77 HU tOe -;J;< 4;TOts 5Rt HU

#$ !*'%. 2Oe -HGQ<>;?t j>s NFH_TOt H? NeO><U HU > Q_t>t;Je R<>ss HU G;?HF;tD ;?I;J;I_><s jOH

#% ><<eTeI tO>t 3eUe?I>?ts I;sRF;G;?>te >T>;?st G;?HF;t;es H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8 >?IoHF ?>t;H?><

#& HF;T;?8 j;tO FesQeRt tH O;F;?T8 U;F;?T8 VHN >ss;T?Ge?t8 RHGQe?s>t;H? >?I HtOeF teFGs >?I RH?I;t;H?s

#' HU eGQ<HDGe?t8 ND e?UHFR;?T > ?>t;H?j;Ie RHFQHF>te QH<;RD HU QFeUeFF;?T jO;te eGQ<HDees UHF

#( s><es QHs;t;H?s8 Ies;F>N<e VHN >ss;T?Ge?ts8 >?I U>JHF>N<e jHFW sROeI_<es ;? ;ts stHFes tOFH_TOH_t

#) tOe ^?;teI 0t>tes.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 10 of 68

!

Y<>;?t;UUs U;<eI tOe X;Fst 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t H? 5_T_st !)8 #++$8 jO;RO ><<eTeI

# s_Nst>?t;><<D tOe s>Ge U>Rts >?I <eT>< R<>;Gs. 2O;s RHGQ<>;?t >IIeI tOFee ?>GeI Q<>;?t;UUs >?I

$ tOFee IeUe?I>?ts8 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO 0tHFes8 7?R.8 59X -><;UHF?;>8 ==-8 >?I 59X .O;H8 7?R.

% .? 0eQteGNeF !!8 #++$8 3eUe?I>?ts >?sjeFeI tOe X;Fst 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t8 Ie?D;?T Y<>;?t;UUs`

& ><<eT>t;H?s.

'

.? S>?_>FD *8 #++%8 Y<>;?t;UUs U;<eI tOe 0eRH?I 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t8 jO;RO >T>;? ><<eTeI

( s_Nst>?t;><<D tOe s>Ge U>Rts >?I <eT>< R<>;Gs8 tO;s t;Ge RH?JeFt;?T tOe ?Ht;Re HU ;?te?t tH U;<e 2;t<e

) d77 R<>;Gs ;?tH >Rt_>< 2;t<e d77 R<>;Gs. 2O;s RHGQ<>;?t >IIeI tjH ?>GeI Q<>;?t;UUs >?I FeGHJeI

* H?e IeUe?I>?t8 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO -H. 2O;s RHGQ<>;?t ><sH ;?R<_IeI >s ePO;N;ts 4;TOt6tH60_e

!+ <etteFs UFHG tOe 11.- ;ss_eI tH !$ HU tOe !% ?>GeI Q<>;?t;UUs jOH NFH_TOt 2;t<e d77 >?I X1K5

!! R<>;Gs. 3eUe?I>?ts >?sjeFeI tOe 0eRH?I 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t8 Ie?D;?T Y<>;?t;UUs` ><<eT>t;H?s8 H?

!# S>?_>FD #'8 #++%.

!$

Y<>;?t;UUs U;<eI tOe 2O;FI 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t H? S_?e !+8 #++%8 jO;RO >T>;? ><<eTeI

!% s_Nst>?t;><<D tOe s>Ge U>Rts >?I <eT>< R<>;Gs. 2O;s RHGQ<>;?t >IIeI ;?I;J;I_>< R>_ses HU >Rt;H?

!& UHF Te?IeF I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 NFH_TOt H?<D H? NeO><U HU ?>GeI Q<>;?t;UUs 7JD /T_De? >?I 5?Te<;?e

!' a_. .? S_?e #!8 #++%8 3eUe?I>?ts >?sjeFeI tOe 2O;FI 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t8 Ie?D;?T Y<>;?t;UUs`

!( ><<eT>t;H?s.

!)

.? /HJeGNeF )8 #++%8 Y<>;?t;UUs U;<eI tOe XH_FtO 5Ge?IeI -HGQ<>;?t ?>G;?T tjH

!* >II;t;H?>< Y<>;?t;UUs >?I >? >II;t;H?>< IeUe?I>?t8 5NeFRFHGN;e 9 X;tRO E>?>TeGe?t -H.8 >s je<<

#+ >s >II;?T R<>;Gs HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ;? O;F;?T HU E>?>TeFs6;?62F>;?;?T QHs;t;H?s >?I QFHGHt;H? tH

#! ;?6stHFe G>?>TeF;>< QHs;t;H?s.

##

.? .RtHNeF !+8 #++$8 Y<>;?t;UUs seFJeI tOe;F U;Fst set HU Feq_ests UHF I;sRHJeFD. .?

#$ XeNF_>FD !*8 #++%8 Y<>;?t;UUs seFJeI tOe;F seRH?I set HU Feq_ests UHF I;sRHJeFD. 3eUe?I>?ts

#% FesQH?IeI ND QFHI_R;?T FH_TO<D !(8+++ Q>Tes HU IHR_Ge?ts8 >s je<< >s U;<es UFHG 5NeFRFHGN;e`s

#& RHGQ_teF;MeI QeFsH??e< I>t>N>ses.

#'

3eUe?I>?ts seFJeI tOe;F U;Fst set HU Feq_ests UHF I;sRHJeFD ;? /HJeGNeF #++$ >?I tHHW tOe

#( IeQHs;t;H?s HU seJe? R<>ss FeQFese?t>t;Jes ;? XeNF_>FD #++%. Y<>;?t;UUs tHHW s;P I>Ds HU

#) IeQHs;t;H?s HU 5NeFRFHGN;e HUU;R;><s >?I G>?>TeFs _?IeF XeI. 4. -;J. Y. $+ANBA'B ;? E>FRO #++%.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 11 of 68

! Y<>;?t;UUs >?I 3eUe?I>?ts O>Je HNt>;?eI ?_GeFH_s IeR<>F>t;H?s UFHG Q_t>t;Je R<>ss GeGNeFs >?I

# j;t?esses8 ;?R<_I;?T G>?>TeFs8 RH?ReF?;?T ><<eTeI I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 HF <>RW HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 tO>t

$ tOeD jH_<I test;UD tH ;U R><<eI.

%

.? 5QF;< !$8 #++%8 >?I H? seJeF>< I>tes s_Nseq_e?t<D8 tOe Q>Ft;es RH?I_RteI GeI;>t;H?

& I;sR_ss;H?s ;? >? >tteGQt tH FesH<Je tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?. 2Oese I;sR_ss;H?s O>Je

' R_<G;?>teI ;? tO;s sett<eGe?t >TFeeGe?t.

(

B. The EEOC Litigation

)

:etjee? 3eReGNeF #!8 !*** >?I S>?_>FD #*8 #++%8 tOe 11.- FeRe;JeI RO>FTes HU

* I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ><<eT;?T I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ;? O;F;?T8 >ss;T?Ge?t8 <>DHUU8 RH?stF_Rt;Je I;sRO>FTe8

!+ I;sRO>FTe8 teFGs >?I RH?I;t;H?s HU eGQ<HDGe?t8 >?I U>;<_Fe tH QFHGHte ;?tH G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s

!! I_e tH F>Re8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?8 >?IoHF Te?IeF.

!#

0QeR;U;R><<D8 H? HF >NH_t 3eReGNeF #!8 !***8 > RO>FT;?T Q>FtD U;<eI >? ;?I;J;I_>< RO>FTe

!$ ><<eT;?T ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? I;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I jFH?TU_< teFG;?>t;H?. 2Oe RO>FTe j>s <>teF >Ge?IeI

!% H? HF >NH_t E>FRO #!8 #++! ><<eT;?T tO>t tOe RO>FT;?T Q>FtD j>s ?Ht O;FeI ;?tH > s><es QHs;t;H? HF

!& > :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? I_e tH O;s ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?. -<>ss ><<eT>t;H?s jeFe ;?R<_IeI8

!' ><<eT;?T tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e U>;<eI tH FeRF_;t8 O;Fe8 >?I >ss;T? =>t;?Hs ;?tH :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je

!( QHs;t;H?s >?I tO>t =>t;?Hs jeFe teFG;?>teI I_e tH tOe;F ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?.

!)

.? HF >NH_t 0eQteGNeF !$8 #++!8 tOe 11.- ;ss_eI > =etteF HU 3eteFG;?>t;H? U;?I;?T

!* QFHN>N<e R>_se tO>t tOe RO>FT;?T Q>FtD j>s Ie?;eI > QeFG>?e?t s><es HF :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je

#+ QHs;t;H?8 Ie?;eI >ss;T?Ge?ts8 >?I teFG;?>teI I_e tH O;s ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?. 2Oe 11.- ><sH UH_?I

#! QFHN>N<e R>_se tO>t =>t;?Hs >?I 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s >s > R<>ss jeFe ?Ht FeRF_;teI8 O;FeI8 HF

## >ss;T?eI QeFG>?e?t QHs;t;H?s HF T;Je? >ss;T?Ge?ts I_e tH tOe;F F>Re >?I ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?. 2Oe

#$ -HGG;ss;H? U_FtOeF UH_?I QFHN>N<e R>_se tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e U>;<eI tH G>;?t>;? FeRHFIs >s Feq_;FeI

#% ND UeIeF>< <>j.

#&

11.- FeRe;JeI >II;t;H?>< RO>FTes >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;e ?>t;H?j;Ie >?I ;ss_eI >II;t;H?><

#' =etteFs HU 3eteFG;?>t;H? H? HF >NH_t 0eQteGNeF $+8 #++% >?I /HJeGNeF !8 #++% U;?I;?T QFHN>N<e

#( R>_se tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e J;H<>teI 2;t<e d77 ND I;sRF;G;?>t;?T >T>;?st G;?HF;tD ;?I;J;I_><s H? tOe

#) N>s;s HU ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?8 RH<HF8 F>Re8 >?IoHF Te?IeF AUeG><e ;?R<_I;?T G;?HF;tD jHGe?B ;? O;F;?T8

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 12 of 68

! st>UU;?T8 RH?stF_Rt;Je I;sRO>FTe8 U>;<;?T tH QFHGHte ;?tH G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s8 steeF;?T8 >?I

# I;sRO>FTe8 H? >? ;?I;J;I_>< N>s;s >?I ><sH H? > ?>t;H?j;Ie R<>ss N>s;s. 2Oe 11.- ><sH UH_?I

$ QFHN>N<e R>_se tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e J;H<>teI 2;t<e d77 ND I;sRF;G;?>t;?T >T>;?st > R<>ss HU

% ;?I;J;I_><s ?>t;H?j;Ie ND IeteFF;?T G;?HF;tD >QQ<;R>?ts UFHG >QQ<D;?T UHF s><es8 stHRW8 HJeF?;TOt8

& G>?>TeF6;?6tF>;?;?T8 >?I G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s NeR>_se HU tOe;F F>Re8 RH<HF8 >?IoHF ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?m

' U>;<;?T HF FeU_s;?T tH FeRF_;t G;?HF;tD >?I UeG><e >QQ<;R>?ts UHF s><es8 stHRW8 HJeF?;TOt8 G>?>TeF6

( ;?6tF>;?;?T8 >?I G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s NeR>_se HU tOe;F F>Re8 RH<HF8 >?IoHF ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?m U>;<;?T >?I

) FeU_s;?T tH O;Fe >?I tH >ss;T? G;?HF;t;es >?I UeG><es ;?tH s><es8 stHRW8 HJeF?;TOt8 G>?>TeF6;?

* tF>;?;?T8 >?I G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s NeR>_se HU tOe;F F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? >?IoHF Te?IeFm U>;<;?T

!+ >?I FeU_s;?T tH QFHGHte G;?HF;t;es >?I UeG><es ;?tH G>?>TeF6;?6tF>;?;?T >?I G>?>TeF QHs;t;H?s

!! NeR>_se HU tOe;F F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?8 >?IoHF Te?IeFm teFG;?>t;?T G;?HF;tD >?I UeG><e

!# eGQ<HDees NeR>_se HU tOe;F F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?8 >?IoHF sePm >?I seTFeT>t;?T ;ts jHFWUHFRe

!$ H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?8 >?IoHF Te?IeF. 2Oe 11.- >T>;? UH_?I QFHN>N<e R>_se

!% tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e U>;<eI tH G>;?t>;? FeRHFIs >s Feq_;FeI ND UeIeF>< <>j.

!&

5UteF Geet;?T ><< tOe RH?I;t;H?s QFeReIe?t8 tOe 11.- U;<eI > UeIeF>< <>js_;t ;? tOe G>tteF

!' HU EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc.8 /.3. -><.8 ->se /H. +%6%($!8 H? /HJeGNeF )8

!( #++% Aq11.- =;t;T>t;H?qB e?RHGQ>ss;?T ><< tOe R<>;Gs set UHFtO ;? tOe =etteFs HU 3eteFG;?>t;H?

!) >s IesRF;NeI >NHJe. 2Oe 11.-rs QFe6U;<;?T ;?Jest;T>t;H? ;?JH<JeI >?><Ds;s HU O>FI RHQD

!* IHR_Ge?ts8 st>t;st;R>< RHGQ;<>t;H?s >?I RHGQ_teF6Fe>I>N<e U;<es8 >?I ;?Jest;T>t;Je ;?teFJ;ejs HU

#+ eGQ<HDees >?I RHGQ>?D HUU;R;><s.

#!

C. The West Litigation

##

-H_?se< UHF tOe Te?IeF R<>ss NeR>Ge ;?JH<JeI ;? tO;s R>se ;? XeNF_>FD #++% >UteF Ne;?T

#$ RH?t>RteI ND H?e HU tOe ?>GeI Q<>;?t;UUs ;? Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch. 2O;s ?>GeI

#% Q<>;?t;UU sH_TOt seQ>F>te RH_?se< tH U;<e > Te?IeF R<>ss >Rt;H? >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;e.

#&

Y_t>t;Je RH_?se< UHF tOe Te?IeF R<>ss tOeFe>UteF RH?I_RteI >? ;?IeQe?Ie?t8 H?6TH;?T

#' ;?Jest;T>t;H? tH IeteFG;?e tOe GeF;ts HU > QHss;N<e R<>ss Te?IeF I;sRF;G;?>t;H? R<>;G >T>;?st

#( 5NeFRFHGN;e. -H_?se< UHF tOe Te?IeF R<>ss RH?t>RteI sRHFes HU R<>ss GeGNeFs >?I j;t?esses8

#) RH<<eRteI IeR<>F>t;H?s UFHG G>?D R<>ss GeGNeFs FeT>FI;?T tOe;F ePQeF;e?Res >t 5NeFRFHGN;e8

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 13 of 68

! FeJ;ejeI st>t;st;R>< FeQHFts QFHI_ReI ;? tOe RH_Fse HU tOe Gonzalez <;t;T>t;H? >?I RH?I_RteI >

# seQ>F>te >?><Ds;s HU tOe jHFWUHFRe ND Te?IeF.

$

5UteF ;?UHFG;?T IeUe?I>?t HU ;ts ;?te?t tH U;<e > Te?IeF RHGQ<>;?t8 RH_?se< UHF tOe Te?IeF

% R<>ss j>s ;?J;teI tH Q>Ft;R;Q>te ;? tOe ;?;t;>< 5QF;< #++% GeI;>t;H? sess;H?s j;tO tOe Gonzales

& Q>Ft;es >?I 11.- ;? >? eUUHFt tH FesH<Je tO;s R>se j;tOH_t U_FtOeF <;t;T>t;H?.

'

3_F;?T tOe GeI;>t;H?8 jO;RO <>steI HJeF U;Utee? I>Ds HJeF tOe RH_Fse HU e;TOt GH?tOs8 ><<

( Q>Ft;es e?T>TeI ;? ePte?s;Je I;sR_ss;H?s FeT>FI;?T tOe GeF;ts HU tOe F>Re >?I Te?IeF R<>;Gs8 Fe<;eU

) UHF R<>ss GeGNeFs8 >?I QFHReI_Fes tH Ne Q_t ;?tH Q<>Re tH e?s_Fe eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD

* UHF G;?HF;t;es >?I jHGe? ;? tOe U_t_Fe.

!+

2Oe Te?IeF R<>ss >Rt;H?8 West v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.8 /.3. -><.8 ->se /H.

!! +%6%($+ j>s U;<eI H? /HJeGNeF )8 #++%.

!# V. !$

JURISDICTION 2Oe -H_Ft O>s V_F;sI;Rt;H? HJeF tOe Q>Ft;es >?I s_NVeRt G>tteF HU tOe YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s

!% >?I 11.- -;J;< 5Rt;H?. 2Oe Q>Ft;es >TFee tO>t tOeD j;<< seeW8 HF O>Je ><Fe>ID sH_TOt

!& RH?sH<;I>t;H? HU tOe YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s >?I tOe 11.- -;J;< 5Rt;H? NeUHFe S_ITe 0_s>? 7<<stH?

!' UHF Q_FQHses HU >QQFHJ>< HU tO;s sett<eGe?t. 7U tOe R<>;Gs >sseFteI ;? tOe RHGQ<>;?ts U;<eI ;? tOese

!( R;J;< >Rt;H?s jeFe QFHJe?8 tOe -H_Ft jH_<I O>Je tOe >_tOHF;tD tH TF>?t tOe eq_;t>N<e >?I GH?et>FD

!) Fe<;eU set UHFtO ;? tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee. de?_e ;s QFHQeF ;? tO;s 3;stF;Rt. 2O;s -H_Ft sO><< Fet>;?

!* V_F;sI;Rt;H? HU tOese R;J;< >Rt;H?s I_F;?T tOe I_F>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee sH<e<D UHF tOe Q_FQHses HU

#+ e?teF;?T ><< HFIeFs8 >_tOHF;MeI OeFe_?IeF8 tO>t G>D Ne ?eRess>FD tH ;GQ<eGe?t tOe Fe<;eU QFHJ;IeI.

#! VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF THE DECREE

##

5.! ^?<ess QFHJ;IeI HtOeFj;se8 tOe eq_;t>N<e QFHJ;s;H?s ;? tO;s 3eRFee >Fe eUUeRt;Je

#$ ;GGeI;>te<D _QH? tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te.

#%

:.! 2Oe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tO;s 3eRFee sO><< FeG>;? ;? eUUeRt UHF > QeF;HI HU s;P De>Fs A(#

#& GH?tOsB. 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D U;<e > GHt;H? tH Ne Fe<;eJeI HU tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe IeRFee >t >?D

#' QH;?t UH<<Hj;?T tOe ePQ;F>t;H? HU &% GH?tOs UFHG tOe eUUeRt;Je I>te HU tOe IeRFee. 2Oe Q>Ft;es

#( G>D st;Q_<>te tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e sOH_<I Ne Fe<;eJeI HU tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee. 5Nse?t s_RO

#) >TFeeGe?t8 ;? HFIeF tH Ne Fe<;eJeI HU tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee NeUHFe tOe U_<< QeF;HI HU (#

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 14 of 68

! GH?tOs8 5NeFRFHGN;e G_st IeGH?stF>te tO>t[ !B ;t O>s s>t;sU;eI ;ts I_tD tH _se :est 1UUHFts j;tO

# FesQeRt tH ;ts HN<;T>t;H?s _?IeF tOe 3eRFeem #B ;t O>s ;GQ<eGe?teI >?I G>;?t>;?eI ><< QFHTF>Gs

$ G>?I>teI ND tOe 3eRFeem $B ;t O>s s>t;sU;eI8 j;tOH_t _se HU st>?I>FI IeJ;>t;H?s8 e>RO HU tOe

% Ne?ROG>FWs est>N<;sOeI ND tOe 3eRFee I_F;?T tOe QFeReI;?T #% GH?tOsm >?I %B ;t O>s s>t;sU;eI ><<

& GH?et>FD QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee. 5NeFRFHGN;e Ne>Fs tOe N_FIe? HU IeGH?stF>t;?T ;ts

' s>t;sU>Rt;H? HU tOese RH?I;t;H?s tH tOe -H_Ft. =e>I -H_?se< >?I 11.- G>D HQQHse >?D GHt;H? tH

( Ne Fe<;eJeI H? TFH_?Is tO>t >?D HU tOese RH?I;t;H?s O>Je ?Ht Nee? Get >?I H? tOe TFH_?Is set

) UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \.-.!.N. ^?<ess >?I _?t;< tOe RH_Ft ;ss_es >? HFIeF TF>?t;?T tOe GHt;H? tH Ne

* Fe<;eJeI8 ><< QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee sO><< FeG>;? ;? U_<< UHFRe >?I eUUeRt.

!+

-.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie $+ I>Ds ?Ht;Re tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 =e>I -H_?se<8

!! >?I 11.- HU >?D GHt;H? tH Ne Fe<;eJeI HU tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe IeRFee NeUHFe tOe U_<< QeF;HI HU (#

!# GH?tOs. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< tOe? QFHJ;Ie ;ts NF;eU;?T >?I HtOeF s_QQHFt UHF ;ts GHt;H? tH tOe

!$ 0QeR;>< E>steF8 =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I 11.-. =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- sO><< O>Je $+ I>Ds tH

!% QFHJ;Ie >?D HQQHs;t;H? tH tOe GHt;H? tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><<

!& O>Je !& I>Ds tH QFHJ;Ie >?D FeQ<D G>teF;><s tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I 11.-.

!' 2Oe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><< tOe? O>Je $+ I>Ds tH QFeQ>Fe > jF;tte? FeRHGGe?I>t;H? tH tOe RH_Ft >s tH

!( tOe FesH<_t;H? HU tOe GHt;H? tH Ne Fe<;eJeI. 2Oe Q>Ft;es sO><< tOe? VH;?t<D U;<e j;tO tOe RH_Ft ><< HU

!) tOe NF;eU;?T >?I tOe 0QeR;>< E>steFrs FeRHGGe?I>t;H?8 >?I set > Oe>F;?T UHF #) I>Ds UFHG tOe

!* U;<;?T. 1>RO Q>FtD G>D U;<e >?I seFJe > FesQH?se tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steFrs FeRHGGe?I>t;H?8 ?Ht tH

#+ ePReeI te? Q>Tes8 ?Ht <>teF tO>? !% I>Ds NeUHFe tOe sROeI_<eI Oe>F;?T.

#! VII. SETTLEMENT CLASS

##

5.! XHF Q_FQHses HU tOe GH?et>FD Fe<;eU QFHJ;IeI ;? tO;s 3eRFee8 tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss

#$ ;s ReFt;U;eI _?IeF XeIeF>< 4_<e HU -;J;< YFHReI_Fe #$ANBA$B >?I RH?s;sts HU[

#%

!.! 5<< E;?HF;tD >?IoHF UeG><e >QQ<;R>?ts jOH >QQ<;eI UHF eGQ<HDGe?t >s

#& 5ssHR;>tes ;? 5NeFRFHGN;e stHFes8 HF >tteGQteI tH >QQ<D >?I jeFe I;sRH_F>TeI UFHG >QQ<D;?T UHF

#' eGQ<HDGe?t8 Netjee? XeNF_>FD #%8 !*** >?I tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te >?I jOH jeFe ?Ht

#( O;FeI8 ePReQt tOHse jOH U;<e > t;Ge<D Feq_est tH HQt H_t HU tOe GH?et>FD Fe<;eU QFHJ;s;H?s.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 15 of 68

!

#.! 5<< E;?HF;tD >?IoHF UeG><e 5ssHR;>tes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e jOH >Fe HF jeFe

# eGQ<HDeI ;? >? 5NeFRFHGN;e stHFe8 UHF >?D <e?TtO HU t;Ge8 Netjee? XeNF_>FD #%8 !***8 >?I tOe

$ YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 ePReQt tOHse jOH U;<e > t;Ge<D Feq_est tH HQt H_t HU tOe GH?et>FD

% Fe<;eU QFHJ;s;H?s.

&

:.! XHF Q_FQHses HU tOe eq_;t>N<e >?I IeR<>F>tHFD Fe<;eU QFHJ;IeI ;? tO;s 3eRFee8 tOe

' 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss ;s ReFt;U;eI _?IeF XeIeF>< 4_<e HU -;J;< YFHReI_Fe #$ANBA#B >?I RH?s;sts HU[

(

!.! 5<< E;?HF;tD >?IoHF UeG><e >QQ<;R>?ts jOH >QQ<;eI UHF eGQ<HDGe?t >s

) 5ssHR;>tes ;? 5NeFRFHGN;e stHFes8 HF >tteGQteI tH >QQ<D >?I jeFe I;sRH_F>TeI UFHG >QQ<D;?T UHF

* eGQ<HDGe?t8 Netjee? XeNF_>FD #%8 !*** >?I tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te >?I jOH jeFe ?Ht

!+ O;FeI.

!!

#.! 5<< E;?HF;tD >?IoHF UeG><e 5ssHR;>tes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e jOH >Fe HF jeFe

!# eGQ<HDeI ;? >? 5NeFRFHGN;e stHFe8 UHF >?D <e?TtO HU t;Ge8 Netjee? XeNF_>FD #%8 !***8 >?I tOe

!$ YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te.

!%

-.! 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss EeGNeFs jOH O>Je U;<eI > t;Ge<D Feq_est tH HQt H_t HU tOe

!& GH?et>FD Fe<;eU QFHJ;s;H?s sO><< ?Ht Ne Oe<I tH Fe<e>se >?D R<>;Gs UHF ;?I;J;I_>< Fe<;eU.

!'

3.! 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< ;s ?Ht HNt>;?eI8 ?HtO;?T ;? tO;s 3eRFee sO><< Ne

!( IeeGeI tH j>;Je 5NeFRFHGN;e`s HNVeRt;H?s >?I IeUe?ses tH R<>ss ReFt;U;R>t;H?8 <;>N;<;tD8 HF

!) e?t;t<eGe?t tH GH?et>FD HF eq_;t>N<e Fe<;eU8 HF >?D HtOeF ;ss_e ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 tOe

!* YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s8 HF tOe 11.- -;J;< 5Rt;H?8 >?I tO;s 3eRFee sO><< tOe? Ne IeeGeI ?_<< >?I

#+ JH;I >?I ?Ht >IG;ss;N<e ;? >?D RH_Ft FeT>FI;?T tOe QFHQF;etD HU R<>ss ReFt;U;R>t;H?8 <;>N;<;tD8 HF

#! e?t;t<eGe?t tH GH?et>FD HF eq_;t>N<e Fe<;eU8 HF >?D HtOeF ;ss_e ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 tOe

## YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s8 HF tOe 11.- -;J;< 5Rt;H?.

#$ VIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS IN PRIVATE ACTIONS AND EEOC ACTION

#%

A. Release of Claims by Settlement Class.

#&

^QH? X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I ;ts eGQ<HDees8 G>?>TeFs8 ;?s_FeFs

#' >?I >ttHF?eDs sO><< Ne U_<<D Fe<e>seI >?I UHFeJeF I;sRO>FTeI UFHG >?D >?I ><< ;?I;J;I_>< >?IoHF

#( R<>ss6j;Ie R<>;Gs8 IeG>?Is8 RO>FTes8 RHGQ<>;?ts8 F;TOts >?I R>_ses HU >Rt;H? HU >?D W;?I8 W?Hj?

#) HF _?W?Hj?8 ND tOe -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes8 Y<>;?t;UUs8 -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es8 tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss8 e>RO

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 16 of 68

! GeGNeF HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss AOeFe>UteF k4e<e>seFslB8 >?I ND tOe 4e<e>seFs` est>tes8 jOetOeF

# seeW;?T GH?et>FD >?IoHF eq_;t>N<e Fe<;eU HU >?D sHFt8 jO;RO >F;se H_t HU RH?I_Rt j;tO;? tOe

$ <;>N;<;tD QeF;HI HU XeNF_>FD #%8 !*** tOFH_TO tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te RH?st;t_t;?T ><<eTeI

% F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeF I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ;? FeRF_;tGe?t8 tOe >QQ<;R>t;H? QFHRess

& A;?R<_I;?T R<>;Gs HU ;?I;J;I_><s jOH >tteGQteI tH >QQ<D UHF >?I jeFe I;sRH_F>TeI UFHG >QQ<D;?T

' UHF eGQ<HDGe?tB8 O;F;?T8 VHN RO>??e<;?T HF >ss;T?Ge?t8 teFG;?>t;H? HU eGQ<HDGe?t8 >?D teFGs

( >?I RH?I;t;H?s HU eGQ<HDGe?t tO>t jeFe HF RH_<I O>Je Nee? F>;seI ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?

) >?IoHF G>?>TeF;>< QFHGHt;H? _?IeF 2;t<e d778 %# ^.0.-. 0eRt;H? !*)!8 tOe -><;UHF?;> X1K5 HF

* >?D HtOeF UeIeF><8 st>te8 HF <HR>< <>j QFHO;N;t;?T F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeF

!+ I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 jOetOeF st>t_tHFD8 FeT_<>tHFD8 Q_Fs_>?t tH <HR>< HFI;?>?Re8 HF >t RHGGH? <>j8

!! ePReQt;?T sH<e<D R<>;Gs HU -<>ss GeGNeFs HtOeF tO>? Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es UHF ><<eTeI

!# O>F>ssGe?t A;?R<_I;?T RH?stF_Rt;Je I;sRO>FTe ><<eTeI<D R>_seI ND s_RO O>F>ssGe?tB. 2O;s 4e<e>se

!$ ;s U;?>< >?I sO><< s_FJ;Je ePQ;F>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee`s teFGs.

!%

B. Release of Claims by Plaintiffs.

!&

^QH? X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< HU tOe 3eRFee8 UHF >?I ;? RH?s;IeF>t;H? HU tOe G_t_>< QFHG;ses8

!' teFGs >?I RH?I;t;H?s ND >?I Netjee? Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es8 >?I 3eUe?I>?ts set UHFtO

!( OeFe;?8 tOe s_UU;R;e?RD HU jO;RO RH?s;IeF>t;H? ;s ePQFess<D >RW?Hj<eITeI8 tOe Y<>;?t;UUs >?I

!) -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es IH OeFeND U_<<D8 U;?><<D >?I UHFeJeF Fe<e>se >?I I;sRO>FTe 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I ;ts

!* eGQ<HDees8 G>?>TeFs8 ;?s_FeFs >?I >ttHF?eDs UFHG >?D >?I ><< Q>st >?IoHF QFese?t R<>;Gs8

#+ IeG>?Is8 >Rt;H?s8 R>_ses HU >Rt;H?8 s_;ts8 I>G>Tes8 <;>N;<;t;es8 >ssessGe?ts8 V_ITGe?ts8 RHsts8

#! <Hsses8 IeNts8 HN<;T>t;H?s >?I ePQe?ses8 HU >?D >?I eJeFD ?>t_Fe jO>tsHeJeF8 jOetOeF HF ?Ht

## W?Hj?8 tO>t tOeD O>Je O>I8 ?Hj O>Je8 HF G>D O>Je UFHG tOe NeT;??;?T HU t;Ge tH tOe YFe<;G;?>FD

#$ 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 ;?R<_I;?T j;tOH_t <;G;t>t;H? tOHse >F;s;?T ;? >?D j>D H_t HU tOe ><<eTeI U>Rts8

#% R;FR_Gst>?Res >?I HRR_FFe?Res _?IeF<D;?T tOHse ><<eT>t;H?s HU J;H<>t;H?s HU 2;t<e d778 0eRt;H?

#& !*)! >?I tOe -><;UHF?;> X1K5 tO>t jeFe >sseFteI HF tO>t G;TOt O>Je Nee? >sseFteI ND HF H? NeO><U

#' HU tOe Y<>;?t;UUs >T>;?st 3eUe?I>?ts e;tOeF ;? Y<>;?t;UUs` RHGQ<>;?ts ;? tOe Gonzalez >?I West

#( >Rt;H?s8 HF ;? >?D >?I ><< RO>FTes HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? U;<eI >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;e ND sHGe HF ><< HU

#) tOe Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es j;tO tOe 11.- >?IoHF 3X1K. 2O;s 4e<e>se IHes ?Ht ;?R<_Ie

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 17 of 68

! jHFWeFs` RHGQe?s>t;H? R<>;Gs8 ;U >?D8 HU tOe Y<>;?t;UUs HF -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es. 2O;s 4e<e>se ;s U;?><

# >?I sO><< s_FJ;Je tOe ePQ;F>t;H? HU tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee. YF;HF tH FeRe;J;?T >?D GH?et>FD Fe<;eU

$ _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee8 ;?R<_I;?T >?D e?O>?ReI HF seFJ;Re Q>DGe?t8 e>RO Y<>;?t;UU >?I -O>FT;?T Y>FtD

% j;<< Ne Feq_;FeI tH ePeR_te > U_<< >?I U;?>< Te?eF>< Fe<e>se HU ><< R<>;Gs >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;e8

& jOetOeF HF ?Ht >sseFteI ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 ;? tOe UHFG >tt>ROeI >s 1PO;N;t 5.

'

C. Unknown Claims.

(

Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es >RW?Hj<eITe tO>t tOeD G>D ?Ht ?Hj W?Hj U_<<D tOe

) ?_GNeF HF G>T?;t_Ie HU tOe R<>;Gs tOeD G>D O>Je8 >?I tO>t tOeD G>D s_UUeF sHGe U_FtOeF <Hss HF

* I>G>Te ;? sHGe j>D RH??eRteI j;tO tOe s_NVeRt G>tteF HU tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 N_t jO;RO

!+ ;s _?W?Hj? HF _?>?t;R;Q>teI >t tO;s t;Ge. Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es O>Je t>We? tOese F;sWs

!! >?I QHss;N;<;t;es ;?tH >RRH_?t >?I >RReQt tO>t8 ?eJeFtOe<ess8 tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee RHJeFs ><< R<>;Gs

!# >F;s;?T H_t HU HF Fe<>teI tH tOe s_NVeRt G>tteF HU tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 jO;RO8 ><tOH_TO

!$ _?W?Hj? >t tOe t;Ge HU tOe ePeR_t;H? HU tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee8 G>D Ne I;sRHJeFeI <>teF. Y<>;?t;UUs

!% >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es _?IeFst>?I >?I >ss_Ge tOese F;sWs >?I ePQFess<D j>;Je tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU

!& -><;UHF?;> -;J;< -HIe p !&%#8 HF >?D RHGQ>F>N<e UeIeF>< HF HtOeF st>te st>t_te8 jO;RO st>tes[

!'

5 ]1/145= 41=1501 3.10 /.2 1\21/3 2. -=57E0

aK7-K 2K1 -41372.4 3.10 /.2 C/.a .4 0^0Y1-2 2.

!(

1\702 7/ K70 X5d.4 52 2K1 27E1 .X 1\1-^27/] 2K1

41=15018 aK7-K 7X C/.a/ :c K7E E^02 K5d1

!)

E521475==c 5XX1-213 K70 0122=1E1/2 a72K 2K1

31:2.4. !*

#+ Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es ePQFess<D j>;Je >?D F;TOt tH >sseFt OeFe>UteF tO>t >?D R<>;G j>s

#! ePR<_IeI UFHG tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee tOFH_TO ;T?HF>?Re8 HJeFs;TOt8 HF eFFHF. 7t ;s ePQFess<D

## _?IeFstHHI >?I >TFeeI tO>t tO;s j>;JeF HU -;J;< -HIe p !&%# >?I tOe Fe<e>se >?I j>;JeF set UHFtO

#$ ;? tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee >Fe G>teF;>< teFGs HU tOe >TFeeGe?t >?I jeFe seQ>F>te<D ?eTHt;>teI

#% Netjee? tOe Q>Ft;es. 2O;s 0eRt;H? d777.-. IHes ?Ht j>;Je >?D F;TOts HU 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeFs

#& HtOeF tO>? Y<>;?t;UUs >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es.

#'

D. EEOC Release.

#(

^QH? X;?>< 5QQFHJ><8 tO;s 3eRFee sO><< U_<<D >?I U;?><<D FesH<Je >?D >?I ><< R<>;Gs8

#) IeG>?Is8 RO>FTes8 RHGQ<>;?ts8 F;TOts >?I R>_ses HU >Rt;H? HU >?D W;?I8 W?Hj? HF _?W?Hj?8

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 18 of 68

! >sseFteI ND 11.- ;? ;ts -HGQ<>;?t >F;s;?T UFHG ;?R;Ie?ts HRR_FF;?T QF;HF tH tOe YFe<;G;?>FD

# 5QQFHJ>< 3>te. 7t ;s tOe ;?te?t;H? HU 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I tOe 11.- tO>t tO;s Fe<e>se teFG;?>tes ><<

$ ;?Jest;T>t;H?s Fe<>t;?T tH R<>;Gs HU 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss EeGNeFs jO;RO jeFe >sseFteI ND 11.- ;?

% ;ts -HGQ<>;?t. 2O;s 4e<e>se sO><< s_FJ;Je tOe teFG;?>t;H? HU tO;s 3eRFee.

&

E. No Tolling of Harassment Claims.

'

5?D R<>;Gs HU 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss EeGNeFs AHtOeF tO>? tOe Y<>;?t;UUsB UHF ><<eTeI O>F>ssGe?t

( N>seI _QH? F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeF A;?R<_I;?T RH?stF_Rt;Je I;sRO>FTe ><<eTeI<D

) R>_seI ND s_RO O>F>ssGe?tB8 HF UHF tOe ><<eTeI Fet><;>t;H? UHF HQQHs;?T HF RHGQ<>;?;?T >NH_t s_RO

* Q_FQHFteI O>F>ssGe?t8 >Fe ?Ht Fe<e>seI OeFe_?IeF NeR>_se s_RO R<>;Gs >Fe ?Ht >?I O>Je ?eJeF

!+ Nee? >sseFteI H? > R<>ss6j;Ie N>s;s >s > Q>Ft HU tOe YF;J>te -;J;< 5Rt;H?s HF tOe 11.- -;J;<

!! 5Rt;H?. Ke?Re8 tOeFe ><sH O>s Nee? ?H tH<<;?T HU tOe st>t_te HU <;G;t>t;H?s UHF >sseFt;?T >?D s_RO

!# R<>;Gs >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I ;ts eGQ<HDees8 G>?>TeFs8 ;?s_FeFs >?I >ttHF?eDs ND HQeF>t;H? HU

!$ tOese R;J;< >Rt;H?s HF >?D HU tOe Y<>;?t;UUs` ;?I;J;I_>< 11.- HF 3X1K RO>FTes.

!%

F. No Bar to Future Claims.

!&

/HtO;?T ;? tOe 3eRFee sO><< Ne RH?stF_eI tH N>F >?D R<>;Gs HU GeGNeFs HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t

!' -<>ss HF Y<>;?t;UUs tO>t >F;se >UteF tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te.

!( IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

!)

A. No Admission of Liability.

!*

2O;s -H?se?t 3eRFee IHes ?Ht RH?st;t_te >?I sO><< ?Ht Ne IeeGeI tH Ne > U;?I;?T HF

#+ IeteFG;?>t;H? ND tOe -H_Ft8 ?HF >? >IG;ss;H? ND >?D Q>FtD8 FeT>FI;?T tOe GeF;ts8 J><;I;tD HF

#! >RR_F>RD HU >?D HU tOe ><<eT>t;H?s8 R<>;Gs HF IeUe?ses. 2O;s 3eRFee FeQFese?ts tOe RHGQFHG;se HU

## I;sQ_teI R<>;Gs tO>t tOe Q>Ft;es FeRHT?;Me jH_<I Feq_;Fe QFHtF>RteI >?I RHst<D <;t;T>t;H? tH

#$ IeteFG;?e. 5NeFRFHGN;e Ie?;es tO>t ;t O>s e?T>TeI ;? >?D QH<;RD HF Q>tteF? HF QF>Rt;Re HU

#% _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 HF tO>t ;t O>s e?T>TeI ;? >?D HtOeF _?<>jU_< RH?I_Rt >s ><<eTeI ;? tOe

#& -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H?8 >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e`s e?tFD ;?tH tO;s 3eRFee ;s ?Ht >?I G>D ?Ht Ne _seI ND

#' >?D QeFsH? ;? >?D QFHReeI;?T >s >? >IG;ss;H? HF eJ;Ie?Re tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e >?IoHF ;ts eGQ<HDees8

#( G>?>TeFs8 >?IoHF >ttHF?eDs O>Je H? >?D HRR>s;H? e?T>TeI ;? I;sRF;G;?>tHFD eGQ<HDGe?t

#) QF>Rt;Res HF >?D HtOeF _?<>jU_< RH?I_Rt8 s_RO Ne;?T ePQFess<D Ie?;eI. 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 19 of 68

! JH<_?t>F;<D e?teFeI ;?tH tO;s 3eRFee NeR>_se ;t Ne<;eJes tOe >Rt;H?s ;t O>s >TFeeI tH _?IeFt>We

# IeGH?stF>te ;ts stFH?T RHGG;tGe?t tH I;JeFs;tD >?I eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD. /e;tOeF tOe

$ 3eRFee ?HF >?D RHGQ<;>?Re FeQHFts8 U;<;?Ts8 I>t>8 HF HtOeF RHGQ<;>?Re ;?UHFG>t;H? >F;s;?T H_t HU

% HF Fe<>teI tH tOe 3eRFee sO><< Ne I;sRHJeF>N<e8 >IG;ss;N<e HF _seI >s eJ;Ie?Re HU <;>N;<;tD HF ?H?6

& <;>N;<;tD UHF _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ;? >?D QFHReeI;?T HtOeF tO>? H?e Fe<>t;?T tH tOe e?UHFReGe?t

' HU tO;s 3eRFee.

(

B. Modification and Severability of the Consent Decree.

)

!.! aOe?eJeF QHss;N<e8 e>RO QFHJ;s;H? >?I teFG HU tO;s 3eRFee sO><< Ne

* ;?teFQFeteI ;? s_RO > G>??eF >s tH Ne J><;I >?I e?UHFRe>N<em QFHJ;IeI8 OHjeJeF8 tO>t ;? tOe eJe?t

!+ tO>t >UteF X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< OeFeHU >?D QFHJ;s;H? HF teFG HU tO;s 3eRFee sOH_<I Ne IeteFG;?eI tH Ne

!! HF Fe?IeFeI _?e?UHFRe>N<e H? RH<<>teF>< FeJ;ej8 ><< HtOeF QFHJ;s;H?s >?I teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee >?I

!# tOe >QQ<;R>t;H? tOeFeHU tH ><< QeFsH?s >?I R;FR_Gst>?Res s_NVeRt tOeFetH sO><< FeG>;? _?>UUeRteI tH

!$ tOe ePte?t QeFG;tteI ND <>j. 7U >?D >QQ<;R>t;H? HU >?D QFHJ;s;H?s HF teFG HU tO;s 3eRFee tH >?D

!% sQeR;U;R QeFsH? HF R;FR_Gst>?Re sOH_<I Ne IeteFG;?eI tH Ne ;?J><;I HF _?e?UHFRe>N<e8 tOe

!& >QQ<;R>t;H? HU s_RO QFHJ;s;H? HF teFG tH HtOeF QeFsH?s HF R;FR_Gst>?Res sO><< FeG>;? _?>UUeRteI tH

!' tOe ePte?t QeFG;tteI ND <>j.

!(

#.! =e>I -H_?se<8 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I tOe 11.- G>D VH;?t<D >TFee ;? jF;t;?T tH

!) GHI;UD tOe 3eRFee. 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t RO>?TeI HF HtOeF R;FR_Gst>?Res G>We > GHI;U;R>t;H? HU tOe

!* 3eRFee ?eRess>FD tH e?s_Fe ;ts Q_FQHses >Fe U_<<D eUUeRt_>teI8 N_t THHI U>;tO ?eTHt;>t;H?s seeW;?T

#+ s_RO GHI;U;R>t;H?s >Fe _?s_RRessU_<8 >?D Q>FtD tH tOe 3eRFee sO><< O>Je tOe F;TOt tH GHJe tOe

#! -H_Ft tH GHI;UD tO;s 3eRFee. 0_RO GHt;H? sO><< Ne TF>?teI H?<D _QH? tOe GHJ>?t QFHJ;?T tH tOe

## -H_Ft ND R<e>F >?I RH?J;?R;?T eJ;Ie?Re tO>t RO>?TeI HF HtOeF R;FR_Gst>?Res G>We s_RO

#$ GHI;U;R>t;H? ?eRess>FD. 7? IeteFG;?;?T tOe sQeR;U;R GHI;U;R>t;H? tH HFIeF8 tOe -H_Ft sO><<

#% RH?s;IeF jOetOeF tOeFe ;s >? eq_><<D eUUeRt;Je GHI;U;R>t;H? tO>t jH_<I ?Ht G>teF;><<D ;?RFe>se tOe

#& N_FIe? HU RHGQ<;>?Re >?IoHF RHst tH 5NeFRFHGN;e HU RHGQ<;>?Re AH_t6HU6QHRWet HF HtOeFj;seB.

#' 5?D s_RO GHI;U;R>t;H? tH tO;s 3eRFee ND tOe -H_Ft sO><< Ne HFIeFeI ;? s_RO > U>sO;H? >s j;<< <;G;t

#( tOe N_FIe? HU RHGQ<;>?Re >?IoHF tOe RHst tH 5NeFRFHGN;e AH_t6HU6QHRWet HF HtOeFj;seB tH tOe

#) ePte?t QHss;N<e RH?s;ste?t j;tO eUUeRt_>t;?T tOe Q_FQHses HU tO;s 3eRFee. 2Oe QFHReI_Fes UHF

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 20 of 68

! ?eTHt;>t;H?s tH GHI;UD tO;s 3eRFee A>?I8 ;U ?eRess>FD8 UHF FesH<_t;H? HU I;sQ_tesB sO><< Ne tOe s>Ge

# >s tOHse set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \.:8 FeT>FI;?T 3eRFee e?UHFReGe?t.

$

C. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree.

%

-<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes8 -<>ss -H_?se<8 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e e>RO >TFee tH >N;Ie ND ><<

& HU tOe teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee ;? THHI U>;tO >?I tH s_QQHFt ;t U_<<D8 >?I sO><< _se :est 1UUHFts tH

' IeUe?I tO;s 3eRFee UFHG >?D <eT>< RO><<e?Te8 jOetOeF ND >QQe>< HF RH<<>teF>< >tt>RW.

(

D. Execution In Counterparts

)

2Oe Q>Ft;es >TFee tO>t tOe 3eRFee G>D Ne ePeR_teI ;? RH_?teFQ>Fts8 e>RO HU jO;RO sO><< Ne

* IeeGeI tH Ne >? HF;T;?>< >?I ><< HU jO;RO tHTetOeF sO><< Ne IeeGeI tH Ne Q>Ft HU tOe s>Ge 3eRFee.

!+ X. !! !#

GENERAL EQUITABLE PROVISIONS A. General Injunctive Provisions.
!.! 5NeFRFHGN;e ;s OeFeND e?VH;?eI UFHG e?>Rt;?T8 G>;?t>;?;?T HF

!$ ;GQ<eGe?t;?T >?D QH<;RD HF e?T>T;?T ;? >?D QF>Rt;Re HF QFHReI_Fe tO>t I;sRF;G;?>tes >T>;?st

!% 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 HF =>t;?Hs H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF >?IoHF ?>t;H?><

!& HF;T;?.

!'

#.! 5NeFRFHGN;e ;s OeFeND e?VH;?eI UFHG e?>Rt;?T8 G>;?t>;?;?T HF

!( ;GQ<eGe?t;?T >?D QH<;RD HF e?T>T;?T ;? >?D QF>Rt;Re HF QFHReI_Fe tO>t I;sRF;G;?>tes >T>;?st

!) jHGe? H? tOe N>s;s HU Te?IeF.

!*

$.! 5NeFRFHGN;e ;s OeFeND e?VH;?eI UFHG e?>Rt;?T8 G>;?t>;?;?T HF

#+ ;GQ<eGe?t;?T >?D QH<;RD HF e?T>T;?T ;? >?D QF>Rt;Re8 RH?I_Rt HF QFHReI_Fe tO>t Fet><;>tes HF O>s

#! tOe Q_FQHse HU Fet><;>t;?T >T>;?st >?D U_t_Fe8 R_FFe?t HF UHFGeF eGQ<HDee HF >QQ<;R>?t HU

## 5NeFRFHGN;e NeR>_se Oe HF sOe HQQHseI I;sRF;G;?>t;H? H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?

#$ HF Te?IeFm U;<eI > RO>FTe HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeFm

#% test;U;eI8 U_F?;sOeI ;?UHFG>t;H? HF Q>Ft;R;Q>teI ;? >?D G>??eF ;? >?D ;?Jest;T>t;H?8 QFHReeI;?T8 HF

#& Oe>F;?T ;? RH??eRt;H? j;tO >?D RO>FTe HF RHGQ<>;?t HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8

#' ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeFm test;U;eI8 U_F?;sOeI ;?UHFG>t;H? HF Q>Ft;R;Q>teI ;? >?D G>??eF ;?

#( RH??eRt;H? j;tO tOe GH?;tHF;?T HF ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tO;s 3eRFeem HF sH_TOt >?IoHF FeRe;JeI >?D

#) GH?et>FD >?IoHF ?H?6GH?et>FD Fe<;eU Q_Fs_>?t tH tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 21 of 68

!

%.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ;GQ<eGe?t HF G>;?t>;? ?H?6I;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I ?H?6

# O>F>ssGe?t QH<;R;es >?I >? ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?t QFHReI_Fe Ies;T?eI tH >ss_Fe eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t

$ HQQHFt_?;tD.

%

&.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< G>We >J>;<>N<e tH E;?HF;tD >?I UeG><e >ssHR;>tes >?I

& >QQ<;R>?ts tOe s>Ge eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;t;es >?I teFGs >?I RH?I;t;H?s HU eGQ<HDGe?t8

' ;?R<_I;?T N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH FeRF_;tGe?t8 O;F;?T8 VHN >ss;T?Ge?ts8 >?I G>?>TeF;>< QFHGHt;H?s8 >s

( 5NeFRFHGN;e >UUHFIs s;G;<>F<D6s;t_>teI jO;te G><e eGQ<HDees.

)

B. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Procedures.

*

!.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es >TFee tH tOe >QQH;?tGe?t HU K_?teF K_TOes >s 0QeR;>< E>steF.

!+ 2Oe 0QeR;>< E>steF G>D Ne FeGHJeI >t tOe VH;?t jF;tte? Feq_est HU =e>I -H_?se<8 11.-8 >?I

!! 5NeFRFHGN;e8 HF ND HFIeF HU tOe -H_Ft _QH? GHt;H? HU >?D Q>FtD >?I > sOHj;?T HU THHI R>_se tO>t

!# EF. K_TOes sOH_<I ?H <H?TeF seFJe >s 0QeR;>< E>steF. 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t EF. K_TOes NeRHGes

!$ _?>J>;<>N<e tH seFJe >s 0QeR;>< E>steF UHF >?D Fe>sH?8 =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e

!% j;<< G>We > THHI U>;tO eUUHFt tH se<eRt H? > VH;?t N>s;s > ?ej 0QeR;>< E>steF. 7U =e>I -H_?se<8

!& 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e >Fe _?>N<e tH Fe>RO >TFeeGe?t >s tH > s_RRessHF 0QeR;>< E>steF j;tO;?

!' UHFtD6U;Je A%&B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe I>te EF. K_TOes NeRHGes _?>J>;<>N<e tH seFJe >s 0QeR;><

!( E>steF8 tOe -H_Ft sO><< >QQH;?t > s_RRessHF 0QeR;>< E>steF _QH? GHt;H? HU =e>I -H_?se<8 11.-

!) HF 5NeFRFHGN;e. =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D ?HG;?>te tH tOe -H_Ft QeFsH?s UHF

!* RH?s;IeF>t;H? >s > s_RRessHF 0QeR;>< E>steF. =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< e>RO

#+ O>Je tOe F;TOt tH ;?teFJ;ej >?D ?HG;?>teI QeFsH?8 >?I tH QFese?t >FT_Ge?t >?I eJ;Ie?Re tH tOe

#! -H_Ft FeT>FI;?T tOe se<eRt;H? HU tOe s_RRessHF 0QeR;>< E>steF.

##

#.! 2Oe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><< O>Je >_tOHF;tD tH FesH<Je ><< I;sQ_tes >F;s;?T

#$ _?IeF tOe 3eRFee8 s_NVeRt tH <;G;t>t;H?s >?I st>?I>FIs set UHFtO ;? tOe 3eRFee.

#%

$.! 5t tOe Feq_est HU =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e8 tOe Q>Ft;es sO><<

#& _se :est 1UUHFts tH FesH<Je QFHGQt<D >?D I;UUeFe?Res HF >?D I;sQ_tes FeT>FI;?T tOe ;?teFQFet>t;H?

#' HF ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee.

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 22 of 68

!

%.! =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< O>Je tOe F;TOt tH ;?;t;>te steQs

# tH FesH<Je >?D I;sQ_te HF ;ss_e HU RHGQ<;>?Re FeT>FI;?T >?D QFHJ;s;H? HU tOe 3eRFee s_NVeRt tH

$ <;G;t>t;H?s >?I st>?I>FIs set UHFtO ;? tOe 3eRFee.

%

>.! 7U =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s THHI Fe>sH? tH Ne<;eJe

& tO>t > <eT;t;G>te I;sQ_te eP;sts8 tOe ;?;t;>t;?T Q>FtD sO><< U;Fst QFHGQt<D T;Je jF;tte? ?Ht;Re tH tOe

' HtOeF Q>Ft;es8 ;?R<_I;?T[ A>B > FeUeFe?Re tH ><< sQeR;U;R QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee tO>t >Fe ;?JH<JeIm

( ANB > st>teGe?t HU tOe ;ss_em ARB > st>teGe?t HU tOe FeGeI;>< >Rt;H? sH_TOt ND tOe ;?;t;>t;?T Q>FtDm

) >?I AIB > NF;eU st>teGe?t HU tOe sQeR;U;R U>Rts8 R;FR_Gst>?Res >?I >?D HtOeF >FT_Ge?ts s_QQHFt;?T

* tOe QHs;t;H? HU tOe ;?;t;>t;?T Q>FtDm

!+

N.! a;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds >UteF FeRe;J;?T s_RO ?Ht;Re8 tOe ?H?6

!! ;?;t;>t;?T Q>FtD sO><< FesQH?I ;? jF;t;?T tH tOe st>teGe?t HU U>Rts >?I >FT_Ge?ts set UHFtO ;? tOe

!# ?Ht;Re >?I sO><< QFHJ;Ie ;ts jF;tte? QHs;t;H?8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe U>Rts >?I >FT_Ge?ts _QH? jO;RO ;t

!$ Fe<;es ;? s_QQHFt HU ;ts QHs;t;H?m

!%

R.! =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _?IeFt>We THHI6U>;tO

!& ?eTHt;>t;H?s8 ;?R<_I;?T Geet;?T HF RH?UeFF;?T ND te<eQOH?e HF ;? QeFsH? >?I ePRO>?T;?T Fe<eJ>?t

!' IHR_Ge?ts >?IoHF HtOeF ;?UHFG>t;H?8 tH >tteGQt tH FesH<Je tOe ;ss_es ;? I;sQ_te HF ><<eTeI

!( ?H?RHGQ<;>?Rem

!)

I.! 2Oe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 _QH? GHt;H?8 G>D QeFG;t =e>I -H_?se<8

!* 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e tH t>We QHst6sett<eGe?t I;sRHJeFD >s QFHJ;IeI ND tOe XeIeF>< 4_<es HU

#+ -;J;< YFHReI_Fe8 N_t H?<D >s tH G>tteFs Fe<eJ>?t tH tOe _?IeF<D;?T R<>;G HU NFe>RO8 ;U tOe 0QeR;><

#! E>steF IeteFG;?es tO>t tOe ;?UHFG>< ePRO>?Te HU IHR_Ge?ts HF ;?UHFG>t;H? O>s ?Ht Nee?

## s_UU;R;e?t tH ><<Hj =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e tH QFese?t tOe I;sQ_te _QH? > U>Rt_><

#$ FeRHFI >Ieq_>te UHF > U>;F IeteFG;?>t;H? HU tOe ;ss_em

#%

e.! 7U tOe Q>Ft;es` THHI6U>;tO eUUHFts tH FesH<Je tOe G>tteF O>Je U>;<eI8

#& >?I >UteF jF;tte? ?Ht;Re HU >? ;GQ>sse ND tOe GHJ;?T Q>FtD tH tOe ?H?6;?;t;>t;?T Q>FtD HF Q>Ft;es8

#' =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D U;<e > GHt;H? j;tO tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 j;tO >

#( s_QQHFt;?T NF;eU8 Feq_est;?T FesH<_t;H? HU tOe I;sQ_te HF tOe ;ss_es HU ?H?6RHGQ<;>?Re8 QFHJ;IeI8

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 23 of 68

! OHjeJeF8 tO>t s_RO GHt;H? sO><< Ne <;G;teI tH tOe I;sQ_teAsB >?IoHF ;ss_eAsB >s tH jO;RO tOe Q>Ft;es

# O>Je Get >?I RH?UeFFeI >s IesRF;NeI ;? tO;s 0eRt;H? \.:.%.m

$

U.! 2Oe ?H?6GHJ;?T Q>Ft;es j;<< O>Je U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds tH FesQH?I tH

% >?D s_RO GHt;H?m

&

T.! 2Oe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><< >tteGQt j;tO;? U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds >UteF

' U;<;?T HU tOe U;?>< NF;eU tH FesH<Je tOe I;sQ_te >?I G>D sROeI_<e > Oe>F;?T HF HtOeF QFHReeI;?T8

( ;?R<_I;?T >? eJ;Ie?t;>FD Oe>F;?T8 tH FesH<Je tOe G>tteFm >?I

)

O.! a;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU >?D Oe>F;?T8 tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><<

* ;ss_e > jF;tte? IeteFG;?>t;H?8 ;?R<_I;?T U;?I;?Ts HU U>Rt ;U Feq_esteI ND >?D Q>FtD.

!+

&.! 2Oe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tO;s 0eRt;H? IH ?Ht QFeJe?t =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF

!! 5NeFRFHGN;e UFHG QFHGQt<D NF;?T;?T >? ;ss_e I;FeRt<D NeUHFe tOe -H_Ft jOe? eP;Te?t U>Rts HF

!# R;FR_Gst>?Res Feq_;Fe ;GGeI;>te -H_Ft >Rt;H? tH QFeJe?t > seF;H_s J;H<>t;H? HU tOe teFGs HU tO;s

!$ 3eRFee8 jO;RO HtOeFj;se jH_<I Ne j;tOH_t Ge>?;?TU_< FeGeID. 2Oe GHJ;?T Q>QeFs sO><< ePQ<>;?

!% tOe U>Rts >?I R;FR_Gst>?Res tO>t ><<eTeI<D ?eRess;t>te ;GGeI;>te >Rt;H? ND tOe -H_Ft. 5Nse?t >

!& sOHj;?T HU eP;Te?t U>Rts HF R;FR_Gst>?Res8 tOe -H_Ft sO><< FeUeF tOe G>tteF tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF

!' tH FesH<Je ;? >RRHFI>?Re j;tO QFHReI_Fes set UHFtO >NHJe. 7U >?D s_RO G>tteF ;s NFH_TOt NeUHFe tOe

!( -H_Ft Feq_est;?T ;GGeI;>te >Rt;H?8 tOe HtOeF Q>Ft;es sO><< Ne QFHJ;IeI j;tO >QQFHQF;>te >Rt_><

!) ?Ht;Re8 >?I >? HQQHFt_?;tD tH Ne Oe>FI H? tOe GHt;H?8 _?IeF tOe =HR>< 4_<es HU tOe -H_Ft >?I tOe

!* XeIeF>< 4_<es HU -;J;< YFHReI_Fe. 2Oe -H_Ft ;? ;ts I;sRFet;H? G>D set s_RO QFHReI_Fes UHF

#+ eGeFTe?RD RH?s;IeF>t;H? >s >Fe >QQFHQF;>te tH tOe Q>Ft;R_<>F U>Rts HF R;FR_Gst>?Res8 N_t ?H s_RO

#! G>tteF G>D Ne Oe>FI HF RH?s;IeFeI H? >? eP Q>Fte N>s;s.

##

'.! 5<< Uees >?I ePQe?ses HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><< Ne Q>;I ND 5NeFRFHGN;e.

#$

(.! =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D >QQe>< > IeR;s;H? HU tOe 0QeR;><

#% E>steF tH tOe -H_Ft QFHJ;IeI tO>t s_RO >? >QQe>< ;s G>Ie j;tO;? UH_Ftee? A!%B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU

#& ?Ht;Re HU tOe IeR;s;H? ND tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF. 5?D s_RO >QQe>< sO><< Ne NFH_TOt ND GHt;H? _?IeF

#' tOe =HR>< 4_<es HU tOe -H_Ft >?I XeIeF>< 4_<es HU -;J;< YFHReI_Fe. 2Oe IeR;s;H? Fe?IeFeI ND tOe

#( 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><< Ne >UU;FGeI _?<ess tOe -H_Ft IeteFG;?es tO>t tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF G>Ie R<e>F<D

#) eFFH?eH_s U;?I;?Ts HU U>Rt HF jFH?T<D ;?teFQFeteI HF >QQ<;eI tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee. 5 Q>FtD G>D

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 24 of 68

! seeW H? >QQe>< >?D FeGeID QFHJ;IeI ND <>j8 QFHJ;IeI tO>t s_RO FeGeID ;s RH?s;ste?t j;tO tOe

# QFHJ;s;H?s HU tO;s 3eRFee.

$

).! .?<D =e>I -H_?se<8 11.- HF 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< O>Je st>?I;?T tH GHJe

% tOe -H_Ft tH e?UHFRe8 >QQ<D8 HF GHI;UD tO;s 3eRFee. 5?D ;?I;J;I_>< RH?ReF?eI >NH_t

& 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tO;s 3eRFee G>D sH ?Ht;UD =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- >?I

' Feq_est tO>t tOeD eP>G;?e 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re >?I seeW s_RO Fe<;eU8 ;U >?D8 >s G>D Ne

( >QQFHQF;>te.

)

*.! 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t >?D Q>FtD seeWs tH _t;<;Me tOe I;sQ_te FesH<_t;H? QFHReI_Fe

* set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \.:8 tOe? e>RO Q>FtD sO><< Ne>F ;ts Hj? >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 RHsts >?I ePQe?ses UHF

!+ ><< jHFW QeFUHFGeI tOFH_TO FesH<_t;H? ND tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF. 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t >?D Q>FtD seeWs tH

!! >QQe>< >?D IeR;s;H? HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 tOe? tOe QFeJ>;<;?T Q>FtD ;? s_RO G>tteF sO><< Ne

!# e?t;t<eI tH FeRHJeF Fe>sH?>N<e >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI ;? s_RO >QQe>< UFHG tOe

!$ HtOeF Q>FtD8 RH?s;ste?t j;tO >QQ<;R>N<e st>?I>FIs _?IeF 2;t<e d77. aOetOeF >?I tH jO>t ePte?t >?D

!% Q>FtD ;s > QFeJ>;<;?T Q>FtD >?I >j>FIeI Uees >?I ePQe?ses sO><< Ne IeteFG;?eI ;? tOe sH<e >?I

!& >NsH<_te I;sRFet;H? HU tOe -H_Ft. 2O;s QFHJ;s;H? sO><< ?Ht >QQ<D tH tOe 11.-8 >s 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I

!' tOe 11.- G_t_><<D >TFee ?Ht tH seeW Uees _?IeF tO;s 0eRt;H? UFHG e>RO HtOeF.

!(

C. Marketing.

!)

!.! 5NeFRFHGN;e Ne<;eJes tO>t tOe >Ft;st;R >sQeRt HU ;ts G>FWet;?T G>teF;><s ;s >

!* RF;t;R>< U>RtHF IF;J;?T tOe s_RRess HU 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I ;ts NF>?I. 5s > RHGQ>?D RHGG;tteI tH

#+ >RO;eJ;?T I;JeFs;tD ;? ;ts stHFe >ssHR;>tes8 >s FeU<eRteI ;? tOe HtOeF teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee8

#! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< FeU<eRt I;JeFs;tD8 >s FeU<eRteI ND tOe G>VHF F>R;><oetO?;R G;?HF;tD QHQ_<>t;H?s HU

## tOe ^?;teI 0t>tes8 ;? ;ts G>FWet;?T G>teF;><s At>We? >s > jOH<eB. =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.-

#$ G>D >sseFt tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ?Ht Get ;ts RHGG;tGe?t _?IeF tO;s Q>F>TF>QO UHF tOe UH<<Hj;?T

#% Q_FQHses H?<D[

#&

>.! 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t8 >t tOe e?I HU tOe tje?tD6UH_F A#%B GH?tO QeF;HI

#' UH<<Hj;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 tOe 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te UHF >?D E;?HF;tD TFH_Q ;s <HjeF tO>? s_RO

#( TFH_Q`s ;?teF;G :e?ROG>FW UHF tOe UH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- G>D

#) >sseFt tO>t tO;s j>s R>_seI ND > RO;<<;?T HU >QQ<;R>?t U<Hj R>_seI ;? Q>Ft ND ?Ht Geet;?T tOe

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 25 of 68

! RHGG;tGe?t ;? Q>F>TF>QO ! HU tO;s 0eRt;H?. 5?D s_RO >sseFt;H?8 >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e`s FesQH?se

# tOeFetH8 G>D Ne RH?s;IeFeI ND tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF. 7U tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF >RReQts tOe >sseFt;H? HU

$ =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.-8 tOe? tOe sH<e FeGeID sO><< Ne tO>t tOe >QQ<;R>N<e ;?teF;G

% :e?ROG>FW sO><< FeG>;? ;? eUUeRt _?<ess >?I _?t;< tOe >QQ<;R>N<e 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te ePReeIs tOe

& >QQ<;R>N<e ;?teF;G :e?ROG>FW.

'

N.! 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e seeWs tH HNt>;? e>F<D teFG;?>t;H? HU

( tO;s 3eRFee8 _?IeF 0eRt;H? d7.:. OeFeHU8 >?I ;? tOe eJe?t tO>t =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.-

) seeWs tH RO><<e?Te s_RO e>F<D teFG;?>t;H?8 =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- G>D >sseFt tO>t

* 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ?Ht Get ;ts RHGG;tGe?t ;? Q>F>TF>QO ! HU tO;s 0eRt;H?. 5?D s_RO >sseFt;H?8 >?I

!+ 5NeFRFHGN;e`s FesQH?se tOeFetH8 G>D Ne RH?s;IeFeI ND tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF >?IoHF tOe -H_Ft8 ><H?T

!! j;tO 5NeFRFHGN;e`s Geet;?T HF U>;<;?T tH Geet HtOeF QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee8 ;? IeR;I;?T

!# jOetOeF tH TF>?t 5NeFRFHGN;e`s Feq_est UHF e>F<D teFG;?>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee.

!$

#.! /HtO;?T ;? tO;s 0eRt;H? sO><< <;G;t tOe sRHQe HU tOe EH?;tHF`s I;sRFet;H?

!% _?IeF 0eRt;H? \d7.5.#. HU tO;s 3eRFee ;? eJ><_>t;?T RHGQ<;>?Re A;?R<_I;?T N>FF;eFs tH

!& RHGQ<;>?ReB j;tO >?D HU tOe HNVeRt;Jes HU tOe 3eRFee. KHjeJeF8 ?HtO;?T ;? tO;s 0eRt;H? HF

!' HtOeFj;se ;? tO;s 3eRFee sO><< Ne IeeGeI tH QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se<8 tOe 11.-8 tOe EH?;tHF8 tOe

!( 0QeR;>< E>steF8 HF tOe -H_Ft j;tO tOe >_tOHF;tD HF >N;<;tD tH RH?test8 RO><<e?Te8 ><teF8 HF seeW tH

!) ><teF 5NeFRFHGN;e`s G>FWet;?T G>teF;><s HF tOe se<eRt;H? HU QOHtHTF>QOs HF GHIe<s tOeFeUHF.

!*

$.! E>FWet;?T G>teF;><s ;?R<_Ie sQeR;U;R><<D8 N_t ?Ht ePR<_s;Je<D[ q_>FteF<D

#+ G>T>M;?es >?I s;G;<>F G>teF;><s8 sOHQQ;?T N>Ts8 stHFe QHsteFs >?I J;IeH8 jeNs;te8 59X 2d8 >?I

#! Q_FRO>seI >IJeFt;s;?T.

## XI. ABERCROMBIE’S INTERNAL PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DIVERSITY PRACTICES
#$
A. Creation of Office of Diversity. #%

#&

!.! 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ?Ht ><Fe>ID IH?e sH8 tOe? j;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU tOe

#' 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< RFe>te >? .UU;Re HU 3;JeFs;tD Oe>IeI ND > RHFQHF>te ePeR_t;Je

#( j;tO tOe t;t<e HU d;Re YFes;Ie?t Ak3;JeFs;tD dYlB. 2Oe 3;JeFs;tD dY sO><< FeQHFt I;FeRt<D tH tOe

#) -O;eU 1PeR_t;Je .UU;ReF A-1.B HF tOe -O;eU .QeF>t;?T .UU;ReF A-..B HU 5NeFRFHGN;e.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 26 of 68

!

#.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< >QQH;?t > QeFsH? tH seFJe >s 3;JeFs;tD dY ?H <>teF tO>?

# s;PtD A'+B I>Ds >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te. 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t tOe QHs;t;H? HU 3;JeFs;tD dY NeRHGes

$ J>R>?t8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< >QQH;?t > s_RRessHF >s sHH? >s QF>Rt;R>N<e >UteF tOe QHs;t;H? NeRHGes

% J>R>?t8 >?I ;? >?D eJe?t8 ;U tOe QHs;t;H? FeG>;?s J>R>?t UHF s;PtD A'+B I>Ds8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<<

& Fet>;? > se>FRO U;FG tH se>FRO UHF > s_RRessHF8 >?I j;<< >QQH;?t >? ;?teF;G 3;JeFs;tD dY jOH j;<<

' Ne RO>FTeI j;tO teGQHF>F;<D QeFUHFG;?T tOe U_?Rt;H?s HU tOe QHs;t;H?. 2Oe UH<<Hj;?T QFHReI_Fes

( sO><< >QQ<D ;? se<eRt;?T tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY[

)

>.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _se :est 1UUHFts tH >QQH;?t >? ;?I;J;I_>< jOH

* j;<< Ne eUUeRt;Je ;? R>FFD;?T H_t tOe I_t;es >?I FesQH?s;N;<;t;es set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \7.5.$.

!+

N.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se > G;?HF;tD6Hj?eI se>FRO U;FG8 HF > G;?HF;tD

!! UFHG > G>VHF;tD6Hj?eI se>FRO U;FG8 tH ;Ie?t;UD QHte?t;>< R>?I;I>tes UHF tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY QHs;t;H?.

!# 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ;Ie?t;UD tOe se>FRO U;FG HF ;?I;J;I_>< tH =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-. YF;HF tH

!$ >QQH;?t;?T >? ;?I;J;I_>< UHF tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY QHs;t;H?8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se<

!% >?I 11.- j;tO > Fes_Ge HU tOe ;?I;J;I_>< jOHG 5NeFRFHGN;e ;?te?Is tH >QQH;?t tH tOe QHs;t;H?.

!& a;tO;? te? A!+B I>Ds HU FeRe;J;?T tOe Fes_Ge8 =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- G>D QFHJ;Ie tOe;F

!' J;ejs tH 5NeFRFHGN;e >s tH tOe ;?I;J;I_><`s q_><;U;R>t;H?s >?I s_;t>N;<;tD UHF tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY

!( QHs;t;H?. 2Oe IeR;s;H? >s tH jO;RO ;?I;J;I_>< tH se<eRt UHF tOe QHs;t;H? sO><< Ne sH<e<D

!) 5NeFRFHGN;e`s >?I ;s ?Ht s_NVeRt tH U_FtOeF FeJ;ej _?IeF 0eRt;H? \.

!*

$.! 2Oe 3;JeFs;tD dY sO><< _se :est 1UUHFts tH e?s_Fe 5NeFRFHGN;e`s

#+ ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? >?I RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tO;s 3eRFee8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe UH<<Hj;?T[

#!

>.! EH?;tHF;?T >?I ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU >?D Feq_;FeI RO>?Tes tH O_G>?

## FesH_FRes sDsteGsm

#$

N.! EH?;tHF;?T >?I ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe :e?ROG>FWs QFHJ;IeI UHF

#% _?IeF tOe 3eRFeem

#&

R.! .JeFsee;?T tOe IeJe<HQGe?t >?I ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU ><< tF>;?;?T >?I

#' eI_R>t;H? QFHTF>Gs tH Ne QFHJ;IeI _?IeF tOe 3eRFeem

#(

I.! 0_NG;tt;?T QFHTFess FeQHFts >?I HtOeF GH?;tHF;?T >?I FeQHFt;?T

#) G>teF;>< QFHJ;IeI UHF ;? tOe 3eRFeem

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 27 of 68

!

e.! .JeFsee;?T tOe ;?Jest;T>t;H?8 RH<<eRt;H?8 tF>RW;?T8 >?I >QQFHQF;>te

# FesH<_t;H? HU RHGQ<>;?ts HU _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H? s_NG;tteI _?IeF 5NeFRFHGN;e`s 7?teF?><

$ -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe AIesRF;NeI OeFe;?8 ;? 0eRt;H? \7.3.Bm >?I

%

U.! .JeFsee;?T tOe IeJe<HQGe?t HU ><< FeRF_;t;?T QFHTF>Gs tH Ne

& QFHJ;IeI _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee >?I GH?;tHF;?T tOe ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU s_RO QFHTF>Gs.

'

%.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH QFHJ;Ie s_RO st>UU8 U_?Is8 >?I HtOeF

( FesH_FRes tH tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY >s >Fe ?eRess>FD tH I;sRO>FTe 5NeFRFHGN;e`s HN<;T>t;H?s _?IeF tOe

) 3eRFee.

*

&.! ^QH? RHGQ<et;H? HU tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe ;?Jest;T>t;H?8 tOe

!+ 3;JeFs;tD dY sO><< O>Je tOe >_tOHF;tD tH FeRHGGe?I >QQFHQF;>te >Rt;H? tH Ne t>We? >?IoHF

!! GH?et>FD Q>DGe?t tH Ne G>Ie tH >?D ;?I;J;I_>< jOH O>s s_NG;tteI > RHGQ<>;?t HU _?<>jU_<

!# I;sRF;G;?>t;H? HF HU > J;H<>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee.

!$

B. Notice and Posting.

!%

!.! a;tO;? te? A!+B I>Ds HU tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QHst ;?

!& RH?sQ;R_H_s Q<>Res jOeFe eGQ<HDee ?Ht;Res >Fe QHsteI ;? e>RO HU ;ts stHFes >?I RHFQHF>te HUU;Res8

!' tOe /Ht;Re >tt>ROeI OeFetH >s 1PO;N;t :. 2Oe /Ht;Re sO><< FeG>;? QHsteI ;? e>RO s_RO <HR>t;H?

!( A>?I ;? >?D ?ej stHFes HF RHFQHF>te HUU;ResB UHF tOe I_F>t;H? HU tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee. 7? >II;t;H?8

!) tOe /Ht;Re sO><< Ne Q_N<;sOeI eJeFD UH_F A%B GH?tOs j;tO tOe K4 %!! :_<<et;? UHF tOe I_F>t;H? HU

!* tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee. 7? RH??eRt;H? j;tO e>RO 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFt8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><<

#+ ReFt;UD tO>t tOe /Ht;Re O>s Nee? QHsteI >?I FeG>;?eI QHsteI >s Feq_;FeI >NHJe I_F;?T tOe

#! QFeReI;?T s;P A'B GH?tO QeF;HI.

##

#.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< ><sH ;?R<_Ie j;tO;? ;ts 1GQ<HDee K>?INHHW HF

#$ HtOeFj;se QFHJ;Ie tH e>RO ?ej eGQ<HDee8 tOe UH<<Hj;?T st>teGe?t HF ;ts eq_;J><e?t[ k7? #++%8

#% 5NeFRFHGN;e JH<_?t>F;<D e?teFeI ;?tH > 3eRFee8 >TFee;?T tH _?IeFt>We >Rt;H?s tO>t IeGH?stF>te ;ts

#& stFH?T RHGG;tGe?t tH I;JeFs;tD >?I eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD. 1>RO stHFe O>s > QHsteI

#' ?Ht;Re FeT>FI;?T tO;s IeRFee8 >?I > s_GG>FD >?I RHQD HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee >Fe >J>;<>N<e >t

#( fIHG>;? ?>Geg.l

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 28 of 68

!

C. EEO and Diversity Training.

#

!.! 3_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie tF>;?;?T H?

$ eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD >?I RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee tH E>?>TeFs67?6

% 2F>;?;?T8 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs8 0tHFe E>?>TeFs >?I ]e?eF>< E>?>TeFs8 tH ;?R<_Ie tOe UH<<Hj;?T

& tHQ;Rs[ A!B RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe 3eRFeem A#B eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tDm A$B UeIeF><8 st>te >?I

' -HGQ>?D QFHO;N;t;H?s HU _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I Fet><;>t;H?m A%B I;JeFs;tD ;ss_esm >?I

( A&B HtOeF tHQ;Rs tO>t j;<< e?RH_F>Te eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t ;? FeRF_;t;?T8 O;F;?T8 >ss;T?;?T8 QFHGHt;?T8

) >?I Fet>;?;?T G;?HF;t;es >?I UeG><es. 0_RO tF>;?;?T G>D Ne Ie<;JeFeI ND RHGQ_teF QFHTF>G8 <;Je

* kI;sR_ss;H?l UHFG>t8 J;IeH UHFG>t8 jF;tte? G>teF;><s8 HF >?D RHGN;?>t;H? HU tOese HF HtOeF UHFG>ts

!+ t>;<HFeI tH Ne eUUeRt;Je ;? RHGG_?;R>t;?T tOe G>teF;><8 QFHJ;IeI8 OHjeJeF8 tO>t s_RO tF>;?;?T >s

!! HRR_Fs j;tO;? tOe U;Fst tje<Je GH?tOs UH<<Hj;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te sO><< ?Ht Ne QFHJ;IeI tH

!# Q>Ft;R;Q>?ts sH<e<D tOFH_TO jF;tte? G>teF;><s. /H <ess tO>? tjH OH_Fs sO><< Ne IeJHteI tH tF>;?;?T

!$ H? tOese tHQ;Rs UHF e>RO Q>Ft;R;Q>?t j;tO;? UH_F GH?tOs UH<<Hj;?T A>B tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 HF ANB tOe

!% I>te HU tOe Q>Ft;R;Q>?t`s O;F;?T >s > E>?>TeF ;? 2F>;?;?T8 HF QFHGHt;H? tH >? 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeF8

!& 0tHFe E>?>TeF8 HF ]e?eF>< E>?>TeF QHs;t;H?8 jO;ROeJeF HRR_Fs <>teF. 7? >II;t;H?8 I_F;?T tOe

!' 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie AH? > TFH_Q HF ;?I;J;I_>< N>s;sB >t <e>st tjH OH_Fs

!( HU >II;t;H?>< tF>;?;?T IesRF;NeI >NHJe tH 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs8 0tHFe E>?>TeFs8 >?I ]e?eF><

!) E>?>TeFs eJeFD tje<Je GH?tOs >UteF tOe 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs8 0tHFe E>?>TeFs8 >?I ]e?eF><

!* E>?>TeFs <>st FeRe;JeI s_RO tF>;?;?T AH? > TFH_Q HF ;?I;J;I_>< N>s;sB.

#+

#.! 3_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie tF>;?;?T H?

#! eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD >?I RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe 3eRFee tH ><< 3;stF;Rt

## E>?>TeFs8 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeFs8 >?I s><>F;eI ePeGQt eGQ<HDees ;? tOe IeQ>FtGe?ts HU 0tHFe

#$ 5IG;?;stF>t;H?8 0tHFe -HGG_?;R>t;H?s8 0eR_F;tD8 0tHFes K48 0tHFe .QeF>t;H?s8 >?I 0tHFe

#% -H?tFH<8 tH ;?R<_Ie tOe UH<<Hj;?T tHQ;Rs[ A!B RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe 3eRFeem A#B eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t

#& HQQHFt_?;tDm A$B UeIeF><8 st>te8 >?I -HGQ>?D QFHO;N;t;H?s HU _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I

#' Fet><;>t;H?m A%B I;JeFs;tD ;ss_esm >?I A&B HtOeF tHQ;Rs tO>t j;<< e?RH_F>Te eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t

#( FeRF_;t;?T8 O;F;?T8 tF>;?;?T8 QFHGHt;?T8 >?I Fet>;?;?T G;?HF;t;es >?I UeG><es. 0_RO tF>;?;?T G>D

#) Ne Ie<;JeFeI ND RHGQ_teF QFHTF>G8 <;Je kI;sR_ss;H?l UHFG>t8 J;IeH UHFG>t8 jF;tte? G>teF;><s8 HF

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 29 of 68

! >?D RHGN;?>t;H? HU tOese HF HtOeF UHFG>ts t>;<HFeI tH Ne eUUeRt;Je ;? RHGG_?;R>t;?T tOe G>teF;><8

# QFHJ;IeI8 OHjeJeF8 tO>t s_RO tF>;?;?T >s HRR_Fs j;tO;? tOe U;Fst tje<Je GH?tOs UH<<Hj;?T tOe

$ 5QQFHJ>< 3>te sO><< ?Ht Ne QFHJ;IeI tH Q>Ft;R;Q>?ts sH<e<D tOFH_TO jF;tte? G>teF;><s. /H <ess tO>?

% tjH OH_Fs sO><< Ne IeJHteI tH tOe tF>;?;?T H? tOese tHQ;Rs UHF e>RO Q>Ft;R;Q>?t j;tO;? UH_F GH?tOs

& UH<<Hj;?T A>B tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 HF ANB tOe I>te HU tOe Q>Ft;R;Q>?t`s QFHGHt;H? tH 3;stF;Rt

' E>?>TeF HF 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeF QHs;t;H?8 jO;ROeJeF HRR_Fs <>teF. 7? >II;t;H?8 I_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU

( tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie AH? > TFH_Q HF ;?I;J;I_>< N>s;sB >t <e>st tjH OH_Fs HU

) >II;t;H?>< tF>;?;?T >s IesRF;NeI >NHJe tH 3;stF;Rt E>?>TeFs8 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeFs8 >?I s><>F;eI

* ePeGQt eGQ<HDees ;? tOe IeQ>FtGe?ts HU 0tHFe 5IG;?;stF>t;H?8 0tHFe -HGG_?;R>t;H?s8 0eR_F;tD8

!+ 0tHFes K48 0tHFe .QeF>t;H?s8 >?I 0tHFe -H?tFH<8 eJeFD tje<Je GH?tOs >UteF tOe 3;stF;Rt E>?>TeFs8

!! 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeFs8 >?I RHFQHF>te eGQ<HDees <>st FeRe;JeI s_RO tF>;?;?T. YFHJ;IeI U_FtOeF tO>t ;U

!# 5NeFRFHGN;e OH<Is > Geet;?T HU 3;stF;Rt >?IoHF 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeFs ;? HFIeF tH RH?I_Rt tF>;?;?T8

!$ tOe? >t <e>st H?e OH_F HU tOe tF>;?;?T IesRF;NeI >NHJe sO><< Ne IH?e ;? <;Je kI;sR_ss;H?l UHFG>t >t

!% s_RO Geet;?T.

!&

$.! a;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<<

!' tF>;? ;ts O_G>? FesH_FRes >ssHR;>tes jOH O>Je s_Nst>?t;Je FesQH?s;N;<;t;es Fe<>teI tH RHGQ<;>?Re

!( j;tO U>;F eGQ<HDGe?t <>js8 >?I tOe QF>Rt;Res >?I QFHReI_Fes est>N<;sOeI ND tO;s 3eRFee. /ej

!) O_G>? FesH_FRes >ssHR;>tes sO><< FeRe;Je s_RO tF>;?;?T j;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU tOe;F I>te HU

!* e?tFD ;?tH s_RO QHs;t;H?s. 0_RO tF>;?;?T sO><< ;?R<_Ie8 N_t ?Ht Ne <;G;teI tH[ A>B UeIeF>< >?I st>te

#+ eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD <>js8 ;?R<_I;?T N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH tOe Te?eF>< QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOese

#! <>js8 tOe N>ses H? jO;RO I;sRF;G;?>t;H? ;s QFHO;N;teI _?IeF tOese <>js8 tOe ;Ie?t;tD8 FH<es >?I

## FesQH?s;N;<;t;es HU >Te?R;es est>N<;sOeI tH e?UHFRe tOese <>js8 >?I tOe QF;?R;Q<es >?I HNVeRt;Jes

#$ _?IeF<D;?T tOese <>jsm ANB tOe >QQ<;R>t;H? HU eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD tH tDQ;R><

#% eGQ<HDGe?t s;t_>t;H?s8 ;?R<_I;?T N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH FeRF_;t;?T8 O;F;?T8 VHN >ss;T?Ge?t8 G>?>TeF;><

#& QFHGHt;H?8 >?I HtOeF R>FeeF >IJ>?ReGe?t HQQHFt_?;t;es8 >?I Te?eF>< FeRF_;t;?T8 O;F;?T >?I

#' s_QeFJ;s;H? j;tOH_t e?T>T;?T ;? F>R;><8 etO?;R HF Te?IeF steFeHtDQ;?Tm ARB tOe QFHJ;s;H?s >?I

#( Feq_;FeGe?ts HU tOe 3eRFeem AIB tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fem AeB tOe FH<e >?I FesQH?s;N;<;tD

#) HU tOe O_G>? FesH_FRes st>UUm >?I AUB UH<<Hj;?T _Q 11. RHGQ<>;?ts >?I ;?Jest;T>t;H?s A;?R<_I;?T8

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 30 of 68

! N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH8 >IIFess;?T QHte?t;>< HF ><<eTeI Fet><;>t;H?8 jHFW;?T j;tO tOe RHGQ<>;?>?t8 >?I

# >QQFHQF;>te I;sR;Q<;?e >?I HtOeF FeGeI;>< Ge>s_FesB.

$

%.! 2Oe tF>;?;?T IesRF;NeI ;? tO;s seRt;H? G>D Ne Oe<I ;? RH?V_?Rt;H? j;tO HtOeF

% -HGQ>?D N_s;?ess8 >t 5NeFRFHGN;e`s I;sRFet;H?8 >?I G>D Ne HFT>?;MeI TeHTF>QO;R><<D ;? s_RO

& U>sO;H? >s 5NeFRFHGN;e IeeGs >QQFHQF;>te.

'

&.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;tO tOe QFHQHseI

( Q<>? UHF tF>;?;?T I;sR_sseI ;? 0eRt;H?s \7.-. #8 $ >?I % ;? HFIeF tH QFHJ;Ie >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF

) RHGGe?t. =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;<< QFHJ;Ie RHGGe?ts8 ;U >?D8 j;tO;? tje?tD6H?e A#!B

* I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< FesQH?I tH s_RO RHGGe?ts j;tO;? U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt.

!+ 7U tOe Q>Ft;es R>??Ht >TFee H? tOe QFHQHseI Q<>? UHF tF>;?;?T8 >?D I;sQ_tes j;<< Ne s_NG;tteI tH tOe

!! 0QeR;>< E>steF UHF FesH<_t;H?. 2Oe QFHQHseI Q<>? UHF tF>;?;?T j;<< Ne QFes_GeI tH Ne >RReQt>N<e

!# _?<ess =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF 11.- IeGH?stF>te tO>t tOe QFHQHseI Q<>? UHF tF>;?;?T ;s ;GQFHQeF.

!$

D. Internal Complaint Procedure.

!%

!.! 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ?Ht ><Fe>ID IH?e sH8 tOe? j;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU tOe

!& 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< IeJe<HQ >? 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe tH QFHJ;Ie UHF tOe

!' U;<;?T8 ;?Jest;T>t;H? >?I8 ;U >QQFHQF;>te8 FeGeID;?T HU RHGQ<>;?ts HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? HF Fet><;>t;H?

!( ND >ssHR;>tes HF >QQ<;R>?ts UHF eGQ<HDGe?t H? tOe N>s;s HU F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeF8

!) HF jOeFe > J;H<>t;H? HU tO;s 3eRFee O>s HRR_FFeI HF ;s ><<eTeI. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ;GQ<eGe?t tOe

!* 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe j;tO;? s;PtD A'+B I>Ds HU tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<<

#+ QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se< >?I 11.- j;tO tOe QFHQHseI 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe ;? HFIeF tH

#! QFHJ;Ie >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF RHGGe?t FeT>FI;?T tOe QFHQHseI QFHReI_Fe. =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe

## 11.- j;<< QFHJ;Ie RHGGe?ts8 ;U >?D8 j;tO;? tje?tD6H?e A#!B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU tOe 7?teF?><

#$ -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< FesQH?I tH s_RO RHGGe?ts j;tO;? U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds HU

#% FeRe;Qt. 7U tOe Q>Ft;es R>??Ht >TFee H? tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe8 >?D I;sQ_tes j;<< Ne

#& s_NG;tteI tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF UHF FesH<_t;H?. 2Oe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe j;<< Ne

#' QFes_GeI tH Ne >RReQt>N<e _?<ess =e>I -H_?se< >?I 11.- IeGH?stF>te tO>t tOe QFHQHseI 7?teF?><

#( -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe ;s ;GQFHQeF. 5?D IeR;s;H? HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF ;s U;?>< >?I ?Ht s_NVeRt tH

#) >QQe><.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 31 of 68

!

#.! 2Oe 3;JeFs;tD dY sO><< Ne FesQH?s;N<e UHF HJeFs;TOt HU[

#

>.! Q_N<;R;M;?T tOe >J>;<>N;<;tD HU tO;s 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fem

$

N.! tF>RW;?T >?I RH<<eRt;?T ><< RHGQ<>;?ts U;<eI tOeFe_?IeFm

%

R.! ;?Jest;T>t;?T >?I FesH<J;?T s_RO RHGQ<>;?ts ;? > t;Ge<D >?I

& eUUeRt;Je G>??eFm >?I

'

I.! Fet>;?;?T FeRHFIs FeT>FI;?T tOe FesH<_t;H? HU ><< s_RO RHGQ<>;?ts.

(

$.! 2Oe ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?t QFHReI_Fe sO><< ;?RHFQHF>te tOe UH<<Hj;?T e<eGe?ts[

)

>.! 5 QH<;RD IesRF;N;?T OHj ;?Jest;T>t;H?s j;<< Ne RH?I_RteI8 tH Ne

* ;?R<_IeI ;? tOe 5ssHR;>te K>?INHHWm

!+

N.! 5 QFHGQt RHGGe?ReGe?t >?I tOHFH_TO ;?Jest;T>t;H? ND > QeFsH?

!! tF>;?eI tH RH?I_Rt s_RO ;?Jest;T>t;H?s jOH ;s ?Ht RH??eRteI j;tO tOe RHGQ<>;?tm

!#

R.! 5 st>teGe?t tO>t >? ;?Jest;T>t;H? sOH_<I ;?R<_Ie ;?teFJ;ejs HU ><<

!$ Fe<eJ>?t j;t?esses8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe RHGQ<>;?>?t8 >?I FeJ;ejs HU ><< Fe<eJ>?t IHR_Ge?tsm

!%

I.! 5 jF;tte? FeRHFI HU ><< ;?Jest;T>tHFD steQs8 >?I >?D U;?I;?Ts >?I

!& RH?R<_s;H?s8 >?I >?D >Rt;H?s t>We?m

!'

e.! YFHJ;s;H? UHF tOe Fe>sH?>N<D QFHGQt FesH<_t;H? HU s_RO RHGQ<>;?tsm

!(

U.! 5? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF tOe RHGQ<>;?>?t tH FeJ;ej >?I FesQH?I tH

!) te?t>t;Je U;?I;?Ts8 ePReQt ;? tOHse R;FR_Gst>?Res ;? jO;RO ;t ;s ?eRess>FD tH t>We ;GGeI;>te

!* >Rt;H?m

#+

T.! -H?U;Ie?t;><;tD HU tOe RHGQ<>;?t >?I ;?Jest;T>t;H? tH tOe ePte?t

#! QHss;N<em

##

O.! 5QQFHQF;>te RHGG_?;R>t;H? HU tOe U;?>< RH?R<_s;H?s HU tOe

#$ ;?Jest;T>t;H? QFHJ;IeI tH tOe RHGQ<>;?>?tm

#%

;.! 5? >QQe>< QFHReI_Fe tH tOe d;Re YFes;Ie?t HU K_G>? 4esH_FRes8 HF

#& HtOeF >QQFHQF;>te 5NeFRFHGN;e FeQFese?t>t;Je8 sOH_<I tOe RHGQ<>;?>?t Ne I;ss>t;sU;eI j;tO tOe

#' Fes_<ts HU tOe ;?Jest;T>t;H?m >?I

#(

V.! 5 ?Ht;Re tO>t eGQ<HDees HF >QQ<;R>?ts RHGQ<>;?;?T HU

#) I;sRF;G;?>t;H? G>D _se tOe RHGQ>?D`s ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?t QFHReI_Fe >?IoHF G>D U;<e RO>FTes j;tO

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 32 of 68

! tOe 11.- HF st>te HF <HR>< X>;F 1GQ<HDGe?t YF>Rt;Re AX1YB >Te?R;es. 2Oe ?Ht;Re sO><< ><sH st>te

# tO>t U;<;?T >? ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?t IHes ?Ht Fe<;eJe tOe RHGQ<>;?>?t HU Geet;?T >?D >QQ<;R>N<e

$ Ie>I<;?e UHF tOe U;<;?T HU > RO>FTe HF RHGQ<>;?t j;tO 11.- HF st>te HF <HR>< X1Y >Te?R;es.

%

%.! 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D e?RH_F>Te FesH<_t;H? HU ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?ts >t > <HR><

& <eJe< QF;HF tH ;?Jest;T>t;H?8 N_t ?Ht Feq_;Fe s_RO ;?UHFG>< FesH<_t;H?. 5 RHGQ<>;?>?t sO><< ?Ht Ne

' Feq_;FeI tH U;Fst FeQHFt tOe RHGQ<>;?t tH > QeFsH? jOH ;s >RR_seI HU tOe ;?>QQFHQF;>te RH?I_Rt tH

( ;?JHWe tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe.

)

&.! 2Oe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe j;<< QeFG;t8 N_t ?Ht Feq_;Fe8 >?

* eGQ<HDee tH ;?;t;>te tOe RHGQ<>;?t QFHRess ND s_NG;tt;?T > jF;tte? RHGQ<>;?t H? > UHFG Ies;T?eI

!+ UHF tO>t Q_FQHse. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< ><sH set _Q HF G>;?t>;? > tH<<6UFee te<eQOH?e ?_GNeF tH

!! FeRe;Je RHGQ<>;?ts >?I sO><< Ies;T?>te >II;t;H?>< QeFsH?s >t tOe I;stF;Rt <eJe< jOH j;<< Ne

!# >_tOHF;MeI tH >RReQt s_RO RHGQ<>;?ts H? NeO><U HU tOe -HGQ>?D.

!$

'.! 2Oe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe sO><< Ne ;?RHFQHF>teI ;?tH tOe 5ssHR;>te

!% K>?INHHW. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< RH?t;?_e tH ;ss_e tOe 5ssHR;>te K>?INHHW tH ><< ?ej stHFe

!& >ssHR;>tes.

!'

(.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< G>;?t>;? > QH<;RD HU ?H?I;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I eq_><

!( tFe>tGe?t8 ;?R<_I;?T > QH<;RD HU MeFH tH<eF>?Re UHF _?<>jU_< I;sRF;G;?>t;H?8 ;? ><< HU ;ts

!) eGQ<HDGe?t QF>Rt;Res.

!*

).! 2Oe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe ;s ?Ht ;?te?IeI tH s_QQ<>?t tOe F;TOt HU

#+ >?D eGQ<HDee tH U;<e > RO>FTe HF RHGQ<>;?t HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? HF Fet><;>t;H? _?IeF >?D >J>;<>N<e

#! G_?;R;Q><8 st>te8 HF UeIeF>< <>j.

##

*.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Q_N<;sO j;tO tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe tOe

#$ UH<<Hj;?T e<eGe?ts tO>t j;<< Ne ;?R<_IeI ;? tOe QFHReI_Fe[

#%

>.! 5 st>teGe?t tO>t ;t ;s _?>RReQt>N<e tH Fet><;>te >T>;?st >?D >ssHR;>te

#& UHF _se HU tOe 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe8 UHF >ss;st;?T ;? tOe ;?Jest;T>t;H? HU > RHGQ<>;?t8 HF

#' UHF HtOeFj;se >ss;st;?T ;? tOe _t;<;M>t;H? HU tOe QFHReI_Fe. 5NeFRFHGN;e FeseFJes tOe F;TOt tH t>We

#( I;sR;Q<;?>FD >Rt;H? >T>;?st >? >ssHR;>te jOH ;?te?t;H?><<D QFHJ;Ies U><se ;?UHFG>t;H? ;? RH??eRt;H?

#) j;tO tOe QFHReI_Fe.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 33 of 68

!

N.! 5 st>teGe?t tO>t ;U >? ><<eT>t;H? HU I;sRF;G;?>t;H? HF Fet><;>t;H?

# >T>;?st > G>?>TeF HF HtOeF >ssHR;>te ;s s_Nst>?t;>teI8 tOe? s_RO RH?I_Rt j;<< Fes_<t ;? >QQFHQF;>te

$ I;sR;Q<;?e8 _Q tH >?I ;?R<_I;?T I;sRO>FTe.

%

E. Performance Evaluations.

&

!.! 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ?Ht ><Fe>ID IH?e sH QF;HF tH tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 ;t sO><<

' FeJ;se ;ts QeFUHFG>?Re eJ><_>t;H? UHFGs UHF 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs8 0tHFe E>?>TeFs8 ]e?eF><

( E>?>TeFs8 3;stF;Rt E>?>TeFs8 >?I 4eT;H?>< E>?>TeFs ;? HFIeF tH ;?R<_Ie >s Ge>s_Fes HU

) QeFUHFG>?Re[ A!B RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO 5NeFRFHGN;e`s 1q_>< 1GQ<HDGe?t .QQHFt_?;tD YH<;RD >?I

* 3;sRF;G;?>t;H? >?I K>F>ssGe?t YH<;RDm A#B >tt>;?Ge?t >?I G>?>TeGe?t HU I;JeFs;tD ;? tOe

!+ jHFWQ<>Rem >?I A$B eUUHFts tH Geet :e?ROG>FWs >?I tH RHGQ<D j;tO HtOeF QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe

!! 3eRFee. 2Oe Fes_<ts HU s_RO eJ><_>t;H? U>RtHFs sO><< O>Je > Ge>?;?TU_< ;GQ>Rt _QH?

!# RHGQe?s>t;H? >?IoHF NH?_s R><R_<>t;H?.

!$

#.! 5t <e>st tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds QF;HF tH ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe QeFUHFG>?Re

!% eJ><_>t;H? UHFGs IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \7.3.!8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe

!& 11.- j;tO tOe QFHQHseI FeJ;s;H?s ;? HFIeF tH QFHJ;Ie >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF RHGGe?t FeT>FI;?T tOe

!' FeJ;s;H?s. =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;<< QFHJ;Ie RHGGe?ts8 ;U >?D8 j;tO;? tje?tD6H?e A#!B

!( I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU tOe QFHQHseI FeJ;s;H?s. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< FesQH?I tH s_RO RHGGe?ts j;tO;?

!) U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt. 7U tOe Q>Ft;es R>??Ht >TFee H? tOe QFHQHseI FeJ;s;H?s8 >?D I;sQ_tes

!* j;<< Ne s_NG;tteI tH tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF UHF FesH<_t;H?. 2Oe QFHQHseI FeJ;s;H?s j;<< Ne QFes_GeI

#+ tH Ne >RReQt>N<e _?<ess =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF 11.- IeGH?stF>te tO>t tOe QFHQHseI FeJ;s;H?s >Fe

#! ;GQFHQeF. 5?D IeR;s;H? HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF ;s U;?>< >?I ?Ht s_NVeRt tH >QQe><.

## XII. JOB ANALYSIS, MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, JOB CRITERIA,

RECRUITMENT, HIRING, JOB ASSIGNMENTS AND MANAGERIAL

#$

PROMOTION AND STAFFING

#%

A. Job Analysis and Job Criteria.

#&

!.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es st;Q_<>te >?I >TFee _QH? 5NeFRFHGN;e`s Fete?t;H? HU C>tO<ee?

#' =_?Iq_;st8 > QFHUess;H?>< ;?I_stF;>< HFT>?;M>t;H?>< QsDROH<HT;st8 tH IeJe<HQ > jF;tte? VHN >?><Ds;s

#( >?I VHN6Fe<>teI RF;teF;> UHF e>RO ;?6stHFe stHFe QHs;t;H?.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 34 of 68

!

#.! /H <>teF tO>? UH_F A%B GH?tOs >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 ;? RH?s_<t>t;H? j;tO

# tOe ;?I_stF;>< HFT>?;M>t;H?>< QsDROH<HT;st8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< IeJe<HQ se<eRt;H? RF;teF;> UHF ;?6

$ stHFe QHs;t;H?s8 ;?R<_I;?T E;?;G_G 1<;T;N;<;tD 4eq_;FeGe?ts tO>t >Fe VHN Fe<>teI >?I RH?s;ste?t

% j;tO N_s;?ess ?eRess;tD tH tOe ePte?t Feq_;FeI ND 2;t<e d77. 0e<eRt;H? RF;teF;> sO><< Ne s_NVeRt tH

& RO><<e?Te _?IeF 0eRt;H? \ HU tO;s 3eRFee H?<D ;U > Q>Ft;R_<>F QHs;t;H?`s se<eRt;H? RF;teF;>8 t>We?

' RH<<eRt;Je<D8 R>_se >IJeFse ;GQ>Rt ;? se<eRt;H? F>te UHF 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8

( =>t;?Hs8 HF jHGe?. 7U tOe se<eRt;H? RF;teF;> R>_se s_RO >IJeFse ;GQ>Rt >?I >Fe RO><<e?TeI _?IeF

) 0eRt;H? \ HU tO;s 3eRFee8 tOe se<eRt;H? RF;teF;> sO><< Ne >UU;FGeI ;U 5NeFRFHGN;e sOHjs tO>t ;t O>s

* _seI :est 1UUHFts tH IeteFG;?e jOetOeF ><teF?>t;Je VHN6Fe<>teI se<eRt;H? RF;teF;> HF jOetOeF >?

!+ ><teF?>t;Je _se HU VHN6Fe<>teI se<eRt;H? RF;teF;> O>s <ess >IJeFse ;GQ>Rt >?I jH_<I Ne eq_><<D

!! QFeI;Rt;Je HU VHN QeFUHFG>?Re.

!#

$.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ?Ht _se >s > RF;teF;H? UHF stHFe QHs;t;H?s >?D HU tOe

!$ UH<<Hj;?T[ e?FH<<Ge?t ;? > t>FTet RH<<eTe8 Q>Ft;R;Q>t;H? ;? RH<<eTe UF>teF?;tD HF sHFHF;tD >Rt;J;t;es

!% Te?eF><<D8 Q>Ft;R;Q>t;H? ;? Q>Ft;R_<>F UF>teF?;t;es HF sHFHF;t;es8 Q>Ft;R;Q>t;H? ;? Q>Ft;R_<>F >tO<et;R

!& >Rt;J;t;es8 HF Te?IeF. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ?Ht _se e?FH<<Ge?t ;? RH<<eTe >s > E;?;G_G 1<;T;N;<;tD

!' 4eq_;FeGe?t UHF ?H?6G>?>TeGe?t stHFe QHs;t;H?s.

!(

%.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;tO tOe VHN

!) >?><Dses8 ;?R<_I;?T E;?;G_G 1<;T;N;<;tD 4eq_;FeGe?ts8 >?I VHN6Fe<>teI RF;teF;> ;? HFIeF tH

!* QFHJ;Ie >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF RHGGe?t. 2Oe RH?te?t HU tOe VHN >?><Dses >?I VHN6Fe<>teI RF;teF;>

#+ QFeQ>FeI Q_Fs_>?t tH 0eRt;H? \77.5.!. j;<< ?Ht Ne s_NVeRt tH FeJ;ej _?IeF 0eRt;H? \ HU tO;s

#! 3eRFee.

##

B. Recruitment and Hiring.

#$

!.! /H <>teF tO>? UH_F GH?tOs >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e8 ;?

#% RH?s_<t>t;H? j;tO tOe ;?I_stF;>< HFT>?;M>t;H?>< QsDROH<HT;st8 sO><< IeJe<HQ >?I ;GQ<eGe?t >

#& jF;tte? 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< tH FeRF_;t >?I O;Fe VHN >QQ<;R>?ts UHF ><< OH_F<D ;?6stHFe

#' QHs;t;H?s >?I tOe E>?>TeF6;?62F>;?;?T QHs;t;H?. 2Oe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><<

#( Feq_;Fe tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e >UU;FG>t;Je<D seeW H_t >QQ<;R>t;H?s UFHG q_><;U;eI 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8

#) 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 >?I =>t;?Hs HU NHtO Te?IeFs.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 35 of 68

!

#.! 5NeFRFHGN;e`s FeRF_;tGe?t >?I HQeF>t;H?s G>teF;><s j;<< FeU<eRt I;JeFs;tD ;?

# F>Re8 RH<HF8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? >?I Te?IeF ;? tOe ^?;teI 0t>tes8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe _se HU 5UF;R>?

$ 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s >?I =>t;?H GHIe<s HU NHtO Te?IeFs.

%

$.! 2Oe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><< QFHO;N;t 5NeFRFHGN;e UFHG

& I;sRH_F>T;?T tOe s_NG;ss;H? HU >? >QQ<;R>t;H? ND >?D q_><;U;eI QeFsH?8 HF I;sR>FI;?T HF HtOeFj;se

' I;JeFt;?T >?D >QQ<;R>t;H? s_NG;tteI. 7? >II;t;H?8 tOe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><<

( ;?stF_Rt E>?>TeFs tH G>We >J>;<>N<e >?I >RReQt >QQ<;R>t;H?s UHF E>?>TeF6;?62F>;?;?T >t ><< HU tOe

) Q<>Res >?I tOFH_TO ><< HU tOe Ge>?s tO>t >QQ<;R>t;H?s UHF :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je >Fe G>Ie >J>;<>N<e

* >?I FeRe;JeI.

!+

%.! 2Oe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><< Feq_;Fe R<e>F >?I RH?R;se

!! jF;tte? VHN IesRF;Qt;H?s UHF e>RO ;?6stHFe ?H?6G>?>TeF;>< QHs;t;H? >?I tOe E>?>TeF6;?62F>;?;?T

!# QHs;t;H?.

!$

&.! SHN IesRF;Qt;H?s j;<< Ne G>Ie >J>;<>N<e tH >?DH?e jOH Feq_ests tOeG8 >?I

!% ?H?6G>?>TeGe?t VHN IesRF;Qt;H?s j;<< Ne G>Ie >J>;<>N<e ;? > s;?T<e Q>RW>Te sH tO>t QHte?t;><

!& >QQ<;R>?ts >Fe G>Ie >j>Fe HU tOe I;UUeFe?Res >GH?T QHs;t;H?s.

!'

'.! 2Oe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< j;<< RH?t>;? ;?stF_Rt;H?s UHF

!( I;sseG;?>t;H? HU >QQ<;R>t;H?s8 tOe RH?I_Rt HU stF_Rt_FeI ;?teFJ;ejs8 QFHTF>Gs tH tF>;? ;?JH<JeI

!) st>UU8 O;F;?T IeR;s;H?s8 IHR_Ge?t>t;H?8 >?I tOe O;F;?T QFHRess Te?eF><<D.

!*

(.! 2Oe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><< ;?stF_Rt E>?>TeFs tO>t E;?HF;tD

#+ >ssHR;>tes sO><< ?Ht Ne I;sQFHQHFt;H?>te<D >ss;T?eI ;?JH<_?t>F;<D tH >?D Q>Ft;R_<>F QHs;t;H?s H? tOe

#! N>s;s HU F>Re HF ?>t;H?>< HF;T;?.

##

).! a;tO;? s;PtD A'+B I>Ds HU tOe >IHQt;H? HU tOe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T

#$ YFHtHRH< >?I RH?t;?_;?T eJeFD tje<Je A!#B GH?tOs tOeFe>UteF8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts

#% tH tF>;? ><< ;?JH<JeI st>UU ;? tOe RH?I_Rt HU stF_Rt_FeI ;?teFJ;ejs >?I HtOeF e<eGe?ts HU tOe

#& 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH<.

#'

*.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;tO tOe

#( 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< >?I tOe VHN IesRF;Qt;H?s ;? HFIeF tH QFHJ;Ie >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF

#) RHGGe?t FeT>FI;?T tOe >Ieq_>RD HU tOe 4eRF_;t;?T >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH<. 7U tOe Q>Ft;es R>??Ht

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 36 of 68

! >TFee H? tOe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH<8 >?D I;sQ_tes j;<< Ne s_NG;tteI tH tOe 0QeR;><

# E>steF UHF FesH<_t;H? >?I tOe 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH< sO><< Ne >UU;FGeI ND tOe 0QeR;><

$ E>steF _?<ess =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- IeGH?stF>te tO>t s>;I QFHtHRH< ;s R<e>F<D ;GQFHQeF

% >?I ?Ht ;? >RRHFI>?Re j;tO >RReQteI ;?I_stF;>< HFT>?;M>t;H?>< QsDROH<HT;st QFHUess;H?>< st>?I>FIs.

& 5?D IeR;s;H? HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF ;s U;?>< >?I ?Ht s_NVeRt tH >QQe><.

'

C. Managerial Promotions.

(

!.! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH QFHGHte 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs8

) 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s >?I jHGe? >t tOe UH<<Hj;?T F>tes[ :eT;??;?T ;? tOe seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8

* 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _se ;ts :est 1UUHFts tH QFHGHte jHGe? >?I GeGNeFs HU e>RO E;?HF;tD ]FH_Q

!+ tH QHs;t;H?s HU 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeF >?I 0tHFe E>?>TeFo]e?eF>< E>?>TeF ;? > QFHQHFt;H? tO>t ;s ?H

!! <ess tO>? tOe sQeR;U;R TFH_Q`s QFHQHFt;H? HU tOe >J>;<>N<e UeeIeF QHH<. 2Oe >QQFHQF;>te >J>;<>N<e

!# UeeIeF QHH< UHF 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs RH?s;sts HU ><< ;?R_GNe?t E>?>TeFs6;?62F>;?;?T. 2Oe

!$ >QQFHQF;>te >J>;<>N<e UeeIeF QHH< UHF 0tHFe E>?>TeFo]e?eF>< E>?>TeF RH?s;sts HU ><< ;?R_GNe?t

!% 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFs. 2Oe Ge>s_F;?T I>te HU ;?R_GNe?ts ;? tOe >J>;<>N<e UeeIeF QHH< sO><< Ne tOe

!& <>st I>D HU tOe QFeReI;?T s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI. XHF tO;s set HU :e?ROG>FWs H?<D8 ;U 5NeFRFHGN;e

!' QFHGHtes jHGe? >?I 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs8 >?I 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s tH s_RO QHs;t;H?s ;? >

!( QFHQHFt;H? tO>t IeJ;>tes ND ?H GHFe tO>? tjH st>?I>FI IeJ;>t;H?s UFHG tOe sQeR;U;R TFH_Q`s

!) QFHQHFt;H? HU tOe >J>;<>N<e UeeIeF QHH<8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Ne IeeGeI tH O>Je >RO;eJeI ;ts

!* QFHGHt;H? :e?ROG>FWs.

#+ XIII. AFFIRMATIVE RECRUITING EFFORTS

#!

A. Diversity Recruiters.

##

7? tOe U;Fst s;P GH?tOs HU tOe 3eRFee8 ;U ?Ht NeUHFe8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< O;Fe >?I G>;?t>;? >t

#$ <e>st te? A!+B U_<<6t;Ge I;JeFs;tD FeRF_;teFs jOH j;<< Ne N>seI ;? G>VHF GetFHQH<;t>? >Fe>s >?I j;<<

#% Ne RO>FTeI j;tO FeRF_;t;?T E;?HF;tD >QQ<;R>?ts8 ;?R<_I;?T UeG><e >QQ<;R>?ts HU e>RO E;?HF;tD8

#& jOH Geet E;?;G>< 1<;T;N;<;tD 4eq_;FeGe?ts8 ;?tH ;?6stHFe QHs;t;H?s. /H <>teF tO>? tje<Je GH?tOs

#' >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< O;Fe >?I G>;?t>;? >? >II;t;H?>< U;Utee? A!&B U_<<6t;Ge

#( I;JeFs;tD FeRF_;teFs. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH e?s_Fe tO>t ;ts FeRF_;teFs tOeGse<Jes

#) FeU<eRt I;JeFs;tD ;? F>Reo?>t;H?>< HF;T;? >?I Te?IeF. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< RH?s;IeF NHtO ePteF?>< >?I

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 37 of 68

! ;?teF?>< R>?I;I>tes UHF FeRF_;teF QHs;t;H?s. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie tOe Fes_Ges HU tOe I;JeFs;tD

# FeRF_;teFs tH =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-. 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s Get tOe :e?ROG>FWs set UHFtO ;?

$ 0eRt;H? \7d UHF tOe U;Fst tO;FtD A$+B GH?tOs HU tOe teFG HU tO;s 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< O>Je

% tOe F;TOt tH Qet;t;H? tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 >?I ;U ?eRess>FD tOe -H_Ft8 UHF GHI;U;R>t;H? HU tO;s

& QFHJ;s;H?.

'

B. Advertisements.

(

3_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< >IJeFt;se UHF ;?6stHFe eGQ<HDGe?t

) HQQHFt_?;t;es ;? QeF;HI;R><s HF HtOeF GeI;> tO>t t>FTet 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8

* >?IoHF =>t;?Hs HU NHtO Te?IeFs. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< QFHJ;Ie > <;st HU GeI;> Q_N<;R>t;H?s ;? jO;RO

!+ >IJeFt;seGe?ts jeFe Q<>ReI tH =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- H? >? >??_>< N>s;s.

!!

C. Recruiting Events.

!#

3_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< >tte?I E;?HF;tD VHN U>;Fs >?I E;?HF;tD

!$ FeRF_;t;?T eJe?ts tO>t >Fe >tte?IeI ND 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 >?IoHF =>t;?Hs HU

!% NHtO Te?IeFs.

!&

D. Diversity Consultant.

!'

3_F;?T tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _t;<;Me > I;JeFs;tD RH?s_<t>?t jOHse

!( ;Ie?t;tD j;<< Ne G>Ie W?Hj? tH =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-. 2Oe I;JeFs;tD RH?s_<t>?t j;<<

!) RH?I_Rt I;JeFs;tDo;?R<_s;H? tF>;?;?T UHF ><< U;e<I N>seI G>?>TeFs >?I se<eRteI OHGe HUU;Re

!* QeFsH??e<. 2Oe I;JeFs;tD RH?s_<t>?t j;<< ><sH8 ;? RH?V_?Rt;H? j;tO tOe dY HU 3;JeFs;tD8 >;I ;?

#+ ;Ie?t;UD;?T sH_FRes HU q_><;U;eI E;?HF;tD R>?I;I>tes. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< e?s_Fe tO>t ;ts I;JeFs;tD

#! RH?s_<t>?t8 HF >?D s_NRH?tF>RteI RH?s_<t>?t8 O>s U>G;<;>F;tD j;tO >?I ePQeF;e?Re ;? QFHJ;I;?T

## I;JeFs;tD tF>;?;?T >s tH ><< tOFee HU tOe G;?HF;tD TFH_Qs s 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? >?I

#$ =>t;?Hs s >?I Te?IeF.

#%

E. Documentation.

#&

5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< e?s_Fe tO>t ;ts FeRF_;teFs IHR_Ge?t tOe;F FeRF_;t;?T eUUHFts >?I tO>t s_RO

#' FeRHFIs >Fe Fet>;?eI UHF FeJ;ej ND tOe d;Re YFes;Ie?t HU 3;JeFs;tD >?I >Fe >J>;<>N<e tH tOe

#( GH?;tHF. 0_RO IHR_Ge?t>t;H? sO><< ;?R<_Ie8 sQeR;U;R><<D N_t ?Ht ePR<_s;Je<D[ !B > IesRF;Qt;H? HU

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 38 of 68

! tOe Q<>ReGe?t HU >IJeFt;seGe?ts AQ_N<;R>t;H?8 s;Me8 t;Ge8 I_F>t;H?8 t>FTeteI >_I;e?ReB >?I #B >

# IesRF;Qt;H? HU eJe?tsoU>;Fs >tte?IeI AQ<>Re8 I>te8 t>FTeteI >_I;e?ReB.

$ XIV. BENCHMARKS

%

A. General Principles

&

!.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _se :est 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe se<eRt;H? Ne?ROG>FWs set

' UHFtO ;? tO;s seRt;H?. 2Oese :e?ROG>FWs IH ?Ht est>N<;sO G>P;G_G HF G;?;G_G F>tes UHF tOe

( se<eRt;H? HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s HF jHGe?m F>tOeF tOese :e?ROG>FWs

) est>N<;sO se<eRt;H? F>tes tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH >RO;eJe.

*

#.! 7? >tteGQt;?T tH Geet tOese :e?ROG>FWs8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< ?Ht Ne

!+ Feq_;FeI tH se<eRt _?q_><;U;eI QeFsH?s HF tH I;sQ<>Re >?D ;?R_GNe?t >ssHR;>te UFHG O;s HF OeF

!! QHs;t;H?. 2Oese :e?ROG>FWs >Fe ?Ht q_Ht>sm F>tOeF8 tOeD >Fe :e?ROG>FWs Ies;T?eI tH >UUHFI

!# T_;I>?Re >s tH jOetOeF 5NeFRFHGN;e ;s G>W;?T se<eRt;H? IeR;s;H?s ;? s_RO > j>D >s tH >UUHFI

!$ eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD.

!%

$.! 5NeFRFHGN;ers U>;<_Fe tH >RO;eJe > :e?ROG>FW UHF > Q>Ft;R_<>F QHs;t;H? HF

!& QeF;HI j;<< ?Ht Ne RH?s;IeFeI > J;H<>t;H? HU tO;s 3eRFee _?<ess 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s U>;<eI tH _se :est

!' 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe :e?ROG>FW. 0OH_<I 5NeFRFHGN;e IeGH?stF>te tO>t tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU THHI

!( U>;tO HUUeFs G>Ie tH >QQ<;R>?ts HU > Q>Ft;R_<>F TFH_Q >s RHGQ>FeI tH ><< >QQ<;R>?ts j>s >t <e>st >s

!) O;TO >s tOe :e?ROG>FW QeFRe?t>Te8 s_RO eJ;Ie?Re j;<< RH?R<_s;Je<D est>N<;sO tO>t tOe :e?ROG>FW

!* j>s Get.

#+

%.! ^?<ess HtOeFj;se sQeR;U;eI8 >RO;eJeGe?t HU tOe :e?ROG>FWs j;<< Ne

#! R><R_<>teI H? > seG;6>??_>< N>s;s >?I N>seI H? RHGQ>?Dj;Ie eGQ<HDGe?t I>t>.

##

&.! X>;<_Fe tH >RO;eJe > :e?ROG>FW ND > UF>Rt;H? HU > QeFsH? sO><< ?Ht Ne

#$ IeeGeI tH RH?st;t_te > U>;<_Fe tH >RO;eJe > :e?ROG>FW _?IeF tOe 3eRFee.

#%

'.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _se JH<_?t>FD se<U6;Ie?t;U;R>t;H? tH ;Ie?t;UD tOe F>Re >?I

#& Te?IeF HU >QQ<;R>?ts >?I eGQ<HDees. /H Q>FtD sO><< ;?U<_e?Re >? >QQ<;R>?t`s HF eGQ<HDee`s se<U6

#' ;Ie?t;U;R>t;H?. 5Nse?t R<e>F >QQ<;R>?t HF eGQ<HDee eFFHF8 ?H >QQ<;R>?t HF eGQ<HDee sO><< Ne

#( QeFG;tteI tH RO>?Te O;s HF OeF ;Ie?t;U;eI F>Re HF etO?;R;tD.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 39 of 68

!

B. Interim Hiring Goals

#

!.! 7?teF;G O;F;?T :e?ROG>FWs sO><< Ne est>N<;sOeI UHF :e?ROG>FW YHs;t;H?s.

$

#.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< GH?;tHF8 ND >QQ<;R>?t se<U6;Ie?t;U;R>t;H?8 >QQ<;R>?t U<Hj

% HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s8 =>t;?Hs >?I jHGe?.

&

$.! k5QQ<;R>?t 4>tel sO><< Ne tOe >Rt_>< >QQ<;R>?t U<Hj F>te HU > TFH_Q >s

' Ge>s_FeI H? > s;P6GH?tO N>s;s.

(

%.! kE>;?te?>?Re =eJe<l sO><< Ne tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU 5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s O;FeI

) RHGQ>FeI tH ><< TFH_Qs O;FeI ;? > QHs;t;H? >s HU tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te HU tO;s 3eRFee.

*

&.! kYeFRe?t>Te =eJe<l UHF 5UF;R>?65GeF;R>?s sO><< Ne s;P6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t

!+ A'.&tB UHF tOe seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 seJe?6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A(.&tB UHF tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO

!! QeF;HI8 >?I ?;?e QeFRe?t A*tB UHF tOe UH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

!#

'.! kYeFRe?t>Te =eJe<l UHF =>t;?Hs sO><< Ne seJe? QeFRe?t A(tB UHF tOe seRH?I

!$ s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 e;TOt QeFRe?t A)tB UHF tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 >?I ?;?e QeFRe?t A*tB UHF tOe

!% UH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

!&

(.! kYeFRe?t>Te =eJe<l UHF jHGe? sO><< Ne U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB UHF tOe

!' seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB UHF tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 >?I U;UtD6tOFee

!( QeFRe?t A&$tB UHF tOe UH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

!)

).! 2Oe U;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI NeT;?s >t tOe NeT;??;?T HU tOe GH?tO UH<<Hj;?T

!* tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te.

#+

*.! :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je YHs;t;H?.

#!

5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe UH<<Hj;?T ;?teF;G O;F;?T

## TH><s[

#$

>.! X;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

#%

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ U;Je QeFRe?t A&tBm

#&

=>t;?Hs[ s;P QeFRe?t A'tBm

#'

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ E>;?te?>?Re =eJe<m >?I

#(

aHGe?[ U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 40 of 68

!

N.! 0eRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

#

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU s;P6>?I6>6O><U

$

QeFRe?t A'.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s >IV_steIm!

%

=>t;?Hs[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU seJe? QeFRe?t A(tB HF

&

5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s >IV_steIm#

'

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOe TFe>teF HU E>;?te?>?Re =eJe< HF 5QQ<;R>?t

(

4>tem >?I

)

aHGe?[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t

*

A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem

!+

R.! 2O;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!!

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU seJe?6>?I6

!#

>6O><U QeFRe?t A(.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s >IV_steIm$

!$

=>t;?Hs[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU e;TOt QeFRe?t A)tB HF

!%

5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s >IV_steIm%

!&

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOe TFe>teF HU E>;?te?>?Re =eJe< HF 5QQ<;R>?t

!'

4>tem >?I

!(

aHGe?[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t

!)

A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem

!*

I.! XH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

#+

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU ?;?e QeFRe?t

#!

A*tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te ;? tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HIm

## ! k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND tOFee QeFRe?t

A$tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH ><< E;?HF;tD
#$ ;?I;J;I_><s O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe U;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

#%

# k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND tOFee QeFRe?t A$tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU =>t;?Hs O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH ><< E;?HF;tD ;?I;J;I_><s

#& O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe U;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.
$ k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND H?e6>?I6>6O><U

#' QeFRe?t A!.&tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH ><<
E;?HF;tD ;?I;J;I_><s O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

#( % k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND H?e6>?I6>6O><U

QeFRe?t A!.&tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU =>t;?Hs O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH ><< E;?HF;tD

#) ;?I;J;I_><s O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 41 of 68

!

=>t;?Hs[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< HU ?;?e QeFRe?t A*tB HF

#

5QQ<;R>?t 4>te ;? tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HIm

$

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOe TFe>teF HU E>;?te?>?Re =eJe< HF 5QQ<;R>?t

%

4>te ;? tOe tO;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HIm >?I

&

aHGe?[ tOe TFe>teF HU YeFRe?t>Te 4>te HU U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t

'

A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te.

(

!+.! E;?HF;tD XeG><e ]H><.

)

7? >II;t;H? tH tOe ;?teF;G O;F;?T TH><s set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \7d.:.*8

* 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe UH<<Hj;?T ;?teF;G O;F;?T TH><s UHF 5UF;R>?

!+ 5GeF;R>? jHGe? UHF tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H?[

!!

>.! X;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!#

%.#& QeFRe?t HU ><< jHGe? O;FeIm

!$

N.! 0eRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!%

tOe TFe>teF HU &.& QeFRe?t HU ><< jHGe? O;FeI HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s

!&

>IV_steIm&

!'

R.! 2O;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!(

tOe TFe>teF HU '.% QeFRe?t HU ><< jHGe? O;FeI HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te8 >s

!)

>IV_steIm'

!*

I.! XH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

#+

tOe TFe>teF HU (.' QeFRe?t HU ><< jHGe? O;FeI HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te.

#!

/Htj;tOst>?I;?T tOe UHFeTH;?T8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Ne IeeGeI tH O>Je

## >RO;eJeI tO;s :e?ROG>FW ;U 5NeFRFHGN;e >RO;eJes ;ts :e?ROG>FW UHF 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?s >?I ;U

#$ 5NeFRFHGN;e O;Fes HF ePte?Is THHI U>;tO HUUeFs tH 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? >t tOe TFe>teF HU tOe

#% UH<<Hj;?T F>tes[ A!B %&t HU 5NeFRFHGN;e`s tHt>< 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? O;Fesm HF A#B tOe 5QQ<;R>?t

#&
& k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND tOFee QeFRe?t
#' A$tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH ><<
G;?HF;tD jHGe? O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe U;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.
#( ' k5s >IV_steIl Ge>?s 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te s_QQ<eGe?teI ND > QeFRe?t>Te IeteFG;?eI ND G_<t;Q<D;?T ND H?e6>?I6>6O><U
QeFRe?t A!.&tB tOe QFHQHFt;H? HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? O;FeI ;?tH tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H? RHGQ>FeI tH
#) ><< G;?HF;tD jHGe? O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;? tOe seRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 42 of 68

! 4>te HU 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?. 7? >II;t;H?8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< FeQHFt tOe ?_GNeF HU ><< =>t;?>

# >?I 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? O;FeI ;? tOe :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je QHs;t;H?. 7U8 ;? tjH RH?seR_t;Je

$ s;P6GH?tO QeF;HIs8 tOe ?_GNeF HU =>t;?> jHGe? HF 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? O;FeI >s > QFHQHFt;H?

% HU ><< jHGe? O;FeI ;?tH tO>t QHs;t;H? ;s <HjeF tH > st>t;st;R><<D s;T?;U;R>?t IeTFee tO>? tOe ?_GNeF

& HU =>t;?> jHGe? HF 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe? >s > QFHQHFt;H? HU ><< jHGe? eGQ<HDeI ;? tO>t

' Q>Ft;R_<>F QHs;t;H? >t tOe t;Ge tO;s 3eRFee t>Wes eUUeRt8 tOe Q>Ft;es sO><< Geet >?I RH?UeF FeT>FI;?T

( tOe G>tteF.

)

!!.! E>?>TeF6;?62F>;?;?T YHs;t;H?.

*

5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< _se :est 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe UH<<Hj;?T ;?teF;G O;F;?T

!+ TH><s[

!!

>.! X;Fst s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!#

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ tOFee6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A$.&tBm

!$

=>t;?Hs[ tOFee6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A$.&tB m

!%

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOFee >?I UH_F6te?tOs QeFRe?t A$.%tBm >?I

!&

aHGe?[ U;UtD6tOFee A&$B QeFRe?t .

!'

N.! 0eRH?I s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

!(

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ UH_F6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A%.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t

!)

4>tem

!*

=>t;?Hs[ UH_F6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A%.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem

#+

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOFee >?I s;P6te?tOs QeFRe?t A$.'tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t

#!

4>tem >?I

##

aHGe?[ U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te.

#$

R.! 2O;FI s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

#%

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ U;Je6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A&.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t

#&

4>tem

#'

=>t;?Hs[ U;Je6>?I6>6O><U QeFRe?t A&.&tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem

#(

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ tOFee >?I e;TOt6te?tOs QeFRe?t A$.)tB HF

#)

5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem >?I

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 43 of 68

!

aHGe?[ U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te.

#

I.! XH_FtO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI[

$

5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>?[ seJe? QeFRe?t A(tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem

%

=>t;?Hs[ seJe? QeFRe?t A(tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te;

&

5s;>? 5GeF;R>?s[ UH_F QeFRe?t A%tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>tem >?I

'

aHGe?[ U;UtD6tOFee QeFRe?t A&$tB HF 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te.

(

!#.! /Htj;tOst>?I;?T tOe UHFeTH;?T QFHJ;s;H?s \7d.:.*.6!!.8 > FeN_tt>N<e

) QFes_GQt;H? sO><< >F;se tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s ePeFR;seI ;ts :est 1UUHFts tH Geet tOe E;?HF;tD

* ;?teF;G O;F;?T TH><s UHF > Q>Ft;R_<>F s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI ;U A;B 5NeFRFHGN;e ;s tOe? ;? RHGQ<;>?Re

!+ j;tO ;ts HN<;T>t;H?s _?IeF tOe 3eRFee >?I A;;B 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s Get YeFRe?t>Te =eJe< ;?teF;G

!! TH><s UHF tjH HU tOe tOFee E;?HF;tD TFH_Qs. KHjeJeF8 tOe FeN_tt>N<e QFes_GQt;H? sO><< ?Ht Ne

!# IeeGeI tH >F;se ;U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s G;sseI >? ;?teF;G TH>< UHF tOe s>Ge TFH_Q UHF > seRH?I

!$ RH?seR_t;Je QeF;HI. /HF jH_<I > FeN_tt>N<e QFes_GQt;H? >F;se ;U tOe ;?teF;G TH>< 5NeFRFHGN;e

!% O>s G;sseI ;s N>seI _QH? tOe 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te. 7U tOe QFes_GQt;H? ;s IeeGeI tH >F;se8 >?I ;U =e>I

!& -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- seeW tH RO><<e?Te jOetOeF 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s _seI :est 1UUHFts tH Geet

!' tOe E;?HF;tD ;?teF;G O;F;?T TH><s8 =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- sO><< O>Je tOe N_FIe? HU

!( QFHJ;?T 5NeFRFHGN;e`s U>;<_Fe tH _se :est 1UUHFts ND > QFeQH?IeF>?Re HU tOe eJ;Ie?Re.

!)

C. Applicant Rate Goals

!*

5UteF tOe QeF;HI jOe? 7?teF;G K;F;?T ]H><s8 IesRF;NeI ;? Y>Ft : >NHJe8 j;<< Ne _seI8

#+ 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< _se 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te ;? tOe QFeReI;?T s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI >s > TH>< UHF :e?ROG>FW

#! YHs;t;H?s I_F;?T tOe FeG>;?;?T teFG HU tOe 3eRFee. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ;Ie?t;UD tOe >QQ<;R>N<e

## 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te tH tOe EH?;tHF8 =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I tOe 11.- j;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU tOe

#$ NeT;??;?T HU e>RO s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI. 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s Nee? UH_?I tH O>Je U>;<eI tH _se :est

#% 1UUHFts tH ;GQ<eGe?t :e?ROG>FWs8 tOe Q>Ft;es sO><< Geet >?I RH?UeF _?IeF tOe I;FeRt;H? HU tOe

#& 0QeR;>< E>steF tH IeteFG;?e jOe? >?I _?IeF jO>t RH?I;t;H?s 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D QFHReeI tH _se HU

#' 5QQ<;R>?t 4>te TH><s.

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 44 of 68

! XV. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING, AND COMPLIANCE MEETINGS

#

A. Documents To Be Preserved For The Duration of The Decree.

$

5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Fet>;? tOe UH<<Hj;?T eGQ<HDGe?t6Fe<>teI FeRHFIs UHF tOe 3_F>t;H? HU tOe

% 3eRFee HF >s Feq_;FeI ND st>te HF UeIeF>< <>j8 jO;ROeJeF ;s <H?TeF[

&

!.! 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fem

'

#.! SHN 5?><Dses UHF :e?ROG>FW YHs;t;H?sm

(

$.! E;?;G_G 1<;T;N;<;tD 4eq_;FeGe?ts >?I VHN6Fe<>teI RF;teF;> UHF :e?ROG>FW

) YHs;t;H?sm

*

%.! 4eRF_;tGe?t >?I K;F;?T YFHtHRH<m

!+

&.! SHN IesRF;Qt;H?s UHF :e?ROG>FW YHs;t;H?sm

!!

'.! 2F>;?;?T Q<>?sm

!#

(.! 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFtsm >?I

!$

).! EH?;tHF`s 4eQHFts >?I 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>F;es.

!%

B. Documents to Be Maintained for Two Years.

!&

2Oe UH<<Hj;?T IHR_Ge?ts sO><< Ne G>;?t>;?eI UHF tjH De>Fs UFHG tOe I>te tOe IHR_Ge?t ;s

!' RFe>teI8 HF >s Feq_;FeI ND st>te HF UeIeF>< <>j8 jO;ROeJeF ;s <H?TeF[

!(

!.! YeFUHFG>?Re 1J><_>t;H?s HU E>?>TeFsm

!)

#.! 2F>;?;?T YFHTF>G E>teF;><s.m

!*

$.! 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?tsm

#+

%.! 4eRF_;t;?T 3HR_Ge?t>t;H? IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \777.1m >?I

#!

&.! E>FWet;?T E>teF;><s.

##

C. Access to Documents.

#$

!.! 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><<8 _QH? Fe>sH?>N<e ?Ht;Re8 Ne e?t;t<eI tH FeJ;ej ><<

#% IHR_Ge?ts8 ;?R<_I;?T e<eRtFH?;R I>t> ;? G>RO;?e6Fe>I>N<e UHFG8 tO>t >Fe Feq_;FeI tH Ne G>;?t>;?eI

#& HF RFe>teI ND tOe ePQFess teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee HF tO>t >Fe _seI HF FeUeFFeI tH ND 5NeFRFHGN;e tH

#' QFeQ>Fe 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFts8 ePReQt8 OHjeJeF8 tO>t tOe EH?;tHF sO><< ?Ht Ne e?t;t<eI tH

#( FeJ;ej >?D s_RO IHR_Ge?ts tO>t >Fe QFHteRteI ND >ttHF?eD6R<;e?t QF;J;<eTe HF >ttHF?eD jHFW

#) QFHI_Rt IHRtF;?e AkQF;J;<eTeI IHR_Ge?tslB.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 45 of 68

!

#.! =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- G>D seeW >RRess tH ?H?6QF;J;<eTeI IHR_Ge?ts

# IesRF;NeI ;? -.! >NHJe ND Feq_est;?T8 j;tO ?Ht;Re tH 5NeFRFHGN;e8 RHQ;es HU s_RO IHR_Ge?ts

$ UFHG tOe EH?;tHF. ^QH? Feq_est8 >?I ?Ht;Re tH 5NeFRFHGN;e8 tOe EH?;tHF sO><< QFHJ;Ie =e>I

% -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;tO >RRess tH IHR_Ge?ts IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d.-.! _?<ess

& 5NeFRFHGN;e HNVeRts j;tO;? U;Je A&B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU ?Ht;Re. 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e t;Ge<D HNVeRts8 tOe

' HNVeRt;H? sO><< Ne FesH<JeI ND tOe EH?;tHF. 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< IeteFG;?e >?D G>tteF ;? I;sQ_te ND

( Feq_;F;?T tO>t =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- IeGH?stF>te tOe >RRess Feq_esteI ;s Fe<eJ>?t tH > R<>;G

) HU NFe>RO HU tOe 3eRFee.

*

$.! 5<< IHR_Ge?ts Feq_;FeI tH Ne G>;?t>;?eI ND tOe ePQFess teFGs HU tOe

!+ 3eRFee8 >?I ><< IHR_Ge?ts tO>t >Fe QFHJ;IeI tH tOe EH?;tHF8 =e>I -H_?se<8 HF tOe 11.- _?IeF

!! tOe teFGs HU tOe 3eRFee8 >Fe >?I sO><< Ne tFe>teI >s RH?U;Ie?t;>< N_s;?ess FeRHFIs. /e;tOeF =e>I

!# -H_?se<8 tOe 11.- ?HF tOe EH?;tHF sO><< I;J_<Te >?D s_RO IHR_Ge?ts tH >?D tO;FI Q>FtD _?<ess sH

!$ HFIeFeI ND tOe -H_Ft >UteF ?Ht;Re tH 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I >? HQQHFt_?;tD UHF 5NeFRFHGN;e tH HNVeRt tH

!% s_RO I;sR<Hs_Fe >?I Ne Oe>FI. ^QH? ePQ;F>t;H? HU tO;s 3eRFee8 =e>I -H_?se<8 tOe 11.- >?I tOe

!& EH?;tHF sO><< QFHGQt<D Fet_F? tH 5NeFRFHGN;e HF IestFHD >?D >?I ><< IHR_Ge?ts 5NeFRFHGN;e

!' U_F?;sOeI _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee. 2O;s QFHJ;s;H? sO><< ?Ht QFeJe?t > Q>FtD UFHG U;<;?T HtOeFj;se

!( RH?U;Ie?t;>< IHR_Ge?ts j;tO tOe -H_Ft8 QFHJ;IeI tO>t8 e;tOeF[ A>B s_RO IHR_Ge?ts >Fe U;<eI _?IeF

!) se><m HF ANB =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- T;Je te? A!+B I>Ds >IJ>?Re ?Ht;Re tH 5NeFRFHGN;e8 tH

!* QeFG;t HQQHFt_?;tD tH seeW > QFHteRt;Je HFIeF se><;?T s_RO IHR_Ge?ts.

#+

D. Reporting Schedule.

#!

a;tO;? s;PtD A'+B I>Ds HU RHGQ<et;H? HU tOe ;?;t;>< :e?ROG>FW QeF;HI8 >?I >t s;P A'B GH?tO

## ;?teFJ><s tOeFe>UteF tOFH_TO tOe 2eFG HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< QFHJ;Ie 0eG;65??_><

#$ YFHTFess 4eQHFts tH tOe EH?;tHF8 =e>I -H_?se< >?I 11.- H? 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe

#% 3eRFee`s Feq_;FeGe?ts. 5<< s_RO 4eQHFts sO><< Ne s_NVeRt tH tOe s>Ge RH?U;Ie?t;><;tD FestF;Rt;H?s

#& IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d.-.$. >NHJe.

#'

E. Contents of the Semi-Annual Progress Reports.

#(

5NeFRFHGN;e`s 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFts sO><< ;?R<_Ie ;?UHFG>t;H? FeT>FI;?T tOe

#) UH<<Hj;?T[

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 46 of 68

!

!.! YFHTFess ;? >RO;eJ;?T e>RO HU tOe :e?ROG>FWs IesRF;NeI >NHJe ;?

# 0eRt;H? \7d. 2O;s FeQHFt j;<< ;?R<_Ie tOe >QQ<;R>N<e TH>< QFHQHFt;H? >?I tOe >Rt_>< >RO;eJeI

$ QFHQHFt;H?. 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< ;?I;R>te >?D sOHFtU><<s ;? >RO;eJ;?T :e?ROG>FWs UHF tOe QFeReI;?T

% s;P6GH?tO QeF;HI8 j;<< >?><DMe tOe QHss;N<e Fe>sH?s UHF s_RO sOHFtU><<8 >?I j;<< ;Ie?t;UD Q<>?s tH

& U>R;<;t>te >RO;eJeGe?t HU tOe :e?ROG>FW ?Ht Get. 7U >QQ<;R>N<e8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< >?><DMe

' QHss;N<e Fe>sH?s ;U >?D I;J;s;H? FeU<eRts sOHFtU><<s A;.e.8 <ess tOe? )+ QeFRe?t HU RHGQ>?Dj;Ie

( <eJe<B eJe? ;U RHGQ>?Dj;Ie :e?ROG>FWs >Fe s>t;sU;eI. A3;J;s;H? ;s IeU;?eI >s 5NeFRFHGN;e 9

) X;tRO8 KH<<;steF8 >NeFRFHGN;e8 HF >?D HtOeF RH?ReQt >IHQteI ND 5NeFRFHGN;e I_F;?T tOe QeF;HI HU

* tO;s 3eRFeeB. 7? >II;t;H?8 ;U >QQ<;R>N<e8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< >?><DMe QHss;N<e Fe>sH?s tO>t >?D

!+ :e?ROG>FW j>s Get tOFH_TO THHI U>;tO HUUeFs H?<D.

!!

#.! /_GNeF >?I QFHQHFt;H? HU QeFsH?s RHGQ>?Dj;Ie ;? tOe QFeReI;?T s;P

!# GH?tOs ND F>ReoetO?;R;tD >?I Te?IeF A;.e.8 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? Ge?8 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8

!$ 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? Ge?8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8 =>t;?H Ge?8 =>t;?> jHGe?8 jO;te Ge?8 jO;te

!% jHGe?B ePte?IeI > THHI U>;tO HUUeF8 O;FeI HF QFHGHteI Ae>RO HU jO;RO sO><< Ne seQ>F>te<D

!& FeQHFteIB ;?tH A>B e>RO ;?6stHFe ?H?6G>?>TeF;>< QHs;t;H? Ae.T.8 :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je8 stHRWeF8

!' HJeF?;TOtBm ANB E>?>TeF67?62F>;?;?Tm ARB 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFm AIB 0tHFe E>?>TeFm >?I AeB ]e?eF><

!( E>?>TeF.

!)

$.! /_GNeF >?I QFHQHFt;H? HU QeFsH?s ;? tOe QFeReI;?T s;P GH?tOs ePte?IeI >

!* THHI U>;tO HUUeF8 O;FeI HF QFHGHteI Ae>RO HU jO;RO sO><< Ne seQ>F>te<D FeQHFteIB ND stHFe8 st>te >?I

#+ I;J;s;H? ND F>ReoetO?;R;tD >?I Te?IeF A;.e. 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? Ge?8 5UF;R>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8

#! 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? Ge?8 5s;>? 5GeF;R>? jHGe?8 =>t;?H Ge?8 =>t;?> jHGe?8 jO;te Ge?8 jO;te

## jHGe?B UHF A>B e>RO ;?6stHFe ?H?6G>?>TeF;>< QHs;t;H? Ae.T.8 :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je8 stHRWeF8

#$ HJeF?;TOtBm ANB E>?>TeF67?62F>;?;?Tm ARB 5ss;st>?t E>?>TeFm AIB 0tHFe E>?>TeFm >?I AeB ]e?eF><

#% E>?>TeF.

#&

%.! -HGQHs;t;H? HU ;?R_GNe?t >ssHR;>tes ND e>RO stHFe QHs;t;H? >?I ND F>Re8

#' etO?;R;tD >?I Te?IeF j;tO;? e>RO stHFe8 st>te8 I;J;s;H? >?I RHGQ>?D6j;Ie >t tOe e?I HU tOe

#( QFeReI;?T s;P GH?tO QeF;HI.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 47 of 68

!

&.! /_GNeF >?I QFHQHFt;H? HU >ssHR;>tes ;? e>RO ;?6stHFe ?H?6G>?>TeF;><

# QHs;t;H? Ae.T.8 :F>?I 4eQFese?t>t;Je8 stHRWeF8 HJeF?;TOtB ND F>ReoetO?;R;tD >?I Te?IeF >?I ND

$ stHFe8 st>te8 I;J;s;H?8 >?I RHGQ>?Dj;Ie ;? tOe QFeReI;?T s;P GH?tOsm

%

'.! 5ttF;t;H? HF teFG;?>t;H? HU >ssHR;>tes UFHG e>RO stHFe QHs;t;H? ND F>Re8

& etO?;R;tD >?I Te?IeF >?I ND Fe>sH? UHF <e>J;?T j;tO;? e>RO stHFe8 st>te8 >?I I;J;s;H? I_F;?T tOe

' QFeReI;?T s;P GH?tO QeF;HIm

(

(.! -H?U;FG>t;H? ND 3;stF;Rt E>?>TeFs tO>t tOe QHsteF Feq_;FeI ND 0eRt;H? \7.:

) ;s QHsteI8 j;tO RHQ;es >tt>ROeIm

*

).! 0_GG>FD HU >Rt;J;tD HU 3;JeFs;tD d.Y. ;? ;GQ<eGe?t;?T >UU;FG>t;Je

!+ FeRF_;tGe?t eUUHFts8 I;JeFs;tD tF>;?;?T >?I 7?teF?>< -HGQ<>;?t YFHReI_Fe8 j;tO RHQ;es HU G>teF;><s

!! >tt>ROeIm

!#

*.! -HQ;es HU -HGQ>?D G>teF;><s IeQ;Rt;?T QeFsH?s FeUeFFeI tH ;? 0eRt;H?

!$ \77.:.# >?I >? ;?I;R>t;H? HU jO;RO QeFsH?s _seI >Fe HF O>Je Nee? 5NeFRFHGN;e >ssHR;>tesm

!%

!+.! -HQ;es HU QHst;?T >?I Q_N<;R>t;H? HU VHN IesRF;Qt;H?s HU ;?6stHFe QHs;t;H?s

!& >s Feq_;FeI ;? 0eRt;H? \77.:.&m

!'

!!.! -HQ;es HU FeRF_;tGe?t IHR_Ge?t>t;H? FeUeFFeI tH ;? 0eRt;H? \777.

!(

!#.! 2Oe ?_GNeF HU OH_F<D ;?6stHFe eGQ<HDees ND F>ReoTe?IeF tO>t O>Je Nee?

!) teFG;?>teI ;? tOe QFeReI;?T s;P6GH?tO FeQHFt;?T QeF;HI >t tOe I;FeRt;H? HU OHGe HUU;Re

!* G>?>TeGe?t ePR<_I;?T O_G>? FesH_FRes.

#+

!$.! -HQ;es HU ><< G>FWet;?T G>teF;><s _seI ND tOe -HGQ>?D ;? tOe QFeReI;?T

#! s;P GH?tOs Ae.T.8 QF;?t8 te<eJ;s;H? HF ;?teF?et >IJeFt;s;?Tm q_>FteF<D G>T>M;?es8 stHFe R>t><HTs8 >?I

## s;G;<>F G>teF;><sm stHFe QHsteFsm J;IeHsm 59X te<eJ;s;H?m sOHQQ;?T N>Tsm etR.B.

#$

F. Compliance Meetings.

#%

!.! a;tO;? tOFee GH?tOs HU tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 FeQFese?t>t;Jes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e8

#& =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I tOe 11.-8 sO><< RH?UeF j;tO tOe EH?;tHF ;? HFIeF tH FeJ;ej tOe ;?;t;><

#' ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee8 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe Feq_;FeGe?ts8 >?I HtOeF

#( Fe<>teI tHQ;Rs. 2OeFe>UteF8 FeQFese?t>t;Jes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e8 =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I tOe 11.-8 sO><<

#) RH?UeF j;tO tOe EH?;tHF eJeFD s;P GH?tOs tH FeJ;ej tOe 0eG;65??_>< YFHTFess 4eQHFts Feq_;FeI

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 48 of 68

! ND 0eRt;H? \d.1 >NHJe. a;tO;? H?e GH?tO HU tOe ;?;t;>< YFHTFess 4eQHFt >?I >UteF e>RO s_RO

# 4eQHFt s_NG;tteI tOeFe>UteF FeQFese?t>t;Jes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e8 =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- sO><<

$ RH?UeF j;tO tOe EH?;tHF ;? HFIeF tH FeJ;ej tOe G>tteFs IesRF;NeI >NHJe. 0_RO Geet;?Ts sO><< Ne

% ;? QeFsH? ;U Feq_esteI ND =e>I -H_?se<8 11.-8 HF 5NeFRFHGN;e8 ePReQt tO>t ;U8 >UteF tOFee De>Fs

& >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s Get tOe :e?ROG>FWs8 tOe? H?<D H?e RHGQ<;>?Re

' Geet;?T e>RO De>F ?eeI Ne ;? QeFsH?.

(

#.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es j;<< I;sR_ss8 >GH?T HtOeF tO;?Ts8 ;Ie?t;UD;?T >?D TH>< ?Ht

) >RO;eJeI >?I >? >?><Ds;s HU tOe Fe>sH?s tO>t tOe TH>< j>s ?Ht >RO;eJeI >?I Q<>?s tO>t jH_<I

* U>R;<;t>te >RO;eJeGe?t HU tOe TH><. 7? >II;t;H?8 ;U >QQ<;R>N<e8 tOe Q>Ft;es j;<< I;sR_ss QHss;N<e

!+ Fe>sH?s tO>t >?D :e?ROG>FW j>s Get tOFH_TO THHI U>;tO HUUeFs H?<D.

!!

$.! 2Oe 3;JeFs;tD dY sO><< >tte?I e>RO -HGQ<;>?Re Eeet;?T. .tOeF HUU;ReFs8

!# G>?>TeFs8 >?I >ssHR;>tes HU 5NeFRFHGN;e8 jOHse QFese?Re j;<< >ss;st tOe >tt>;?Ge?t HU tOe

!$ Q_FQHse HU tOe -HGQ<;>?Re Eeet;?Ts8 G>D >tte?I >s >QQFHQF;>te. -HGQ<;>?Re Eeet;?Ts sO><< t>We

!% Q<>Re ;? 0>? XF>?R;sRH AHF >?HtOeF G_t_><<D >TFee>N<e <HR>t;H?B.

!&

G. Status Conference with Court.

!'

!.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es sO><< RH?I_Rt >? >??_>< st>t_s RH?UeFe?Re j;tO tOe -H_Ft tH

!( I;sR_ss tOe st>t_s HU ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe 3eRFee. 5NeFRFHGN;e8 =e>I -H_?se<8 >?I tOe 11.-

!) G>D Ne FeQFese?teI >t tOe st>t_s RH?UeFe?Re. /H Q>FtD sO><< U;<e >?D IHR_Ge?t j;tO tOe -H_Ft ;?

!* RH?V_?Rt;H? j;tO tOe st>t_s RH?UeFe?Re8 _?<ess I;FeRteI tH IH sH ND tOe -H_Ft.

#+ XVI. MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION

#!

A. Court-Appointed Monitor.

##

!.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es O>Je st;Q_<>teI tH XFeI 5<J>FeM8 1sq. HU Y><H 5<tH8 -><;UHF?;>

#$ UHF tOe -H_Ft tH >QQH;?t >s > EH?;tHF.

#%

#.! 2Oe EH?;tHF j;<< QFeQ>Fe >? 5??_>< -HGQ<;>?Re 4eQHFt Ak4eQHFtlB H? tOe

#& st>t_s HU ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe teFGs >?I HNVeRt;Jes HU tOe

#' 3eRFee8 >s je<< >s >? k1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FDl HU s_RO 4eQHFt. 2Oe EH?;tHF`s 4eQHFt j;<< ;?R<_Ie

#( A>B > s_GG>FD HU tOe Feq_;FeGe?ts HU tOe 3eRFeem >?I ANB >? >ssessGe?t HU 5NeFRFHGN;e`s

#) seG;>??_>< RHGQ<;>?Re FeQHFts. 2Oe EH?;tHF j;<< FeJ;ej >?I eJ><_>te 5NeFRFHGN;e`s

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 49 of 68

! RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tOe sQeR;U;R teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee8 >?I ;Ie?t;UD >?D N>FF;eFs tH U_<U;<<Ge?t HU ;ts

# HNVeRt;Jes. 2Oe EH?;tHF j;<< ><sH FeJ;ej >?I >ssess tOe FesQH?s;N;<;t;es >?I QeFUHFG>?Re HU tOe

$ dY HU 3;JeFs;tD.

%

$.! 2Oe 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD sO><< set UHFtO tOe s_Nst>?Re HU tOe EH?;tHF`s

& U;?I;?Ts UHF tOe >QQ<;R>N<e FeQHFt;?T QeF;HI. 2Oe Q>Ft;es RH?teGQ<>te tO>t tOe 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD

' j;<< FeU<eRt tOe EH?;tHF`s Te?eF>< U;?I;?Ts ;? >Fe>s s_RO >s8 N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH8 tF>;?;?T8

( FeRF_;tGe?t8 RFe>t;H? HU VHN >?><Dses >?I IesRF;Qt;H?s8 >?I >tt>;?Ge?t HU :e?ROG>FWs8 ><< >s GHFe

) sQeR;U;R><<D RHJeFeI ND tOe 4eQHFt8 >?I tOe Q>Ft;es ><sH RH?teGQ<>te tO>t tOe 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD

* j;<< ?Ht ;?R<_Ie sQeR;U;R U;?I;?Ts >s tH8 ;?teF ><;>8 tOe ?_GNeFs HU >QQ<;R>t;H?s8 O;Fes8 QFHGHt;H?s8

!+ HF sQeR;U;R HRR_FFe?Res HF eJe?ts. :D j>D HU eP>GQ<e8 tOe 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD`s I;sR_ss;H? HU

!! tOe -HGQ>?D`s tF>;?;?T RH_<I Te?eF><<D set H_t tOe EH?;tHFrs U;?I;?Ts Fe<>t;Je tH jOetOeF tOe

!# -HGQ>?D O>I HF O>I ?Ht Get ;ts HJeF><< tF>;?;?T HNVeRt;Jes _?IeF tOe 3eRFee HJeF tOe s_NVeRt

!$ FeQHFt;?T QeF;HI >?I8 ;U ?Ht8 > Te?eF>< st>teGe?t HU G>tteFs j;tO FesQeRt tH jO;RO tOeFe O>I Nee?

!% ?H?6RHGQ<;>?Re >?I >?D steQs tOe -HGQ>?D ;s tH t>We tH FesH<Je s_RO G>tteFs. 2Oe 11.- G>D

!& FesQH?I tH >?D <eT;t;G>te ;?q_;F;es ND tOe Q_N<;R8 GeI;>8 HF tOe THJeF?Ge?t8 j;tO ;?UHFG>t;H?

!' RH?t>;?eI ;? tOe 0_GG>FD HF > RHQD tOeFeHU. .tOeF tO>? tO;s ePReQt;H? tH tOe 11.-8 tOe

!( 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD >?I ;?UHFG>t;H? RH?t>;?eI tOeFe;? jH_<I Ne s_NVeRt tH tOe RH?U;Ie?t;><;tD

!) QFHJ;s;H?s HU 0eRt;H? \d.-.$ HU tO;s 3eRFee.

!*

%.! 2Oe EH?;tHF j;<< QFHJ;Ie tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 5NeFRFHGN;e8 =e>I -H_?se<8

#+ >?I tOe 11.- j;tO RHQ;es HU tOe 4eQHFt >?I 1PeR_t;Je 0_GG>FD j;tO;? ?;?etD A*+B I>Ds HU tOe

#! >??;JeFs>FD I>te HU tOe 3eRFee. 2Oe 4eQHFt sO><< Ne s_NVeRt tH tOe RH?U;Ie?t;><;tD FestF;Rt;H?s

## IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d.-.$.

#$

&.! 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< O>Je Fe>sH?>N<e >?I t;Ge<D >RRess tH Fe<eJ>?t NHHWs8

#% I>t> A;?R<_I;?T I>t>N>sesB8 IHR_Ge?ts8 >?I HtOeF sH_FRes HU ;?UHFG>t;H? ?eRess>FD HF >QQFHQF;>te

#& tH tOe ePeFR;se HU O;soOeF >_tOHF;tD8 ;? jO>teJeF UHFG tOeD >Fe G>;?t>;?eI ;? tOe HFI;?>FD RH_Fse HU

#' N_s;?ess. 2O;s j;<< ;?R<_Ie8 N_t ?Ht Ne <;G;teI tH8 >RRess tH tOe UH<<Hj;?T ;?sHU>F >s tOeD Fe<>te tH

#( RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD <>j >?IoHF tOe teFGs HU tO;s 3eRFee[ A>B

#) >QQ<;R>t;H?s >?I Fe<>teI IHR_Ge?tsm ANB T_;Ie<;?es HF tF>;?;?T H? FeRF_;tGe?t8 O;F;?T8 VHN

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 50 of 68

! >ss;T?Ge?t8 >?I G>?>TeF;>< QFHGHt;H?m ARB 11. RHGQ<>;?ts8 >?I >?D ;?teF?>< RHGQ<>;?tsm AIB

# G>?>TeF;>< QeFUHFG>?Re eJ><_>t;H?sm AeB FeRHFIs HU eGQ<HDee I;sR;Q<;?em AUB FeRHFIs HU >ttF;t;H?

$ >?I teFG;?>t;H?sm ATB FeRF_;tGe?t G>teF;><sm >?I AOB G>FWet;?T G>teF;><s.

%

'.! 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< >IIFess RHGQ<;>?Re ;ss_es tO>t G>D >F;se >s UH<<Hjs[

&

>.! 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< R>teTHF;Me RHGQ<;>?Re ;ss_es >s =Hj =eJe<8

' 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe<8 HF K;TO =eJe< >?I tFe>t tOeG >s UH<<Hjs[

(

;. =Hj =eJe< Ge>?s ?H?6sDsteG;R G>tteFs8 s_RO >s RHGQ<;>?Re

) ;ss_es >F;s;?T >t > s;?T<e stHFe. =Hj =eJe< ;ss_es G>D Ne FesH<JeI ND 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I tOe

* EH?;tHF j;tOH_t RH?s_<t;?T =e>I -H_?se< HF tOe 11.-. =Hj =eJe< ;ss_es tO>t >Fe ?Ht FesH<JeI

!+ ND 5NeFRFHGN;e >UteF ?Ht;Re UFHG tOe EH?;tHF >?I > Fe>sH?>N<e HQQHFt_?;tD tH R_Fe NeRHGe

!! 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe< ;ss_es. =Hj =eJe< ;ss_es tO>t >Fe FesH<JeI sO><< H?<D Ne FeQHFteI ND tOe

!# ?_GNeF HU s_RO ;ss_es ;? e>RO FeT;H? HU 5NeFRFHGN;e ;? > RH?U;Ie?t;>< >IIe?I_G tH tOe EH?;tHF`s

!$ FeQHFt tO>t sO><< Ne QFHJ;IeI tH tOe Q>Ft;es. 7? >II;t;H?8 tOe EH?;tHF sO><< G>;?t>;? > <HT HU ><<

!% FesH<JeI =Hj =eJe< ;ss_es tO>t ;?R<_Ies8 >s tH e>RO ;ss_e8 ;Ie?t;U;R>t;H? HU tOe stHFe ;?JH<JeI >?I

!& > NF;eU IesRF;Qt;H? HU tOe ?>t_Fe HU tOe ;ss_e >?I FesH<_t;H?. 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< QFHJ;Ie tOe 0QeR;><

!' E>steF j;tO s_RO <HT H? >? >??_>< N>s;s. /e;tOeF tOe EH?;tHF ?HF tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF sO><<

!( QFHI_Re s_RO <HT tH =e>I -H_?se< HF tOe 11.- _?<ess >?I _?t;< =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.-

!) _?IeFt>We >? e?UHFReGe?t QFHReI_Fe _?IeF tOe 3eRFee ;? jO;RO s_RO ;?UHFG>t;H? jH_<I Ne

!* Fe<eJ>?t8 >t jO;RO QH;?t =e>I -H_?se< >?IoHF tOe 11.- G>D seeW s_RO <HT tOFH_TO I;sRHJeFD

#+ _?IeF tOe st>?I>FIs set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \.:.%.I >NHJe.

#!

;;. 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe< Ge>?s e;tOeF =Hj =eJe< ;ss_es tO>t tOe

## EH?;tHF >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e >Fe _?>N<e tH FesH<Je >UteF ?Ht;Re >?I > Fe>sH?>N<e HQQHFt_?;tD tH R_Fe8

#$ HF sDsteG;R ;ss_es tO>t >F;se H_t HU QH<;RD HF ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? RH?ReF?s tO>t >UUeRt > s;T?;U;R>?t

#% ?_GNeF HU ;?I;J;I_><s. YF;HF tH FeQHFt;?T 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe< ;ss_es8 tOe EH?;tHF sO><< QFHJ;Ie

#& 5NeFRFHGN;e j;tO ?Ht;Re >?I > Fe>sH?>N<e HQQHFt_?;tD tH R_Fe >?D 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe< ;ss_es.

#' 7?teFGeI;>te =eJe< ;ss_es8 ;?R<_I;?T >?D FesH<_t;H? HU s_RO ;ss_es8 j;<< Ne FeQHFteI ;? -HGQ<;>?Re

#( 4eQHFts >?I G>D Ne tOe tHQ;R HU I;sR_ss;H? >t 0eRt;H? \d.X -HGQ<;>?Re Eeet;?Ts.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 51 of 68

!

;;;. K;TO =eJe< Ge>?s s;t_>t;H?s ;?JH<J;?T eP;Te?t U>Rts HF

# R;FR_Gst>?Res jO;RO Feq_;Fe ;GGeI;>te >Rt;H? tH QFeJe?t > seF;H_s J;H<>t;H? HU tOe teFGs HU tO;s

$ 3eRFee. 7? tOe eJe?t > K;TO =eJe< G>tteF sO><< >F;se8 tOe EH?;tHF j;<< ;GGeI;>te<D ?Ht;UD 11.-8

% =e>I -H_?se< >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e HU tOe QFess;?T RH?ReF?. 2Oe G>tteF sO><< Ne FesH<JeI ;?

& >RRHFI>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU 0eRt;H? \.:.

'

N.! ^QH? Feq_est8 >?I ?Ht;Re tH 5NeFRFHGN;e8 tOe EH?;tHF sO><< QFHJ;Ie

( =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;tO >RRess tH IHR_Ge?ts IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d.-.! _?<ess

) 5NeFRFHGN;e HNVeRts j;tO;? U;Je A&B I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU ?Ht;Re. 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e t;Ge<D HNVeRts8 tOe

* HNVeRt;H? sO><< Ne FesH<JeI ;? >RRHFI>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU 0eRt;H? \.:.

!+

R.! 2Oe EH?;tHF sO><< ?Ht FeQHFt HF I;sR<Hse >?D >Rt;H? HF G>tteF

!! I;sRHJeFeI ;? tOe RH_Fse HU tOe EH?;tHF`s U_?Rt;H? tO>t IHes ?Ht I;FeRt<D Fe<>te tH tOe teFGs HU tO;s

!# 3eRFee >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e`s RHGQ<;>?Re tOeFej;tO.

!$

(.! /HtO;?T OeFe;? sO><< Ne ;?teFQFeteI tH QFeR<_Ie tOe EH?;tHF UFHG FesH<J;?T

!% G>tteFs ;?UHFG><<D Netjee? tOe Q>Ft;es.

!&

).! 2Oe EH?;tHF G>D >_I;t 5NeFRFHGN;e I>t> UHF >RR_F>RD >?IoHF

!' RHGQ<ete?ess8 HF Fet>;? >? ;?IeQe?Ie?t ePQeFtAsB UHF tO;s Q_FQHse8 >s OeosOe IeeGs ?eRess>FD HF

!( >QQFHQF;>te.

!)

*.! 2Oe EH?;tHF G>D J;s;t 5NeFRFHGN;e stHFes8 >s je<< >s RHFQHF>te HUU;Res8 >s

!* ?eRess>FD tH U_<U;<< O;soOeF FesQH?s;N;<;t;es. 2Oe EH?;tHF G>D ><sH ;?teFJ;ej >?I RHGG_?;R>te

#+ j;tO R<>ss GeGNeFs8 ;?6stHFe G>?>TeFs8 eGQ<HDees8 HF HtOeF j;t?esses >s ?eRess>FD tH U_<U;<<

#! O;soOeF FesQH?s;N;<;t;es.

##

!+.! 2Oe EH?;tHF G>D Feq_est >II;t;H?>< ;?UHFG>t;H? UFHG 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I

#$ G>D RHGG_?;R>te j;tO tOe 3;JeFs;tD dY8 ;? > G>??eF tO>t >ss;sts tOe EH?;tHF ;? tOe ePeFR;se HU

#% O;soOeF I_t;es. 5UteF Fe>sH?>N<e ?Ht;Re8 tOe EH?;tHF G>D RHGG_?;R>te j;tO GeGNeFs HU

#& 5NeFRFHGN;e`s se?;HF G>?>TeGe?t. 2Oe EH?;tHF G>D RHGG_?;R>te j;tO tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8

#' RH_?se< UHF 5NeFRFHGN;e8 =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-.

#(

!!.! 5<< Uees >?I ePQe?ses HU tOe EH?;tHF sO><< Ne Q>;I ND 5NeFRFHGN;e.

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 52 of 68

! XVII. MONETARY RELIEF, NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE

#

A. Establishment of Settlement Fund.

$

!.! 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< est>N<;sO > sett<eGe?t U_?I Ak0ett<eGe?t X_?IlB ;? tOe

% >GH_?t HU u%+8+++8+++.++ UHF tOe Q_FQHse HU QFHJ;I;?T ;?I;J;I_>< GH?et>FD >j>FIs tH -<>ss

& 4eQFese?t>t;Jes8 -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es >?I HtOeF e<;T;N<e GeGNeFs HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss >?I U_?I;?T

' > QHFt;H? HU tOe sett<eGe?t >IG;?;stF>t;H? ePQe?ses8 ;? >RRHFI>?Re j;tO tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU tO;s

( 0eRt;H?. 2Oe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I j;<< Ne s_QQ<eGe?teI ND tOe >GH_?t IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H?

) \d77.5.#.

*

#.! 2Oe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I j;<< Ne s_QQ<eGe?teI ND >? >GH_?t R><R_<>teI >s

!+ ;GQ_teI ;?teFest H? tOe u%+8+++8+++.++ >s UH<<Hjs[

!!

u%+8+++8+++.++ G_<t;Q<;eI ND .+#& A#.&t ;GQ_teI ;?teFestB

G_<t;Q<;eI ND > UF>Rt;H? AtOe ?_GeF>tHF HU jO;RO ;s tOe ?_GNeF HU

!#

I>Ds Netjee? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 >?I tOe I>te

5NeFRFHGN;e j;Fe tF>?sUeFs U;?>< Q>DGe?t UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I

!$

tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t >s QFHJ;IeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.5.%.e.

>?I tOe Ie?HG;?>tHF HU jO;RO ;s $'+ I>DsB.

!%

!&

$.! =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.- j;<< se<eRt > -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 2Oe

!' -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< HQe? >?I >IG;?;steF >? ;?teFest6Ne>F;?T >RRH_?t Ak0ett<eGe?t X_?I

!( 5RRH_?tlB Ies;T?>teI ND =e>I -H_?se< >?I j;tO > _?;q_e 2>PQ>DeF 7Ie?t;U;R>t;H? /_GNeF.

!)

%.! Y>DGe?ts j;<< Ne G>Ie ND 5NeFRFHGN;e UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I tH tOe

!* 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t >s UH<<Hjs[

#+

>.! a;tO;? seJe? A(B I>Ds HU tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8

#! 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< j;Fe u$&+8+++.++ tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t. 2O;s >GH_?t ;s ;?te?IeI tH

## RHJeF RHsts HU tOe G>;<eI ?Ht;Res >?I ePQe?ses >ssHR;>teI j;tO tOe R<>;Gs QFHReI_Fe.

#$

N.! a;tO;? seJe? A(B I>Ds HU tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< j;Fe

#% u$&+8+++.++ tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t. 2O;s >GH_?t ;s ;?te?IeI tH RHJeF ePQe?ses

#& >ssHR;>teI j;tO RH?t;?_eI ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? HU tOe R<>;Gs QFHReI_Fe.

#'

R.! 7U tOeFe ;s ?H X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee8 tOe? tOe

#( -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Fet_F? tH 5NeFRFHGN;e >?D U_?Is FeG>;?;?T ;? tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I

#) 5RRH_?t UFHG tOe >GH_?ts IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H?s \d77.5.%.> >?I N.

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 53 of 68

!

I.! a;tO;? seJe? A(B I>Ds HU X;?>< 5QQFHJ><8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< j;Fe tOe

# >TTFeT>te >GH_?t set UHFtO ;? 1PO;N;t - tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t. 2O;s >GH_?t sO><< Ne

$ I;stF;N_teI ND tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF tH tOe -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes >?I -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es >s set

% UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.:.!.

&

e.! 5UteF X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< >?I j;tO;? seJe? A(B I>Ds >UteF tOe -<>;Gs

' 5IG;?;stF>tHF O>s ;?UHFGeI 5NeFRFHGN;e ;? jF;t;?T tO>t ;t ;s QFeQ>FeI tH I;stF;N_te tOe 0ett<eGe?t

( X_?I tH tOe e<;T;N<e GeGNeFs HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< j;Fe >? >GH_?t tH tOe

) 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t R><R_<>teI >s UH<<Hjs[

*

u%+8+++8+++.++ >s s_QQ<eGe?teI ND tOe >GH_?t R><R_<>teI ;?

0eRt;H? \d77.5.#.8 <ess >GH_?ts 5NeFRFHGN;e O>s Q>;I tH tOe

!+

0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t ;? >RRHFI>?Re j;tO 0eRt;H?s \d77.5.%.>.8

N.8 >?I I.8 >?I <ess tOe >TTFeT>te >GH_?t HU HQt6H_t RFeI;ts >s

!!

R><R_<>teI _?IeF tOe QFHJ;s;H?s HU 0eRt;H? \d77.3.%.

!#

U.! ^QH? Q>DGe?t HU tOe >GH_?ts set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.5.%. UFHG

!$ tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t O>J;?T Nee? G>Ie8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< O>Je

!% ?H U_FtOeF GH?et>FD HN<;T>t;H? OeFe_?IeF tH -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes8 -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es HF GeGNeFs

!& HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss8 ;?R<_I;?T ?H HN<;T>t;H? tH Q>D >?D U_?Is UHF I;stF;N_t;H? tH -<>ss

!' 4eQFese?t>t;Jes8 -O>FT;?T Y>Ft;es HF GeGNeFs HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ssm ?H HN<;T>t;H? tH Q>D RHsts

!( HU G>;<eI ?Ht;Res >?I ePQe?ses >ssHR;>teI j;tO tOe R<>;Gs QFHReI_Fem >?I ?H HN<;T>t;H? tH Q>D

!) >?D HtOeF sett<eGe?t >IG;?;stF>t;H? RHsts8 ePReQt tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< Ne FesQH?s;N<e UHF Q>D;?T

!* UHF tOe Q_N<;sOeI ?Ht;Re HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t /Ht;Re >s sQeR;U;eI ;? \d77.-.#.

#+

&.! /HtO;?T OeFe;? sO><< Ne IeeGeI tH Feq_;Fe 5NeFRFHGN;e tH seQ>F>te HF

#! seTFeT>te ;ts >ssets ;?tH > FestF;RteI sett<eGe?t U_?I. 2Oe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t j;<< RH?st;t_te

## > FestF;RteI sett<eGe?t U_?I8 >?I ;t j;<< Ne RFe>teI8 G>?>TeI >?I I;sN_FseI ND tOe -<>;Gs

#$ 5IG;?;stF>tHF _?IeF tOe s_QeFJ;s;H? HU =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-. .tOeF tO>? Q>D;?T U_?Is

#% UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t8 5NeFRFHGN;e j;<< O>Je ?H

#& FesQH?s;N;<;t;es HF <;>N;<;t;es j;tO FesQeRt tH tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t8 ;ts >IG;?;stF>t;H?8 HF

#' I;stF;N_t;H?s tOeFeUFHG.

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 54 of 68

!

B. Distribution of Settlement Fund.

#

1. Class Representatives and EEOC Charging Parties.

$

1>RO -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Je >?I e>RO -O>FT;?T Y>FtD sO><< FeRe;Je > <;q_;I>teI >GH_?t >s

% set UHFtO ;? 1PO;N;t -. 2O;s <;q_;I>teI >GH_?t j;<< RHGQe?s>te tOe -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes HF

& -O>FT;?T Y>FtD UHF tOe A>B U_<< sett<eGe?t HU ><< tOe;F R<>;Gs >T>;?st 5NeFRFHGN;em ANB Q>DGe?t ;?

' FeRHT?;t;H? HU F;sWs Fe<>teI tH Ne;?T -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Je HF -O>FT;?T Y>FtDm >?I ARB Q>DGe?t ;?

( RH?s;IeF>t;H? UHF tOe t;Ge >?I eUUHFt ePQe?IeI ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H? HF 11.-

) QFHReeI;?Ts. Y>DGe?t HU tOese s_Gs sO><< Ne G>Ie ND tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ?H <>teF tO>?

* seJe? A(B I>Ds >UteF tOe FeRe;Qt HU tOe U_?Is IesRF;NeI ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.5.%.I.

!+

2. Settlement Class.

!!

2Oe FeG>;?IeF HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t j;<< Ne I;stF;N_teI tH e<;T;N<e GeGNeFs HU

!# tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss jOH IH ?Ht HQt H_t N>seI H? > UHFG_<> set H_t ;? tOe ><<HR>t;H? Q<>? >s set

!$ UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? =. 2Oe I;stF;N_t;H? HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t >RRHFI;?T tH tOe ><<HR>t;H?

!% Q<>? j;<< Ne _?IeFt>We? ND tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 1PReQt >s set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H?

!& \d77.-.#.Ne<Hj8 tOe Uees8 RHsts >?I ePQe?ses HU tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Ne Q>;I UFHG tOe

!' 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe ;?teFest H? tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t. 5<< Q>DGe?ts

!( tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Ne >QQFHJeI ND =e>I -H_?se< >?I tOe 11.-.

!)

C. Notice.

!*

1. Mailed Notice.

#+

a;tO;? tje?tD A#+B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><<

#! QFHJ;Ie tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;tO > RHGQ_teF I;sW RH?t>;?;?T tOe U_<< ?>Ges8 sHR;>< seR_F;tD

## ?_GNeFs8 <>st W?Hj? >IIFesses >?I QOH?e ?_GNeFs8 st>Ft I>tes8 >?I8 >s >QQ<;R>N<e8 e?I I>tes HU

#$ eGQ<HDGe?t j;tO 5NeFRFHGN;e UHF ><< ;?6stHFe OH_F<D >?I G>?>TeF eGQ<HDees eGQ<HDeI ND

#% 5NeFRFHGN;e >t >?D t;Ge UFHG XeNF_>FD #%8 !*** tOFH_TO tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te jOH >Fe

#& QHte?t;>< 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeFs. a;tO;? tje?tD A#+B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe YFe<;G;?>FD

#' 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 =e>I -H_?se< sO><< QFHJ;Ie tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;tO > RHGQ_teF Fe>I>N<e

#( <;st HU ><< W?Hj? QHte?t;>< 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeFs >?I tOe;F G>;<;?T >IIFesses. YF;HF tH tOe

#) G>;<;?T HU tOe /Ht;Res8 tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< RHGN;?e tOese <;sts HU QHte?t;>< 0ett<eGe?t

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 55 of 68

! -<>ss GeGNeFs FeRe;JeI UFHG 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I =e>I -H_?se< >?I _QI>te >?D ?ej >IIFess

# ;?UHFG>t;H? UHF QHte?t;>< R<>ss GeGNeFs >s G>D Ne >J>;<>N<e tOFH_TO tOe />t;H?>< -O>?Te HU

$ 5IIFess sDsteG. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< IeteFG;?e tOFH_TO > RHGQ_teF I>t>N>se se>FRO

% tOe GHst FeRe?t >IIFess tO>t G>D Ne HNt>;?eI UHF e>RO QeFsH? H? tOe RHGN;?eI <;st HU QHte?t;><

& 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeFs. a;tO;? s;PtD A'+B I>Ds HU tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 tOe -<>;Gs

' 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< G>;<8 J;> U;Fst R<>ss QHst>Te8 /Ht;Re HU -<>ss 0ett<eGe?t8 tOe -<>;G XHFG >?I

( tOe 1PQ<>?>t;H? HU -<>;Gs YFHReI_Fe8 ><< ;? tOe UHFG >QQFHJeI ND tOe -H_Ft ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD

) 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF8 tH ><< W?Hj? QHte?t;>< 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeFs >t tOe;F <>st W?Hj? >IIFess >?I

* >t tOe GHst FeRe?t >IIFess tO>t G>D O>Je Nee? HNt>;?eI tOFH_TO tOe RHGQ_teF I>t>N>se se>FRO.

!+

2. Published Notice.

!!

5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< R>_se tH Ne Q_N<;sOeI tOe ?Ht;Re HU tOe R<>ss sett<eGe?t ;? tOe UHFG

!# >QQFHJeI ND tOe -H_Ft ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF8 ;? ?ejsQ>QeFs >?I HtOeF GeI;> set

!$ UHFtO ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Q>D UHF tOe RHst HU tOe Q_N<;sOeI

!% ?Ht;Re8 ?Ht tH ePReeI u'++8+++.++.

!&

D. Objections and Exclusions.

!'

-<>ss GeGNeFs G>D HNVeRt tH HF HQt6H_t HU tOe R<>ss sett<eGe?t.

!(

1. Objections.

!)

-<>ss GeGNeFs HNVeRt;?T tH tOe teFGs HU tOe sett<eGe?t G_st IH sH ;? jF;t;?T >t <e>st UHFtD

!* A%+B I>Ds QF;HF tH tOe sROeI_<eI X>;F?ess Ke>F;?T. 2Oe jF;tte? HNVeRt;H? G_st Ne se?t tH tOe

#+ -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF H? HF NeUHFe tOe I>te sQeR;U;eI ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF. 2Oe

#! -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< FeRHFI tOe I>te HU FeRe;Qt HU tOe HNVeRt;H? >?I UHFj>FI ;t tH NHtO

## 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I =e>I -H_?se< j;tO;? tjH A#B N_s;?ess I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T FeRe;Qt. 2Oe -<>;Gs

#$ 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< ><sH U;<e tOe HF;T;?>< HNVeRt;H?s j;tO tOe -<eFW HU tOe -H_Ft ?H <>teF tO>? U;Je

#% A&B I>Ds QF;HF tH tOe sROeI_<eI X>;F?ess Ke>F;?T I>te. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Fet>;?

#& RHQ;es HU ><< jF;tte? HNVeRt;H?s _?t;< s_RO t;Ge >s ;t O>s RHGQ<eteI ;ts I_t;es >?I FesQH?s;N;<;t;es

#' _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee.

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 56 of 68

!

2. Exclusions.

#

-<>ss GeGNeFs G>D ePR<_Ie tOeGse<Jes8 HF HQt6H_t8 HU tOe GH?et>FD Fe<;eU QFHJ;s;H?s HU

$ tOe R<>ss sett<eGe?t. 5?D Feq_est UHF ePR<_s;H? G_st Ne ;? tOe UHFG HU > jF;tte? k.Qt6H_tl

% st>teGe?t se?t tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 7?UHFG>t;H? H? OHj tH HQt6H_t HU tOe sett<eGe?t sO><<

& Ne G>Ie >J>;<>N<e ND tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 5 QeFsH? j;sO;?T tH HQt6H_t G_st s;T? >

' st>teGe?t jO;RO ;?R<_Ies tOe UH<<Hj;?T <>?T_>Te[

(

7 _?IeFst>?I tO>t 7 >G Feq_est;?T tH Ne ePR<_IeI UFHG tOe R<>ss

GH?et>FD sett<eGe?t >?I tO>t 7 j;<< FeRe;Je ?H GH?eD UFHG tOe

)

sett<eGe?t U_?I RFe>teI _?IeF tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee e?teFeI ;?tH ND

5NeFRFHGN;e. 7 _?IeFst>?I tO>t ;U 7 >G ePR<_IeI UFHG tOe R<>ss

*

GH?et>FD sett<eGe?t8 7 G>D NF;?T > seQ>F>te <eT>< >Rt;H? seeW;?T

I>G>Tes8 N_t G>D FeRe;Je ?HtO;?T HF <ess tO>? jO>t 7 jH_<I O>Je

!+

FeRe;JeI ;U 7 O>I U;<eI > R<>;G _?IeF tOe R<>ss GH?et>FD sett<eGe?t

QFHReI_Fe ;? tO;s R>se. 7 ><sH _?IeFst>?I tO>t 7 G>D ?Ht seeW

!!

ePR<_s;H? UFHG tOe R<>ss UHF ;?V_?Rt;Je Fe<;eU >?I tO>t 7 >G NH_?I ND

tOe ;?V_?Rt;Je QFHJ;s;H?s HU tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee e?teFeI ;?tH ND

!#

5NeFRFHGN;e.

!$

5 R<>ss GeGNeF s_NG;tt;?T >? .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t sO><< s;T? >?I I>te tOe st>teGe?t >?I

!% Ie<;JeF ;t tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF >t <e>st UHFtD A%+B I>Ds QF;HF tH tOe sROeI_<eI X>;F?ess

!& Ke>F;?T8 >s sQeR;U;eI ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF.

!'

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< I>te st>GQ tOe HF;T;?>< HU >?D .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t >?I seFJe

!( RHQ;es H? NHtO 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I =e>I -H_?se< j;tO;? tjH A#B N_s;?ess I>Ds HU FeRe;Qt HU s_RO

!) st>teGe?t. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< ><sH U;<e tOe HF;T;?>< .Qt6H_t st>teGe?ts j;tO tOe -<eFW

!* HU tOe -H_Ft ?H <>teF tO>? U;Je A&B I>Ds QF;HF tH tOe sROeI_<eI X>;F?ess Ke>F;?T I>te. 2Oe -<>;Gs

#+ 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Fet>;? RHQ;es HU ><< .Qt6H_t st>teGe?ts _?t;< s_RO t;Ge >s ;t O>s RHGQ<eteI ;ts

#! I_t;es >?I FesQH?s;N;<;t;es _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee.

##

3. Rescission of Class Member Opt-Outs

#$

2Oe Q>Ft;es FeRHT?;Me tO>t sHGe R<>ss GeGNeFs jOH ;?;t;><<D s_NG;t .Qt6H_t UHFGs

#% seeW;?T ePR<_s;H? G>D8 _QH? U_FtOeF FeU<eRt;H?8 j;sO tH j;tOIF>j HF FesR;?I s_RO .Qt6H_t

#& st>teGe?ts. 2Oe Q>Ft;es >TFee tO>t R<>ss GeGNeFs sO><< Ne QeFG;tteI tH j;tOIF>j HF FesR;?I tOe;F

#' .Qt6H_t st>teGe?ts ND s_NG;tt;?T > k4esR;ss;H? HU .Qt6H_tl st>teGe?t tH tOe -<>;Gs

#( 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 2Oe 4esR;ss;H? HU .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t sO><< ;?R<_Ie tOe UH<<Hj;?T <>?T_>Te[

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 57 of 68

!

7 QFeJ;H_s<D s_NG;tteI >? .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t seeW;?T ePR<_s;H? UFHG

tOe R<>ss GH?et>FD sett<eGe?t. 7 O>Je FeRH?s;IeFeI >?I j;sO tH

#

j;tOIF>j GD .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t. 7 _?IeFst>?I tO>t ND FesR;?I;?T

GD .Qt6H_t 7 G>D Ne e<;T;N<e tH FeRe;Je >? >j>FI UFHG tOe R<>;Gs

$

sett<eGe?t U_?I >?I G>D ?Ht NF;?T > seQ>F>te <eT>< >Rt;H? >T>;?st

5NeFRFHGN;e seeW;?T I>G>Tes.

%

&

5 R<>ss GeGNeF s_NG;tt;?T s_RO > FesR;ss;H? st>teGe?t sO><< s;T? >?I I>te tOe st>teGe?t

' >?I R>_se ;t tH Ne Ie<;JeFeI tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ?H <>teF tO>? tOe Ie>I<;?e UHF R<>;Gs

( U;<;?T QeF;HI sQeR;U;eI ;? tOe YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF.

)

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< st>GQ tOe I>te FeRe;JeI H? tOe HF;T;?>< HU >?D 4esR;ss;H?

* HU .Qt6H_t st>teGe?t >?I seFJe RHQ;es tH RH_?se< UHF 5NeFRFHGN;e >?I =e>I -H_?se< ?H <>teF tO>?

!+ A#B I>Ds >UteF FeRe;Qt tOeFeHU >?I sO><< U;<e tOe I>te6st>GQeI HF;T;?><s j;tO tOe -<eFW HU tOe -H_Ft

!! ?H <>teF tO>? U;Je A&B N_s;?ess I>Ds QF;HF tH tOe I>te HU tOe X>;F?ess Ke>F;?T. 2Oe -<>;Gs

!# 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Fet>;? RHQ;es HU ><< 4esR;ss;H?s HU .Qt6._t st>teGe?ts _?t;< s_RO t;Ge >s tOe

!$ -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ;s Fe<;eJeI HU ;ts I_t;es >?I FesQH?s;N;<;t;es _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee.

!%

4. Opt-Out Credits.

!&

7? tOe eJe?t >?D 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss GeGNeF e<eRts tH HQt6H_t ;? tOe t;Ge >?I G>??eF set

!' UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.3.#8 >?I IHes ?Ht FesR;?I ;t8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Ne e?t;t<eI tH > RFeI;t UHF

!( e>RO s_RO HQt6H_t. 2Oe RFeI;t >GH_?t j;<< Ne !#&t HU tOe >JeF>Te sett<eGe?t >j>FI HU ><< R<>ss

!) GeGNeFs e<;T;N<e tH Q>Ft;R;Q>te ;? tOe GH?et>FD sett<eGe?t U_?I >s IeteFG;?eI ND tOe 5<<HR>t;H?

!* Y<>?8 0eRt;H? \d77.=. 2Oe >TTFeT>te RFeI;t UHF e>RO HQt6H_t sO><< Ne R><R_<>teI >?I IeI_RteI

#+ UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I QF;HF tH tOe j;Fe tF>?sUeF HU U_?Is set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.5.%.e.

#!

5. Defendant’s Rescission of Agreement.

##

7U tOe ?_GNeF HU ;?I;J;I_><s jOH HQt H_t HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss ;? tOe G>??eF QFHJ;IeI

#$ ;? tO;s 3eRFee ePReeIs H?e QeFRe?t A! tB HU tOe ?_GNeF HU tOe R<>ss GeGNeFs jOH s_NG;t

#% RHGQ<eteI R<>;G UHFGs8 tOe? 5NeFRFHGN;e8 >t ;ts sH<e HQt;H?8 sO><< O>Je tOe F;TOt tH JH;I tO;s

#& sett<eGe?t H? tOe te?tO A!+tOB I>D >UteF tOe -H_Ft Feq_;Fes ;?I;J;I_><s tH Fet_F? HQt H_t ?Ht;Res. 7U

#' 5NeFRFHGN;e ePeFR;ses tO;s HQt;H?8 ><< HU 5NeFRFHGN;e`s HN<;T>t;H?s _?IeF tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee

#( sO><< Re>se tH Ne HU >?D UHFRe >?I eUUeRt8 >?I tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee >?I >?D HFIeFs e?teFeI ;?

#) RH??eRt;H? tOeFej;tO sO><< Ne J>R>teI8 FesR;?IeI8 R>?Re<eI8 >?I >??_<<eI8 >?I tOe Q>Ft;es sO><<

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 58 of 68

! Fet_F? tH tOe st>t_s q_H ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H? >s ;U tOe Q>Ft;es O>I ?Ht e?teFeI ;?tH tOe

# -H?se?t 3eRFee. 7? >II;t;H?8 ;? s_RO eJe?t8 tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee >?I ><< ?eTHt;>t;H?s8 RH_Ft HFIeFs

$ >?I QFHReeI;?Ts Fe<>t;?T tOeFetH sO><< Ne j;tOH_t QFeV_I;Re tH tOe F;TOts HU >?D >?I ><< Q>Ft;es

% OeFetH8 >?I eJ;Ie?Re Fe<>t;?T tH tOe -H?se?t 3eRFee >?I ><< ?eTHt;>t;H?s sO><< ?Ht Ne >IG;ss;N<e HF

& I;sRHJeF>N<e ;? tOe -H?sH<;I>teI =;t;T>t;H? HF HtOeFj;se.

'

E. Claims Administration.

(

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< A!B QFeQ>Fe >?I G>;< sett<eGe?t ?Ht;Res >?I R<>;G UHFGs tH

) R<>ss GeGNeFsm A#B est>N<;sO >?I HQeF>te > jeNs;te Ies;T?eI tH QFHJ;Ie ;?UHFG>t;H? tH >?I

* RHGG_?;R>t;H? j;tO R<>ss GeGNeFsm A$B FeRe;Je >?I eJ><_>te R<>;Gs e<;T;N;<;tDm A%B seeW

!+ >II;t;H?>< ;?UHFG>t;H? UFHG R<>;G>?ts8 jOe? >QQFHQF;>tem A&B FeRe;Je >?I U;<e HQt6H_t st>teGe?ts

!! >?I HNVeRt;H?sm A'B FesQH?I tH q_est;H?s UFHG QHte?t;>< R<>ss GeGNeFsm A(B ;GQ<eGe?t tOe

!# ><<HR>t;H? Q<>?m >?I A)B G>;?t>;? > tH<<6UFee ?_GNeF UHF RHGG_?;R>t;?T j;tO R<>ss GeGNeFsm >?I

!$ A*B >?D HtOeF I_t;es ?eRess>FD tH R>FFD H_t ;ts FesQH?s;N;<;t;es set UHFtO ;? tO;s 3eRFee.

!%

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< G>We R<>;G UHFGs >J>;<>N<e tH QHte?t;>< R<>ss GeGNeFs

!& jOH s_NG;t HF><8 e6G>;<8 HF jF;tte? Feq_ests UHF R<>;G UHFGs. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><<

!' G>;< tOe Feq_esteI R<>;G UHFG J;> U;Fst R<>ss QHst>Te j;tO;? tjH A#B N_s;?ess I>Ds >UteF FeRe;J;?T >

!( Feq_est. 7U 5NeFRFHGN;e8 HF ;ts RH_?se<8 FeRe;Jes Feq_ests UHF R<>;G UHFGs HF UHF ;?UHFG>t;H?

!) FeT>FI;?T tOe R<>ss sett<eGe?t8 ;t sO><< FeUeF s_RO Feq_estHFs tH tOe tH<<6UFee ?_GNeF est>N<;sOeI ND

!* tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF UHF tOe Q_FQHse HU >IG;?;steF;?T tO;s sett<eGe?t. 2Oe Feq_estHFs sO><<

#+ Ne ;?UHFGeI tO>t >?D Feq_ests UHF R<>;G UHFGs HF ;?UHFG>t;H? sOH_<I Ne I;FeRteI tH tOe -<>;Gs

#! 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Fet>;? RHQ;es HU ><< jF;tte? Feq_ests UHF R<>;G

## UHFGs >?I ><< FeRHFIs HU HF>< HF e6G>;< Feq_ests UHF R<>;G UHFGs _?t;< s_RO t;Ge >s ;t O>s

#$ RHGQ<eteI ;ts I_t;es >?I FesQH?s;N;<;t;es _?IeF tO;s 3eRFee.

#%

F. Submission of Claim Forms.

#&

-<>ss GeGNeFs jOH seeW FeRHJeFD HU GH?et>FD RHGQe?s>t;H? G_st RHGQ<ete > R<>;G UHFG

#' >?I R>_se ;t tH Ne U;<eI j;tO tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ND tOe R<>;G U;<;?T Ie>I<;?e set UHFtO ;? tOe

#( YFe<;G;?>FD 5QQFHJ>< .FIeF. 2Oe R<>;G UHFG G_st Ne QHstG>FWeI H? HF NeUHFe s_RO I>te ;? HFIeF

#) tH Ne RH?s;IeFeI t;Ge<D. 5<< R<>;G UHFGs G_st Ne s;T?eI _?IeF Qe?><tD HU QeFV_FD tH Ne

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 59 of 68

! RH?s;IeFeI. X>;<_Fe tH U;<e > t;Ge<D R<>;G UHFG8 UHF >?D Fe>sH? jO>tsHeJeF8 sO><< N>F tOe QHte?t;><

# R<>ss GeGNeF UFHG O>J;?T O;s HF OeF R<>;G RH?s;IeFeI >?I UFHG FeRe;J;?T GH?et>FD

$ RHGQe?s>t;H? UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t. -<>ss GeGNeFs jOH U;<e > R<>;G UHFG G_st

% ?Ht;UD tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF HU >?D RO>?Te HU >IIFess. 5 U>;<_Fe tH ?Ht;UD tOe -<>;Gs

& 5IG;?;stF>tHF HU > RO>?Te HU >IIFess G>D Fes_<t ;? tOe UHFUe;t_Fe HU > GH?et>FD >j>FI. 2Oe

' -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Ne >J>;<>N<e tOFH_TO tOe tH<<6UFee <;?e >?I J;> e6G>;< tOFH_TO tOe

( -<>;Gs aeNs;te tH FesQH?I tH Feq_ests UFHG R<>ss GeGNeFs UHF >ss;st>?Re ;? RHGQ<et;?T >?I U;<;?T

) R<>;G UHFGs. =e>I -H_?se< sO><< ><sH Ne >J>;<>N<e tH RH?s_<t j;tO >?I QFHJ;Ie >ss;st>?Re tH

* QHte?t;>< R<>ss GeGNeFs jOH Feq_est >ss;st>?Re ;? RHGQ<et;?T tOe;F R<>;G UHFGs.

!+

G. Deceased Claimants.

!!

-<>;Gs G>D Ne U;<eI ND IeRe>seI R<>;G>?ts tOFH_TO FeQFese?t>t;Jes HU tOe;F est>te ;U

!# >QQFHQF;>te IHR_Ge?t>t;H? ;s QFHJ;IeI. 5?D R<>;Gs Q>;I tH > IeRe>seI R<>;G>?t sO><< Ne G>Ie

!$ Q>D>N<e tH tOe est>te HU tOe IeRe>seI R<>;G>?t.

!%

H. Determining Eligibility.

!&

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< G>We tOe IeteFG;?>t;H? >s tH jOetOeF > R<>;G UHFG ;s

!' RHGQ<ete. 7U ;t ;s ?Ht RHGQ<ete8 tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< Feq_est >II;t;H?>< ;?UHFG>t;H?

!( UFHG tOe R<>;G>?t8 ;U ;t >QQe>Fs tO>t s_RO >II;t;H?>< ;?UHFG>t;H? jH_<I RHGQ<ete tOe -<>;G XHFG.

!) 0_RO Feq_ests UHF ;?UHFG>t;H? sO><< Ne ;? jF;t;?T >?I sO><< sQeR;UD tOe ;?UHFG>t;H? ?eRess>FD tH

!* RHGQ<ete tOe R<>;G UHFG. 2Oe Feq_ests UHF ;?UHFG>t;H? j;<< Ne se?t J;> U;Fst R<>ss G>;< >?I ;?UHFG

#+ tOe R<>;G>?t tO>t > FesQH?se G_st Ne Fet_F?eI ?H <>teF tO>? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds UFHG tOe I>te tOe

#! Feq_est UHF ;?UHFG>t;H? j>s G>;<eI. 2Oe R<>;G>?t G_st QFHJ;Ie tOe Feq_esteI ;?UHFG>t;H?8 s;T?eI

## _?IeF Qe?><tD HU QeFV_FD8 tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ND G>;< j;tO > QHstG>FW ?H <>teF tO>? tO;FtD

#$ A$+B I>Ds UFHG tOe I>te HU tOe G>;<eI Feq_est UHF ;?UHFG>t;H?. 0_RO >II;t;H?>< ;?UHFG>t;H? sO><<

#% Ne RH?s;IeFeI Q>Ft HU tOe HF;T;?>< R<>;G UHFG >?I j;<< Fe<>te N>RW tH tOe HF;T;?>< U;<;?T I>te. 2Oe

#& U>;<_Fe HU > R<>;G>?t tH t;Ge<D FesQH?I tH tOe Feq_est UHF ;?UHFG>t;H? G>D Fes_<t ;? tOe Ie?;>< HU

#' tOe R<>;G.

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 60 of 68

!

I. Late-Filed Claims.

#

XHF R<>;Gs FeRe;JeI >UteF tOe U;<;?T Ie>I<;?e8 tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< ?Ht;UD <>te6

$ U;<;?T R<>;G>?ts tO>t tOe;F R<>;Gs >Fe _?t;Ge<D >?I tO>t tOeD >Fe ?Ht e<;T;N<e UHF >?D GH?et>FD

% >j>FI. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< ><sH ;?UHFG <>te6U;<;?T R<>;G>?ts tO>t tOeD G>D seeW >

& FeJ;ej HU tOe IeteFG;?>t;H? tO>t tOeD U;<eI _?t;Ge<D ND Feq_est;?T tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF tH

' FeRH?s;IeF ;ts IeteFG;?>t;H?. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF G>D FeJeFse ;ts IeteFG;?>t;H? tO>t >

( R<>;G j>s ?Ht t;Ge<D U;<eI H?<D ;U tOe R<>;G>?t QFHJes tO>t tOe R<>;G UHFG j>s U;<eI H? HF NeUHFe

) tOe U;<;?T Ie>I<;?e >?I tO>t tOe _?t;Ge<;?ess IeteFG;?>t;H? ;s eFFH?eH_s.

*

J. Appeals of Claims Eligibility.

!+

a;tO;? ?;?etD A*+B I>Ds HU tOe R<Hse HU tOe R<>;Gs U;<;?T QeF;HI8 ><< ;?e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?ts

!! sO><< FeRe;Je jF;tte? ?Ht;Re HU tOe;F ;?e<;T;N;<;tD UHF GH?et>FD Fe<;eU. 5?D R<>;G>?ts j;sO;?T tH

!# seeW FeJ;ej HU tOe;F ;?e<;T;N;<;tD IeteFG;?>t;H?s G_st IH sH ND Fet_F?;?T > jF;tte? Feq_est UHF

!$ FeJ;ej tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF ND G>;< j;tO > QHstG>FW ?H <>teF tO>? tje?tD6H?e A#!B I>Ds

!% UFHG tOe I>te HU tOe ?Ht;Re HU R<>;G ;?e<;T;N;<;tD. X>;<_Fe tH U;<e > t;Ge<D Feq_est UHF FeJ;ej sO><<

!& N>F > R<>;G>?t UFHG RO><<e?T;?T > IeteFG;?>t;H? HU ;?e<;T;N;<;tD.

!'

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< FesH<Je tOe Feq_ests UHF FeJ;ej N>seI H? tOe jF;tte?

!( Feq_ests UHF FeJ;ej >?I >?D HtOeF IHR_Ge?t>t;H? HF jF;tte? ;?UHFG>t;H? s_NG;tteI ND tOe

!) R<>;G>?t8 HF IeeGeI ?eRess>FD ND tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF G>D seeW

!* U_FtOeF jF;tte? ;?UHFG>t;H? UFHG tOe R<>;G>?t >s tH tOe N>s;s HU tOe;F Feq_est >?I G>D RH?s;IeF tOe

#+ jF;tte? >FT_Ge?ts HU =e>I -H_?se< HF 5NeFRFHGN;e.

#!

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< >tteGQt tH ePQeI;t;H_s<D FesH<Je >?D Feq_ests UHF FeJ;ej

## j;tO;? s;PtD A'+B I>Ds >UteF tOe U;<;?T HU tOe Feq_est UHF FeJ;ej. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF`s

#$ IeR;s;H?s sO><< Ne RHGG_?;R>teI tH tOe R<>;G>?t ;? jF;t;?T >?I sO><< Ne N;?I;?T >?I ?H?6

#% >QQe><>N<e.

#&

K. Claimant Information Provided by Abercrombie.

#'

2Oe Q>Ft;es _?IeFst>?I >?I >TFee tO>t 5NeFRFHGN;e G>D QHssess ;?UHFG>t;H? tO>t G>D

#( >ss;st ;? tOe IeteFG;?>t;H? HU e<;T;N;<;tD HU QHte?t;>< R<>ss GeGNeFs UHF GH?et>FD RHGQe?s>t;H?.

#) 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Fe>sH?>N<D RHHQeF>te ;? QFHJ;I;?T s_RO ;?UHFG>t;H? jO;RO =e>I -H_?se<8 tOe

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 61 of 68

! 11.- HF tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF IeeGs Fe>sH?>N<D ?eRess>FD tH >ss;st ;? IeteFG;?;?T tOe

# e<;T;N;<;tD HU >?D R<>ss GeGNeF UHF GH?et>FD Fe<;eU. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< >tteGQt tH QFHJ;Ie s_RO

$ ;?UHFG>t;H? j;tO;? UH_Ftee? A!%B I>Ds HU >?D jF;tte? Feq_ests UHF tOe ;?UHFG>t;H?.

%

L. Allocation Plan.

&

.tOeF tO>? tOe -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes jOHse GH?et>FD >j>FIs >Fe seQ>F>te<D IeteFG;?eI8

' tOe I;sN_FseGe?t HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t tH e<;T;N<e R<>ss GeGNeFs sO><< UH<<Hj tOe

( ><<HR>t;H? Q<>? IesRF;NeI ;? tO;s seRt;H?.

)

1>RO R<>ss GeGNeF jOH seeWs tH FeRe;Je >? >j>FI G_st U;<< H_t tOe R<>;G UHFG >?I s_QQ<D

* ;?UHFG>t;H? Fe<>teI tH O;s HF OeF R<>;G. .? tOe N>s;s HU > FeJ;ej HU tOe ;?UHFG>t;H? s_QQ<;eI8 tOe

!+ -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< ><<HR>te > ReFt>;? ?_GNeF HU QH;?ts N>seI _QH? sQeR;U;R U>RtHFs Fe<>teI

!! tH tOe R<>;Gs. 2Oe sQeR;U;R U>RtHFs ;?R<_Ie <e?TtO HU seFJ;Re j;tO 5NeFRFHGN;em I;sRF;G;?>t;H?

!# R<>;Gs N>seI H? F>Re8 ?>t;H?>< HF;T;? HF Te?IeF ;? QFHGHt;H?8 >ss;T?Ge?t8 O;Fe HF teFG;?>t;H?m >?D

!$ QeFsH?>< ;?V_FD8 s_RO >s eGHt;H?>< I;stFess8 s_UUeFeI >s > Fes_<t HU tOe I;sRF;G;?>t;H?m >?I >?D t;Ge

!% HF eUUHFt IeJHteI tH tOe <;t;T>t;H?. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< tHt>< tOe QH;?ts >QQ<;R>N<e tH ><<

!& e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?ts8 IeteFG;?e e>RO e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?t`s QFHQHFt;H?>te sO>Fe HU tOe tHt>< QH;?ts8 >?I

!' ><<HR>te e>RO e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?t`s QFHQHFt;H?>te sO>Fe HU tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t.

!(

XHF eP>GQ<e8 ;U tOe >GH_?t >J>;<>N<e UHF I;stF;N_t;H? UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I 5RRH_?t tH

!) e<;T;N<e R<>ss GeGNeFs ;s u!8+++8+++.++8 >?I tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF O>s >j>FIeI !+8+++ QH;?ts

!* tH e<;T;N<e R<>ss GeGNeFs >?I ;U >? e<;T;N<e R<>ss GeGNeF jeFe >j>FIeI !+ QH;?ts8 tOe? tO>t R<>ss

#+ GeGNeF jH_<I FeRe;Je >? >j>FI HU u!8+++.++ s;?Re e>RO QH;?t jH_<I Ne jHFtO u!++.++ #! Au!8+++8+++.++ ! !+8+++B.

##

M. Distribution of the Monetary Awards.

#$

5s sHH? >s QF>Rt;R>N<e >UteF G>W;?T tOe R><R_<>t;H?s Feq_;FeI ND tOe ><<HR>t;H? Q<>? set

#% UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H? \d77.=8 tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< I;stF;N_te tOe GH?et>FD >j>FIs tH e<;T;N<e

#& R<>ss GeGNeFs J;> U;Fst R<>ss G>;<. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< H?<D ;ss_e tOe ROeRWs ;? tOe

#' ?>Ge HU tOe e<;T;N<e R<>ss GeGNeFs _?<ess 0eRt;H? \d77.X. ;s >QQ<;R>N<e. 7?R<_IeI j;tO tOe ROeRW

#( I_e tH tOe e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?t j;<< Ne > st>teGe?t sOHj;?T tOe TFHss >GH_?t HU tOe Q>DGe?t >?I >?

#) ;teG;MeI st>teGe?t HU ><< IeI_Rt;H?s G>Ie. X<>t F>te IeI_Rt;H?s UFHG TFHss >GH_?ts tO>t >Fe

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 62 of 68

! IeteFG;?eI tH Ne j>Te Q>DGe?ts j;<< Ne G>Ie UHF UeIeF>< >?I st>te ;?RHGe t>Pes8 tOe eGQ<HDee`s

# sO>Fe HU sHR;>< seR_F;tD >?I GeI;R>Fe t>P8 >?I >?D <HR>< ;?RHGe HF Q>DFH<< t>P tO>t >QQ<;es. 2Oe

$ -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< ;?UHFG 5NeFRFHGN;e HU tOe eGQ<HDeF`s sO>Fe HU ><< t>Pes HF

% RH?tF;N_t;H?s A;.e.8 G>tRO;?T sHR;>< seR_F;tD >?I GeI;R>Fe t>PB Feq_;FeI tH Ne Q>;I ND 5NeFRFHGN;e

& >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< t;Ge<D FeG;t ><< s_RO Q>DGe?ts tH tOe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF UHF Q>DGe?t tH

' >QQFHQF;>te t>P;?T >_tOHF;t;es.

(

5?D >GH_?ts Ies;T?>teI >s ;?teFest sO><< ?Ht Ne s_NVeRt tH j;tOOH<I;?T >?I sO><< Ne

) FeQHFteI8 ;U Feq_;FeI8 tH tOe 740 H? XHFG !+**67/2. 2Oe >GH_?ts Q>;I UHF eGHt;H?>< I;stFess

* sO><< ?Ht Ne s_NVeRt tH j;tOOH<I;?T >?I sO><< Ne FeQHFteI tH tOe 740 H? XHFG !+**6E70-.

!+

2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<< Ne FesQH?s;N<e UHF QFeQ>F;?T >?I U;<;?T ><< >QQFHQF;>te t>P

!! U;<;?Ts >?I FeQHFts AePReQt UHF >?D _?eGQ<HDGe?t RHGQe?s>t;H? t>Pes tO>t G>D Ne I_e8 jO;RO j;<<

!# Ne tOe sH<e FesQH?s;N;<;tD HU 5NeFRFHGN;e tH R><R_<>te >?I Q>DB8 ;?R<_I;?T8 N_t ?Ht <;G;teI tH8 a6#

!$ >?I !+** UHFGs UHF ><< e<;T;N<e R<>;G>?ts >?I -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes UHF tOe;F Q>DGe?ts UFHG tOe

!% 0ett<eGe?t X_?I8 >s je<< >s >?D Feq_;FeI UHF tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I. 2Oe -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF j;<<

!& ><sH Ne FesQH?s;N<e UHF FeQHFt;?T >?I FeG;tt;?T tH tOe >QQFHQF;>te t>P;?T >_tOHF;t;es tOe eGQ<HDeF`s

!' sO>Fe HU t>Pes HF RH?tF;N_t;H?s Feq_;FeI tH Ne Q>;I ND 5NeFRFHGN;e ;? > t;Ge<D G>??eF >UteF

!( FeRe;Qt HU tOe >GH_?t I_e UHF tOHse Q>DGe?ts UFHG 5NeFRFHGN;e.

!)

N. Allocation of Monetary Awards.

!*

2Oe GH?et>FD >j>FIs sO><< Ne ><<HR>teI !&t tH <Hst j>Tes >?I )&t tH RHGQe?s>tHFD

#+ I>G>Tes.

#!

O. Cy Pres Fund.

##

7t ;s tOe ;?te?t;H? HU tOe Q>Ft;es tH RHGQ<ete<D I;stF;N_te tOe U_?Is ;? tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I

#$ 5RRH_?t. 7? tOe eJe?t tO>t ROeRWs >Fe Fet_F?eI >?I tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I ;s ?Ht RHGQ<ete<D

#% I;stF;N_teI UHF >?D Fe>sH?8 tOe FeG>;?;?T s_G sO><< NeRHGe Q>Ft HU > RD QFes U_?I tH Ne I;stF;N_teI

#& tH > ?H?6QFHU;t HFT>?;M>t;H? HF HFT>?;M>t;H?s Ies;T?>teI ND =e>I -H_?se< tO>t >ss;st E;?HF;t;es HF

#' jHGe? tH HNt>;? eq_>< eGQ<HDGe?t HQQHFt_?;tD .

#(

#)

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 63 of 68

!

P. Report from Claims Administrator.

#

a;tO;? tO;FtD A$+B I>Ds HU tOe I;stF;N_t;H? HU tOe GH?;es UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I8 tOe

$ -<>;Gs 5IG;?;stF>tHF sO><< U_F?;sO >? >RRH_?t;?T HU ><< I;stF;N_t;H?s UFHG tOe 0ett<eGe?t X_?I tH

% tOe -H_Ft j;tO RHQ;es tH =e>I -H_?se<8 tOe 11.- >?I 5NeFRFHGN;e.

& XVIII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

'

A. Basis for Award of Fees, Costs and Expenses.

(

!.! 2Oe Q>Ft;es O>Je >TFeeI tO>t ;t ;s >QQFHQF;>te >s Q>Ft HU tOe sett<eGe?t

) _?IeF<D;?T tO;s -H?se?t 3eRFee UHF 5NeFRFHGN;e tH Q>D tH -<>ss -H_?se<8 H? NeO><U HU tOe -<>ss

* 4eQFese?t>t;Jes >?I tOe 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss8 Fe>sH?>N<e >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 <;t;T>t;H? ePQe?ses8 >?I

!+ RHsts ;? tO;s R>se.

!!

#.! 2Oe -HGQ>?D O>s >TFeeI tH Q>D -<>ss -H_?se< >? >j>FI HU Fe>sH?>N<e

!# >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 <;t;T>t;H? ePQe?ses8 >?I RHsts ;? tOe >GH_?t HU u(8#&+8+++.++ UHF jHFW QeFUHFGeI

!$ >?I RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI tOFH_TO >?I ;?R<_I;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te. 7?R<_IeI ;? tO;s

!% >GH_?t ;s >QQFHP;G>te<D u&%+8+++.++ UHF <;t;T>t;H? RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI ND -<>ss -H_?se<.

!& 2O;s >GH_?t U_<<D s>t;sU;es >?D >FT_>N<e HN<;T>t;H? tOe -HGQ>?D G>D O>Je tH Q>D >ttHF?eDs` Uees8

!' <;t;T>t;H? ePQe?ses8 >?I RHsts UHF >?I H? NeO><U HU tOe Y<>;?t;UUs8 -<>ss 4eQFese?t>t;Jes >?I tOe

!( 0ett<eGe?t -<>ss UHF >?D >?I ><< jHFW QeFUHFGeI >?I RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI tOFH_TO >?I

!) ;?R<_I;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te.

!*

$.! 2Oe -HGQ>?D ><sH O>s >TFeeI tH Q>D -<>ss -H_?se< >? >GH_?t HU

#+ Fe>sH?>N<e >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 <;t;T>t;H? ePQe?ses8 >?I RHsts UHF jHFW Feq_;FeI tH Ne QeFUHFGeI ND

#! -<>ss -H_?se< >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te Q_Fs_>?t tH tO;s 3eRFee. 2Oe -HGQ>?D >TFees tO>t -<>ss

## -H_?se< sO><< Ne Q>;I s_RO >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts ;? tOe >GH_?t HU u'++8+++.++ UHF

#$ jHFW QeFUHFGeI >?I RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te Fe<>t;?T tH IeUe?se HU

#% tOe 3eRFee8 GH?;tHF;?T8 >IG;?;stF>t;H? >?I ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H?8 ;?R<_I;?T8 j;tOH_t <;G;t>t;H?8

#& eJ><_>t;?T QHss;N<e RHGQ<;>?Re j;tO tO;s 3eRFee8 ;?R<_I;?T tOe Fete?t;H? HU ePQeFts tH >ss;st ;?

#' s_RO eJ><_>t;H?8 >?I IeUe?se HU tOe 3eRFee. 1PReQt >s QFHJ;IeI ;? 0eRt;H? \.:.* UHF >QQe><s HU

#( IeR;s;H?s HU tOe 0QeR;>< E>steF8 tO;s >GH_?t s>t;sU;es >?D >FT_>N<e HN<;T>t;H? tOe -HGQ>?D G>D

#) O>Je tH Q>D >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts tH -<>ss -H_?se< UHF >?D >?I ><< jHFW QeFUHFGeI

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 64 of 68

! >?I RHsts >?I ePQe?ses ;?R_FFeI >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te HU tOe 3eRFee UHF tOe GH?;tHF;?T8

# >IG;?;stF>t;H?8 ;GQ<eGe?t>t;H? >?I IeUe?se HU tOe 3eRFee.

$

%.! /HtO;?T OeFe;? sO><< Ne ;?teFQFeteI tH QFeR<_Ie 5NeFRFHGN;e UFHG seeW;?T

% >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts ;?R_FFeI ;? <;t;T>t;?T e?UHFReGe?t G>tteFs >RRHFI;?T tH 2;t<e

& d77 <>j >QQ<;R>N<e tH > QFeJ>;<;?T IeUe?I>?t _?IeF 0eRt;H? \.:.*. UHF >QQe><s HU IeR;s;H?s HU tOe

' 0QeR;>< E>steF.

(

B. Payment of Award.

)

!.! a;tO;? UH_Ftee? A!%B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><<

* Q>D tH =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9 :eF?ste;?8 ==Y H?e O><U AvB HU tOe u(8#&+8+++.++ HF

!+ u$8'#&8+++.++8 UHF <;t;T>t;H?6Fe<>teI >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts >s set UHFtO ;? 0eRt;H?

!! \d777.5.#. 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><< Q>D =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9 :eF?ste;?8 ==Y tOe FeG>;?;?T

!# >GH_?t j;tO;? UH_Ftee? A!%B I>Ds UH<<Hj;?T tOe X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< 3>te. =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>??

!$ 9 :eF?ste;?8 ==Y sO><< O>Je sH<e FesQH?s;N;<;tD tH I;stF;N_te >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts tH

!% HtOeF -<>ss -H_?se<8 >?I ;U 5NeFRFHGN;e G>Wes s_RO Q>DGe?ts tH =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9

!& :eF?ste;?8 ==Y8 ?H -<>ss -H_?se< G>D >sseFt >?D R<>;G UHF s_RO Q>DGe?ts UFHG 5NeFRFHGN;e. 7?

!' tOe eJe?t tO>t X;?>< 5QQFHJ>< HU tOe 3eRFee ;s ?Ht >tt>;?eI8 =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9 :eF?ste;?8

!( ==Y sO><< Fet_F? tH 5NeFRFHGN;e tOe ;?;t;>< Q>DGe?t HU u$8'#&8+++.++ j;tO;? U;Utee? A!&B I>Ds

!) >UteF tOe ?H?6>QQFHJ>< HU tOe 3eRFee NeRHGes U;?><.

!*

#.! 2Oe >ttHF?eDs` Uees8 ePQe?ses >?I RHsts >j>FIeI >?I >TFeeI tH Ne Q>;I ND

#+ tOe -HGQ>?D Q_Fs_>?t tH 0eRt;H? \d777.5.$. sO><< Ne Q>;I tH =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9

#! :eF?ste;?8 ==Y >RRHFI;?T tH tOe UH<<Hj;?T sROeI_<e[

##

3>te

5GH_?t

#$

2O;FtD A$+B I>Ds >UteF tOe 5QQFHJ>< 3>te

u!&+8+++

#%

E>FRO !&8 #++'

u!#&8+++

#&

E>FRO !&8 #++(

u!++8+++

#'

E>FRO !&8 #++)

u!++8+++

#(

E>FRO !&8 #++*

u (&8+++

#)

E>FRO !&8 #+!+

u &+8+++

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 65 of 68

! 7U tOe 3eRFee ;s teFG;?>teI QF;HF tH E>FRO !&8 #+!! Q_Fs_>?t tH 0eRt;H? d7.:.8 5NeFRFHGN;e sO><<

# Q>D tH =;eUU8 ->NF>seF8 Ke;G>?? 9 :eF?ste;?8 ==Y ><< >ttHF?eDs` Uees <;steI >NHJe tO>t >Fe _?Q>;I

$ >s HU tOe I>te HU tOe 3eRFee ;s teFG;?>teI. 0_RO Q>DGe?t sO><< Ne G>Ie ?H <>teF tO>? UH_Ftee?

% A!%B I>Ds >UteF tOe I>te tOe 3eRFee ;s teFG;?>teI.

&

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED tO;s _____ I>D HU

' wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww8 #++&.

(

) 0^05/ 7==02./

*

^?;teI 0t>tes 3;stF;Rt S_ITe

/HFtOeF? 3;stF;Rt HU -><;UHF?;>

!+

!! 4esQeRtU_<<D s_NG;tteI8
!#

!$ 2OHG>s 5. 0>e?M 0O>Oee?> 5OG>I 0;GH?s

:;<< =>?? =ee Ce<<D E. 3eFGHID

!% E1\7-5/ 5E147-5/ =1]5= 31X1/01 1Je K. -eFJ>?teM

5/3 13^-527./5= X^/3

1<;M>NetO 5. 5<eP>?IeF AQFH O>R J;ReB

!& '$% 0H_tO 0QF;?T 0tFeet8 !!tO X<HHF =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!%

S>O>? -. 0>T>U; /;FeV 0. 0eWOH?

!'

=71XX8 -5:450148 K17E5//

9 :14/0217/8 ==Y

!(

#(& :>tteFD 0tFeet8 $+tO X<HHF

0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!!!6$$$*

!) S_<;e 0_

!* E;?>O Y>FW 5075/ Y5-7X7- 5E147-5/ =1]5=

#+

-1/214

!!%& a;<sO;Fe :<JI.8 #?I X<HHF

#! =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!(

SHseQO -. CHO? E>Ft;? S. 3`^FsH K;<>FD -HOe? C.K/8 0a7X2 9 ]45X8 Y.-. .?e 0H_tO :FH>I 0tFeet YO;<>Ie<QO;>8 Y5 !*!+(

## C;GNeF<D aest6X>_<RH? /55-Y =1]5= 31X1/01 5/3

#$

13^-527./5= X^/38 7/-.

!+&& a;<sO;Fe :<JI.8 0_;te !%)+

#% =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!(

#& 0;I?eD =. ]H<I
#' 2F>R; E. ]Fee?NeFT 073/1c =. ].=3 9 500.-752108 Y.-.
#( !)$& E>FWet 0tFeet YO;<>Ie<QO;>8 Y5 !*!+$
#)

:FD>? =. -<HNes Ee<HID XHFFesteF SeUUFeD 3. =eF?eF E7==14 X5^-K14 5/3 -5XX142c .?e =HT>? 0q_>Fe8 0_;te !(++ YO;<>Ie<QO;>8 Y5 !*!+$
-<eH X;e<Is 2K1 X71=30 =5a X74E8 =.=.-. #!%( ]HJeF?Ge?t 0tFeet :>tH? 4H_Te8 =5

%#&+%+.!

-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 66 of 68

! S>Ges X. Ce<<eF h>RO>FD ]HttesG>?
# ].2210E5/ 9 500.-75210 #!#! ^40 -e?teF
$ $' 1>st (tO 0tFeet -;?R;??>t;8 .K %&#+#
% & ' ( 5QF;< !!8 #++& ) * 5QF;< !!8 #++& !+ !! !# !$ !% 5QF;< !!8 #++& !& !' !( !) !* #+ #! ## #$ #% 5QF;< !!8 #++& #& #' #( #)
%#&+%+.!

:>FFD =. ]H<Iste;? ].=30217/8 31E-K5C8 :5==148
:.4]1/ 9 35435475/ $++ =>Wes;Ie 5Je?_e .>W<>?I8 -5 *%'!#
/s/ Bill Lann Lee :;<< =>?? =ee
/s/ Thomas A. Saenz 2OHG>s 5. 0>e?M E1\7-5/ 5E147-5/ =1]5= 31X1/01 5/3 13^-527./5= X^/3 '$% 0H_tO 0QF;?T 0tFeet =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!%
/s/ Martin J. D’Urso E>Ft;? S. 3`^FsH C.K/8 0a7X2 9 ]45X8 Y.-. .?e 0H_tO :FH>I 0tFeet8 0_;te #!++ YO;<>Ie<QO;>8 Y5 !*!+(
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gonzalez, et al.
S>RW a. =ee8 1sq. A0:/ +(!'#'B =;s> 3_>Fte8 1sq. A0:/ !'*(&+B SHO? .t>8 1sq. A0:/ !*&&$#B E7/5E78 =1a 9 25E5C7 ==Y $'+ YHst 0tFeet8 )tO X<HHF 0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!+)
/s/ Jack W. Lee S>RW a. =ee Attorneys for Plaintiff West, et al.
-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 67 of 68

! # $ % & ' ( ) 5QF;< !!8 #++& * !+ !! !#
5QF;< !!8 #++& !$ !% !& !' !( !) !* #+ #! ## #$ #% #& #' #( #)
%#&+%+.!

147- 0. 3417:5/3 ]e?eF>< -H_?se< S5E10 =11 3eQ_tD ]e?eF>< -H_?se< ]a1/3.=c/ c.^/] 415E0 5ssHR;>te ]e?eF>< -H_?se< ^.0. 1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c -.EE7007./ !)+! q=q 0tFeet8 /.a. a>sO;?TtH?8 3.-. #+&+( :D[ /s/ Anna Y. Park
5//5 c. Y54C 4eT;H?>< 5ttHF?eD ^.0. 1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c -.EE7007./ #&& 1>st 2eGQ<e 0tFeet8 %tO X<HHF =Hs 5?Te<es8 -5 *++!# :D[ /s/ Gregory M. Gochanour S.K/ -. K1/347-C0./ 4eT;H?>< 5ttHF?eD ]41].4c E.].-K5/.^4 0_QeFJ;sHFD 2F;>< 5ttHF?eD ^.0. 1e^5= 1EY=.cE1/2 .YY.42^/72c -.EE7007./ &++ aest E>I;sH? 0tFeet8 0_;te #)++ -O;R>TH8 7= '+''!
-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-2 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 68 of 68

! # $ % & ' ( ) *
5QF;< !!8 #++& !+ !! !# !$ !% !& !' !( !) !* #+ #! ## #$ #% #& #' #( #)
%#&+%+.!

3H_T<>s 4. cH_?T 0>?IF> 5. Ce>F?eD X541==5 :45^/ 9 E5421=8 ==Y 4_ss :_;<I;?T8 $+tO X<HHF #$& EH?tTHGeFD 0tFeet 0>? XF>?R;sRH8 -5 *%!+% 2OHG>s :Fe??>? 4;IT<eD SH?>tO>? E. /HFG>? 0>?IF> S. 5?IeFsH? E>FW 5. C?_eJe d.4c08 052148 01cE.^4 9 Y1501 ==Y &# 1>st ]>D 0tFeet Y... :HP !++) -H<_GN_s8 .K %$#!'6!++) /s/ Thomas Brennan Ridgley 2OHG>s :Fe??>? 4;IT<eD Attorneys for Defendants
-./01/2 31-411 -501 /.0. +$6#)!( 078 +%6%($+ 9 +%6%($!

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-3 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 2 Gonzalez v. Abercrombie; West v. Abercrombie
Hours, Lodestar, and Costs

LCHB MALDEF APALC NAACP LDF Barry Goldstein Minami, Lew & Tamaki Kohn, Swift & Graf Miller Faucher Sidney L. Gold & Associates Gottesman & Associates Rainbow/PUSH
All Class Counsel
Fees + Costs Total Costs Total Fees
Effective multiplier

Hours
6,511 994 401
1,083 331 873
2,133 638 205 13 6
13,187

Lodestar
$1,992,630 $346,494 $79,700 $274,755 $182,160 $364,468 $552,737 $223,487 $51,285 $2,880 $1,710
$4,072,304
$7,250,000 $541,128
$6,708,872
1.65x

Costs
$476,243 $10,162
$571 $2,557
$0 $15,144 $31,597
$4,706 $0 $60 $87
$541,128

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

EDUARDO GONZALEZ, ANTHONY OCAMPO, ENCARNACION

12

GUTIERREZ, JOHAN MONTOYA, JUANCARLOS GÓMEZ-MONTEJANO,

13

JENNIFER LU, AUSTIN CHU, IVY NGUYEN, ANGELINE WU, ERIC

14

FIGHT, CARLA GRUBB, DAVID CULPEPPER, PATRICE DOUGLASS,

15

and ROBAIR SHERROD, BRANDY HAWK and ANDRE STEELE, on behalf

16

of themselves and all others similarly situated,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

19 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES,

20

INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE

21 & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.,

22

Defendants.

Case Nos. 03-2817, 04-4730, & 04-4731 SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

23 ELIZABETH WEST and JENNIFER LU,

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES,

27

INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE

28 & FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.,

425193.1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 2 of 6

1 Defendants.
2

3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
4 v.
5 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES,
6 INC., A&F CALIFORNIA, LLC, A&F OHIO, INC., and ABERCROMBIE &
7 FITCH MANAGEMENT CO.

8

Defendants.

9 WHEREAS, the Claims Administrator has reported that it has received opt-outs

10 and rescissions from certain Class Members, as reported in the Notice of Claims Administrator’s

11 Filing of Objections, Opt-outs, and Opt-out Rescissions, filed on Friday, April 8, 2005; and

12 WHEREAS, the Claims Administrator has reported that 56 named Class Members

13 submitted timely opt-outs, one named Class Member submitted an untimely opt-out, five named

14 Class Members rescinded their opt-outs in a timely fashion, and four named Class Members

15 rescinded their opt-outs in an untimely fashion

16 The parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

17 1. It appropriate to designate as opting out only Class Members who

18 submitted timely opt-outs and did not rescind them;

19 2. Any Class Member who submitted a rescission, whether timely or

20 untimely, shall be deemed to have rescinded his or her opt-out, and shall be able to recover

21 monetary relief as a Class member; and

22 3. The final list of opt-outs is as follows:

23

William Abbott 24 Allyson Augustine

Mallory Hartung May Ling Ho

Sara B. Ooms Cary L. Ooms

Erin Augustine 25 Kristen Barnes

Nicole Kath

Jill Owen

Stephanie Elizabeth Kokoszka Michal Poche

Chetan Bhasin 26 Kristin Leigh Brown

Charissa Marie Lazio (Locke) William Lee

Jesse Quarterman Melissa R. Ribble

27

Julia Burwell Courtney Condron

Michelle Lukas Lisa T.K.O. Lum

Laura Riddlebarger Cheryl Riemer

28 Nadia Karina Del Rio

Megan Manahl

Laura C. Riise

425193.1

- 2 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 3 of 6

1 Jolene Eichorn

Angel McCollough

Minette Galura-Boquiren Kenzi A. McNally

2 Robyn L. Gough

Gina Moshopoulos

Elizabeth Guleke 3 Kirsten Hahn

Sarah Ann Motl Jen Munoz

Hilary Harrod 4 Lindsay Harse

Heidi Nichols Sandra M. Noviks

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

425193.1

- 3 -

Kristin R. Ross Allison Roth Pamela Soggu Kelly A. Stevelt Laura Teed Wendy Widhalm
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 4 of 6

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

2 Respectfully submitted,
3 Julie Su Minah Park
4 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
5 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
6 Telephone: (213) 977-7500 Facsimile: (213) 977-7595
7 Kimberly West-Faulcon
8 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
9 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017
10 Telephone: (213) 975-0211 Facsimile: (213) 202-5773
11
12
13 Sidney L. Gold
14 Traci M. Greenberg SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
15 1835 Market Street, Suite 515 Philadelphia, PA 19103
16 Telephone: (215) 569-1999
17 Cleo Fields
18 RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION 930 East 50th Street
19 Chicago, IL 60615 Telephone: (773) 373-3366
20
21
22 James F. Keller Zachary Gottesman
23 GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES 2121 URS Center
24 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202
25 (513) 651-2121
26

Thomas A. Saenz Shaheena Ahmad Simons MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
Bill Lann Lee Kelly M. Dermody Eve H. Cervantez Elizabeth A. Alexander Jahan C. Sagafi LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Bryan L. Clobes Melody Forrester Jeffrey D. Lerner MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Joseph C. Kohn Martin J. D’Urso Diana Liberto Hilary Cohen KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Barry L. Goldstein GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,
BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800

27

28

425193.1

- 4 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 5 of 6

1

Jack W. Lee, Esq. (SBN 071626)

Lisa Duarte, Esq. (SBN 169750)

2

John Ota, Esq. (SBN 195532)

MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP

3

360 Post Street, 8th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

4

Telephone: (415) 788-9000

Facsimile: (415) 398-3887

5

6

Dated: April 11, 2005

7

By: /s/ Bill Lann Lee

Bill Lann Lee

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

Anna Y. Park (SBN 164242)

John C. Hendrickson (IL SBN 1187589)

10 Peter F. Laura (SBN 116426)

Gregory M. Gochanour (IL SBN 6210804)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800

12 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Chicago, IL 60661

13

Dated: April 11, 2005

14

By: /s/ Gregory M. Gochanour

15

Gregory M. Gochanour

16

Attorneys for EEOC

17 Thomas B. Ridgley
18 Sandra J. Anderson Mark A. Knueve
19 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, LLP
20 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008
21
22

Douglas R. Young Douglas E. Dexter Sandra A. Kearney FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP Russ Building, 30th floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480

23

Dated: April 11, 2005

24

By: ___/s/ Thomas B. Ridgley________

Thomas B. Ridgley

25

Attorneys for Defendants

26

27

28

425193.1

- 5 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

Case 3:03-cv-02817-SI Document 125-4 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 6 of 6

1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated:
3
4

Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

425193.1

- 6 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPT-OUTS

 
 Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 1 of 45
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03−cv−02817−SI

Gonzalez et al v. Abercombie & Fitch Co. et al Assigned to: Hon. Susan Illston Relate Case Cases: 3:04−cv−04731−SI
3:04−cv−04730−SI Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff
Eduardo Gonzalez

Date Filed: 06/16/2003 Date Terminated: 04/15/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Julie Wilensky Disability Rights California 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510−267−1200 Email: julie.wilensky@cco.sccgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz Mexican Amercian Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 South Spring Street 11th floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213/629−2512 Fax: 213/629−0266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: blee@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP 1101 Market Street Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−864−2800 Fax: 215−864−2810 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields The Fields Law Firm, L.L.C. 2147 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA 70806 225−343−5377 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto Kohn Swift & Graf P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 2 of 45
Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−238−1700 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 150 4th Avenue North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219−2423 615−313−9000 Fax: 615−313−9965 Email: ealexander@lchb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 312−886−9124 Fax: 312−353−8555 Email: Gregory.Gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen Kohn Swift & Graf P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107−3304 215−238−1700 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee Minami Tamaki LLP 360 Post Street 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415/788−9000 Fax: 415−398−3887 Email: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi Outten & Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 638−8800 Fax: (415) 638−8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller Gottesman & Associates 2121 URS Center 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 3 of 45
513−651−2121 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−864−2800 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107−3304
215−238−1700 Fax: 215−238−1968 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Boulevard 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 1055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−975−0211 Fax: 213−202−5773 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111−3339 415−956−1000 Fax: 415−956−1008 Email: kdermody@lchb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso Kohn Swift & Graf P.C. One South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−238−1700 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP One Logan Square, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103
215−864−2800 Fax: 215−864−2810 Email: mforrester@millerfaucher.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 4 of 45

Minah Park Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Boulevard 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: mpark@apalc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shaheena Ahmad Simmons Mexican American Legal Defense 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold Sidney L. Gold & Associates P.C. Eleven Penn Center, Suite 515 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−569−1999 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Bolden , Esq. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 212−965−2200 Email: vbolden@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111−3339 415−956−1000 Fax: 415−956−1008 Email: nsekhon@lchb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Ocampo

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 5 of 45
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester ,

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 6 of 45

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Encarnacion Gutierrez

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hilary Cohen

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 7 of 45
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 8 of 45

Johan Montoya

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Ann Su (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 9 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 10 of 45
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 11 of 45

Plaintiff Jennifer Lu

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 12 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Austin Chu

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 13 of 45
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 14 of 45

Plaintiff Ivy Nguyen

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 15 of 45
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 16 of 45

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Wu

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 17 of 45

Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Ann Su (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jyoti Nanda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Minah Park (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shaheena Ahmad Simmons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Bolden , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carla Grubb

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 18 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eric Fight

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 19 of 45
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 20 of 45

Plaintiff David Culpepper

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 21 of 45

TERMINATED: 01/26/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patrice Douglass

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney L. Gold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 22 of 45

Plaintiff Robair Sherrod

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan L. Clobes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleo Fields (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diana Liberto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hilary Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Keller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey D. Lerner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C Kohn , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. D'Urso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody Forrester , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney L. Gold

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 23 of 45

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nirej S. Sekhon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willis E. Brown, IV

represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Willis E. Brown Willis E. Brown LTD. Attorney at Law 120 W. Madison Street, Suite 825 Chicago, IL 60602 312−372−3026 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gochanour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack Wing Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

represented by Douglas R. Young Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−954−4410 Fax: 415−954−4480 Email: dyoung@fbm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Brennan Ridgley Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216−1008 (614) 464−6229 Fax: 614−464−6350

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 24 of 45

Email: tbridgley@vssp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Scott Andrews Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−954−4400 Fax: 415−954−4480 Email: sandrews@fbm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Arnold Knueve Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 52 E. Gay Street PO Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216−1008 (614) 464−6387 Fax: 614−719−4808 Email: maknueve@vorys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick R. McKinney Farella Braun and Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415 954−4487 Fax: 415−954−4480 Email: pmckinney@fbm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas Evans Dexter Farella Braun + Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954−4409 Fax: (415) 954−4480 Email: ddexter@fbm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra A. Edwards Farella Braun + Martel LLP Russ Building, 30th Floor 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 954−4428 Email: sedwards@fbm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant A&F California, LLC

represented by Thomas Brennan Ridgley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Scott Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 25 of 45

Defendant A&F Ohio, Inc.
Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.
Objector Rachel Potter

Patrick R. McKinney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Evans Dexter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra A. Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Brennan Ridgley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Scott Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick R. McKinney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Evans Dexter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra A. Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Scott Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick R. McKinney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Brennan Ridgley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra A. Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 26 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason M. Erlich McCormack & Erlich, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 742 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 296−8420 Fax: (415) 296−8552 Email: jason@mcelawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miscellaneous
Settlement Services, Inc. Claims Administrator Thomas A. Warren

represented by Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/16/2003
06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/25/2003
07/09/2003
07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/29/2003 08/04/2003 08/06/2003 08/12/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT /summons issued against Abercombie & Fitch Co. (Filing fee $150 receipt number 3348530). Filed by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (vlh, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2003 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2003)
Summons Issued as to Abercombie & Fitch Co. (vlh, ) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/9/2003. Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2003 at 10:00 AM. (vlh, ) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
3 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu re 1 (Cervantez, Eve) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
4 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu re 1 (Cervantez, Eve) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
5 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING by Abercombie & Fitch Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Dexter, Douglas) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
6 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Abercombie & Fitch Co. and Request for Assignment to a United States District Judge. (Dexter, Douglas) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of attorney Sandra J. Anderson (paid) filed by Abercombie & Fitch Co.. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
8 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of attorney Mark A. Knueve (paid) filed by Abercombie & Fitch Co.. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
9 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of attorney Thomas B. Ridgley (paid) filed by Abercombie & Fitch Co.. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
10 ORDER Impending Reassignment . Signed by Judge HON. MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 8/4/03. (bjt, ) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
11 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susan Illston for all further proceedings. Judge Maria−Elena James no longer assigned to case. Signed by Executive Committee on 08/06/03. (mab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
12 CLERK'S NOTICE setting case management on 11/7/03 @ 2:00 p.m. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/2003)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 27 of 45

08/12/2003
08/12/2003 08/13/2003 08/18/2003
08/18/2003
08/22/2003 08/29/2003
09/04/2003 09/11/2003 09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/26/2003 10/27/2003
10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003

13 NOTICE re 12 ENTRY OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/7/2003 at 02:00 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
14 ORDER granting pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 8/12/03. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
15 First AMENDED COMPLAINT For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages, For Violations of 42 U.S.C. ? 1981; California Fair Employment and Housing Act against Abercombie & Fitch Co.. Filed by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
16 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Austin Chu, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu re 15 Via U.S. Mail (Sagafi, Jahan) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
Summons (First Amended Complaint) Issued as to A&F California, LLC ; A&F Ohio, Inc. ; Abercombie & Fitch Co. ; Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
17 STIPULATION re 1 , 15 Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Signature)(Kearney, Sandra) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
18 ORDER . Signed by Judge Illston on 9/4/03. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
19 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint First Amended by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Dexter, Douglas) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
20 NOTICE of need of ADR Phone Conference ADR Certification (Kearney, Sandra) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
21 NOTICE of need of ADR Phone Conference (Attachments: # 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
22 CLERK'S NOTICE: ADR Phone Conference scheduled for 10/27/03 at 9:30 a.m. PST. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) Modified on 9/26/2003 (tjs, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2003)
23 STIPULATION EXTENDING BY ONE WEEK THE DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO RULE 26 by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Cervantez, Eve) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
24 NOTICE re 14 ENTRY OF ORDER by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kearney, Sandra) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
25 NOTICE re 14 ENTRY OF ORDER by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kearney, Sandra) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
26 NOTICE re 14 ENTRY OF ORDER by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kearney, Sandra) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
ADR Phone Conference by RWS (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 28 of 45

10/28/2003 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/12/2003
11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/24/2003 12/04/2003 12/08/2003 01/06/2004
01/06/2004

27 ORDER granting stipulation to extend Rule 26 disclosures. Signed by Judge Illston on 10/28/03. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants) filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
ADR Phone Conference by RWS (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
29 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of Elizabeth A. Alexander (receipt #3353287) filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
Proposed Order re 29 by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
30 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/7/2003 before Illston. Case continued to 11/12/04 @ 2:30 p.m. for Further Case Management ConferenceCase continued to 4/16/04 @ 2:30 P.M. for Further Case Management ConferenceCase continued to 10/29/04 @ 9:00 A.M. for Motion for Class Certification(Motion due 7/16/04, Opposition 9/9/041 Reply 0/15/04)Case continued to NONE SET AT THIS TIME for Pretrial ConferenceCase continued to 9/12/05 @ 8:30 a.m. for Trial (: Days)RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION: Designate Experts by: 5/2/04, completion of Depositions 6/4/04, Disclose supplemental/Rebuttal Expert & Reports: 6/11/04, Completion of Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Depositions 7/2/04ORDERED AFTER HEARING: T he parties shall attempt to resolve the personal jurisdiction issue or file the appropriate motions by November 21, 2004.(No pretrial order issued at this time.)(Court Reporter NONE.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
Set/Reset Deadlines:, Set/Reset Hearings: Motions for class certification due by 7/16/2004. Bench Trial set for 9/12/2005 08:30 AM. Case Management Conference set for 4/16/2004 at 02:30 PM. Motion Hearing for class certification set for 10/29/2004 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
31 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 29 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Elizabeth A. Alexander (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
32 STIPULATION to report to Court NLT 12/8/03 by Abercombie & Fitch Co., Eduardo Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/24/2003) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eduardo Gonzalez (Attachments: # 1 LETTER TO HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/4/2003) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
34 NOTICE/Letter by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2003) Modified on 12/9/2003 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2003)
35 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Proof of Service)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/6/2004) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
36 EXHIBITS RE STIPULATION re 35 Stipulation, Exhibits A−BB to Second Amended Complaint by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/6/2004) Modified on 1/7/2004 (ys,

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 29 of 45

01/07/2004
01/09/2004 01/09/2004
01/20/2004
01/22/2004 01/26/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
37 ERRATA re 35 revised signature pages of Second Amended Complaint by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/7/2004) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
38 ORDER granting leave to file second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Illston on 1/8/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2004) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
39 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT) against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. Filed by Eduardo Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−BB# 2 Proof of Service via Facsimile and U.S. Mail)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/9/2004) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
40 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: ORGANIZATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL by Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service via Facsimile and U.S. Mail)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/20/2004) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
41 ORDER Re: Stipulation and Pretrial Order No. 1 Re: Organization of Plaintiffs' Counsel. Signed by Judge Illston on 1/21/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2004) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
42 ANSWER to Amended Complaint SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 1/26/2004) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
43 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Sidney L. Gold ($60.00, receipt #3356138) filed by plaintiffs.(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 43 Pro Hac Vice of Sidney L. Gold by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
44 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of James F. Keller ($60.00, receipt #3356137) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 44 pro hac vice of James F. Keller by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
45 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of Melody Forrester ($60.00, receipt #3356136) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) Modified on 2/5/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2004)
0 Proposed Order re 45 pro hac vice of Jeffrey D. Lerner by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
46 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey D. Lerner ($60.00, receipt #3356136) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 46 pro hac vice of Jeffrey D. Lerner by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
47 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Bryan L. Clobes ($60.00, receipt #3356136) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 47 pro hac vice of Bryan L. Clobes by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
48 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Martin J. D'urso ($60.00, receipt #3356135) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 30 of 45

01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 01/29/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/09/2004
02/09/2004
02/11/2004

Proposed Order re 48 pro hac vice of Martin J. D'urso by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
49 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Diana Liberto ($60.00, receipt #3356136) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 49 pro hac vice of Diana Liberto by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
50 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Hilary Cohen ($60.00, receipt #3356135) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 50 pro hac vice of Hilary Cohen by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
51 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Joseph C. Kohn ($60.00, receipt #3356135) filed by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Proposed Order re 51 pro hac vice of Joseph C. Kohn by plaintiffs. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
52 STATUS REPORT [Letter to the Honorable Susan Illston] by Eduardo Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service via Facsimile)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/29/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
53 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 51 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Joseph C. Kohn. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
54 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 49 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Diana Liberto. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
55 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 50 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Hilary Cohen. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
56 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 48 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Martin J. D'Urso. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
57 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 46 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey D. Lerner. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
58 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 45 Motion for pro hac vice of Melody Forrester. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) Modified on 2/5/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2004)
59 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 47 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Bryan L. Clobes. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
60 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 43 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Sidney L. Gold. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
61 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 44 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of James F. Keller. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2004) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
62 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Cleo Fields ($60.00, receipt #3356543) filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
Proposed Order re 62 application for admission of Cleo Fields pro hac vice by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
63 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 62 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Cleo Fields. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2004) (Entered: 02/12/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 31 of 45

02/12/2004
02/12/2004 02/18/2004 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 04/12/2004 04/19/2004 04/23/2004 05/04/2004
05/04/2004
05/05/2004 05/13/2004

64 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFYING DATE FOR PARTIES? FIRST MEDIATION by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/12/2004) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu re 64 Stipulation, VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/12/2004) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
66 ORDER re: date for 1st mediation. Signed by Judge Illston on 2/13/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2004) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
67 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Eduardo Gonzalez. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1: THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT# 2 PROOF OF SERVICE VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/29/2004) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
68 EXHIBITS re 67 Motion for Leave to File filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Related document(s) 67 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/30/2004) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
69 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Eduardo Gonzalez. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/12/2004) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
70 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 4/16/2004 before Illston The following deadlines were extended: 1) expert designation to 5/3/04 and 2) exchange expert reports on 5/13/04.(Date Filed: 4/19/2004). (Court Reporter none.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/19/2004) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
71 RESPONSE in Support re 67 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 4/23/2004) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
72 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE OF DATES FOR CERTAIN CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION MATTERS by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/4/2004) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
73 "DUPLICATE OF #72" STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE OF DATES FOR CERTAIN CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION MATTERS by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/4/2004) Modified on 5/5/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/2004)
74 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: briefing schedule on motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Illston on 5/5/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2004) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
75 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 32 of 45

05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 06/10/2004
06/14/2004
06/18/2004
06/18/2004 06/21/2004 07/21/2004
07/23/2004 07/23/2004 08/19/2004 08/26/2004 09/23/2004

76 ORDER by Judge Illston granting 67 Motion for Leave to File Third AMended Complaint (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2004) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
77 STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting class certification and case management to 12/3/04 and 12/17/04, respectively. Signed by Judge Illston on 5/17/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2004) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motions for Class Certification due by 9/7/2004. Case Management Conference set for 12/17/2004 02:30 PM. Motion Hearing for Class Certification set for 12/3/2004 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2004) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
78 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. Filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−BB)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/10/2004) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
79 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/14/2004) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
80 ORDER Granting re 79 Stipulation re Modification of Class Certification Schedule, filed by Eduardo Gonzalez, Anthony Ocampo, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu, Eric Fight, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper, Robair Sherrod, Patrice Douglass. Signed by Judge Illston on 6/14/04. (sp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2004 (sp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by 10/5/2004. Case Management Conference set for 1/21/2005 02:30 PM. Class certification Hearing set for 1/7/2005 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2004) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
81 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Third) by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 6/21/2004) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
82 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC FILING)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/21/2004) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
83 STIPULATION AND ORDER adjusting the class cert. motion and case management conference.. Signed by Judge Illston on 7/23/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 2/18/2005 02:30 PM. Class Certification Hearing set for 2/4/2005 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
84 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 8/19/2004) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
85 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: Modification of Class Certification Schedule. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 8/24/04. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2004) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
86 Letter from Lieff, Cabraser, et al. and Farella Braun + Martel. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/23/2004) (Entered: 09/23/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 33 of 45

09/27/2004 09/29/2004
10/01/2004 10/01/2004 10/03/2004 10/04/2004 10/04/2004 11/08/2004
11/09/2004 11/09/2004
11/09/2004 11/09/2004
11/10/2004 11/11/2004

87 Letter from Lieff, Cabraser, et al. and Farella Braun + Martel. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 9/27/2004) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
88 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order re Modification of Class Certification Schedule by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 9/29/2004) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
89 "ERROENOUS ATTACHMENT" STIPULATION AND ORDER adjusting the schedule as to class certification only.. Signed by Judge Illston on 9/30/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2004) Modified on 10/4/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2004)
"ERRONEOUS FILING" Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing reset for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2004) Modified on 10/4/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2004)
90 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/28/2004 before Illston (Date Filed: 10/3/2004). () (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/3/2004) (Entered: 10/03/2004)
91 STIPULATION AND ORDER adjusting class certification motion and case management hearing dates.. Signed by Judge Illston on 10/4/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2004) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Class Motions due by 2/18/2005. Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2005 09:00 AM. Status Conference set for 6/17/2005 02:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2004) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
92 Fourth AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES, FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. ?2000e; 42 U.S.C. ?1981; AND CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT against all defendants. Filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/8/2004) Modified on 11/9/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2004)
93 Letter from Bill Lann Lee and Douglas R. Young on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/9/2004) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
94 STIPULATION and [proposed] order allowing filing of Fourth Amended Complaint by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (1 of 3 documents)# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to stipulation (2 of 3 documents)# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (3 of 3 documents))(Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/9/2004) Modified on 11/10/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2004)
95 NOTICE of Related Case (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/9/2004) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
96 STIPULATION and Joint Statement Supporting Notice of Related Cases and [Proposed] Order by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/9/2004) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
97 ORDER granting leave to file 4th amended complaint; setting preliminary approval of consent decree on 11/15/04 @ 4:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Illston on 11/9/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2004) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
98 ANSWER to 92 Amended Complaint (Fourth) by Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 11/11/2004) Modified on 11/12/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/11/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 34 of 45

11/12/2004 11/12/2004 11/12/2004
11/12/2004
11/12/2004
11/12/2004
11/12/2004 11/12/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004 11/15/2004 11/16/2004 11/16/2004

99 ORDER RELATING CASE.. Signed by Judge Illston on 11/11/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. re 98 Answer to Amended Complaint (Kearney, Sandra) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
101 STIPULATION of Proposed Settlement and Proposed Order of Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2−6# 3 Attestation Regarding Conformed Signatures)(Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
102 Declaration of Jack W. Lee in Support of 104 Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Consent by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) Modified on 11/15/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2004)
103 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of 104 Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of The Proposed Consent Decree by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen. (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) Modified on 11/15/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2004)
104 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment [Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Consent Decree] filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2004 04:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Attestation Regarding Conformed Signatures)(Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
105 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to File Under Seal by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
106 NOTICE of Manual Filing by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu Regarding Exhibit Attachment (Sekhon, Nirej) (Filed on 11/12/2004) Modified on 11/15/2004 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2004)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Stipulation and proposed order to file under seal. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2004) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
108 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting sealing of documents. Signed by Judge Illston on 11/15/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2004) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
109 EXHIBITS 1 and 2 filed byplaintiffs and defendants. FILED UNDER SEAL. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2004) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
110 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2004 before Illston (Date Filed: 11/16/2004). (Court Reporter P. Thompsen.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/16/2004) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
111 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/16/2004 before Illston (Date Filed: 11/16/2004). Case continued to 4/14/05 @ 4:30 p.m. for Final Approval Hearing of Class Settlement(Court Reporter R. Flores.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/16/2004) (Entered: 11/16/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 35 of 45

11/16/2004
11/16/2004 11/17/2004 12/07/2004
03/18/2005 03/30/2005 03/31/2005 04/05/2005 04/05/2005 04/06/2005 04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005

112 STIPULATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by Eduardo Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Judge Illston# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 11/16/2004) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 104 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment [Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Consent Decree]. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 04:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2004) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
113 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting preliminary approval of Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Illston on 11/16/04. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2004) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
114 Letter from Bill Lann Lee (for Plaintiffs) and Douglas R. Young (for Defendants). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Joint Letter# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Joint Letter# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Joint Letter# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Joint Letter# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E to Joint Letter# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F to Joint Letter)(Lee, Bill) (Filed on 12/7/2004) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
115 Letter from Bill Lann Lee. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 3/18/2005) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
116 Letter from Plaintiffs' counsel to Judge Illston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Interrogatories and RFPs))(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/30/2005) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
117 Letter from Defendants' Counsel to Judge Illston. (Ridgley, Thomas) (Filed on 3/31/2005) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
118 Letter dated 3/16/05 from Willis E. Brow, Esq., counsel of one of class plaintiffs to the Court requesting to add as a plaintiff on the docket. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2005) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
119 Letter from Objector Counsel, Ryan Bobel. (Erlich, Jason) (Filed on 4/5/2005) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
120 ORDER granting plaintiff's request for expedited discovery responses. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/6/05. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2005) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
121 Declaration of Wayne Pines Filed in Support of Final Approval of Class Settlement filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D to Declaration of Wayne Pines)(Ridgley, Thomas) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
122 STATUS REPORT (Claims Administrator's Interim Report to the Court and Point Allocation Recommendation) by Settlement Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Claims Administrator's Filing of Objections, Opt−outs, and Opt−out Rescissions# 2 Declaration of Mark Patton)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
123 Declaration of Ron Barton Submitted by Defendants in Support of Final Approval of the Consent Decree filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (Ridgley, Thomas) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
124 STIPULATION STIPULATED JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY LEIGH FOSTER by Encarnacion Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree) filed by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 04:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 − Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit Ex 2 − Chart of hours, lodestar, & costs# 3 Proposed Order Stipulation & Proposed Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/11/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 36 of 45

04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/12/2005 04/12/2005

126 Declaration in Support of 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree) Declarations of Park, Goldstein, Fields, Gochanour, Keller, Hughes, Jack Lee, D'Urso filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 APALC − A1# 2 APALC − A2# 3 APALC − A3# 4 APALC − B# 5 BG Dec with exhibits# 6 Fields Dec with exhibits# 7 Gochanour Dec# 8 Gottesman Dec with exhibits# 9 Hughes Dec# 10 Jack Lee Dec# 11 Jack Lee − Ex A# 12 Jack Lee − Ex B# 13 DUrso Dec − 1# 14 DUrso − 2)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
127 Declaration in Support of 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree), 126 Declaration in Support,,, Declarations of Saenz, Clobes, West−Faulcon, Gold filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Miller Faucher Dec# 2 NAACP LDF 1# 3 NAACP LDF − 2# 4 NAACP LDF − 3# 5 NAACP LDF − dec + A, B, C# 6 Gold Dec with exhibits)(Related document(s) 125 , 126 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
128 ERRATA re 125 (Motion for Final Approval) (corrected) by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu, Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) Modified on 4/12/2005 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2005)
129 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of 127 Declaration in Support,,, 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree), 126 Declaration in Support,,, Bill Lann Lee Exhibits A−L3 filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Errata Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I# 10 Errata Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit Exhibit K# 12 Errata Exhibit L1# 13 Exhibit Exhibit L2# 14 Exhibit Exhibit L3)(Related document(s) 127 , 125 , 126 ) (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
130 Declaration (Bill Lann Lee Declaration − Exhibits P−V) filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 BLL Dec Ex R (2)# 2 BLL Dec Ex S# 3 BLL Dec Ex T# 4 BLL Dec Ex U# 5 BLL Dec Ex V# 6 BLL Dec Ex Q# 7 BLL Dec Ex P (1)# 8 BLL Dec Ex P (2))(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/11/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
131 EXHIBITS re 127 Declaration in Support,,, 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree), 126 Declaration in Support,,, Bill Lann Lee Exhibits M−P2 filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 BLL Ex N, ingles consent decree# 2 BLL Ex O, Mitsubishi Motor consent decree# 3 BLL Ex Part 1, publix consent decree# 4 BLL Ex P part 2, publix consent decree)(Related document(s) 127 , 125 , 126 ) (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
132 ERRATA re 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree) (Ex 1 − Consent Decree, with Exs. A, B, & C) by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu, Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 37 of 45

04/12/2005 04/12/2005 04/12/2005 04/14/2005
04/14/2005 04/14/2005
04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/18/2005 06/09/2005 06/10/2005 01/23/2006 05/17/2006 05/26/2006 06/23/2006 06/30/2006

Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
133 Letter from Objector Rachel Potter's counsel to Judge Illston re: request for deposition order. (Erlich, Jason) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
134 Letter from Defendants' Counsel to Judge Illston. (Ridgley, Thomas) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
135 Letter from Bill Lann Lee to Court re Objector's counsel's discovery request. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
136 Proposed Order re 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree) Revised Stip & Proposed Order re Opt−outs and Point Allocation by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
137 STATUS REPORT Claims Administrator's Notice of Additional Rescission of Opt−Out by Settlement Services, Inc.. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
138 CONSENT DECREE/Proposed Order re 125 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Consent Decree) Consent Decree as Standalone Proposed Order by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/14/2005) Modified on 4/15/2005 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2005)
139 Order Re: stpulated motion for order approving withdrawal of objection submitted by Leigh Foster. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/14/05. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
140 ORDER re: opt−outs and point allocation. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/14/05. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
141 Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/14/05. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
142 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/14/2005 before Illston (Date Filed: 4/18/2005). (Court Reporter J. Yeomans.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/18/2005) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
143 MOTION to Withdraw of Objection filed by Rachel Potter. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/9/2005) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
144 ORDER by Judge Illston granting 143 Motion to Withdraw (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
145 STATUS REPORT − Report of the Claims Administrator Regarding Class Monetary Distribution by Settlement Services, Inc.. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/23/2006) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
146 Letter dated 5/15/06 from Brittny L. Holman. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2006) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
147 Letter from Bill Lann Lee to class member Brittny Holman re late attempt to opt out. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 5/26/2006) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
148 Letter dated 6/7/06 from Brittny L. Holman in response to 146 Letter. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2006) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
149 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Setting Status Conference re Settlement by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/30/2006) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 38 of 45

07/05/2006 07/05/2006 08/09/2006 08/10/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 09/06/2006
09/12/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006 01/10/2007
01/23/2007 01/26/2007 08/13/2007
08/13/2007
08/13/2007

150 ORDER setting case management conference. Signed by Judge Illston on 6/30/06. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2006) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 8/22/2006 03:00 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2006) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
151 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 8/22/2006 09:00 AM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
152 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 8/22/2006 03:00 PM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2006) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
153 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/22/2006 before Illston (Date Filed: 8/23/2006). (Court Reporter Mankiewicz.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
154 AMENDED Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference (Date Filed: 8/23/2006). () (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
155 ORDER Directing the parties to file under seal the court − appointed monitor's report and executive summary. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 9/1/06. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/7/2006 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/07/2006)
156 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re 154 held on 8/22/06 before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter: Leo T. Mankiewicz. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
157 Court−Appointed Monitor's First Annual Compliance Report. FILED UNDER SEAL (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
158 Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's First Annual Compliance Report. FILED UNDER SEAL (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
159 NOTICE by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 1/10/2007) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
160 NOTICE by Jennifer Lu Notice of Firm Name Change (Lee, Jack) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
161 NOTICE by Eduardo Gonzalez Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/26/2007) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal filed by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Thomas Ridgley in Support of Motion to File Under Seal# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Directing That The Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries be Filed Under Seal)(McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 8/13/2007) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
163 MEMORANDUM in Support re 162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (Related document(s) 162 ) (McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 8/13/2007) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
164 MOTION to Shorten Time filed by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Thomas Ridgley in Support of Motion to Shorten Time on Motion of Defendants for Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to be Filed Under Seal# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion Shortening

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 39 of 45

08/16/2007
08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/24/2007
08/31/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007

Time)(McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 8/13/2007) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
165 Response Lead Counsel and the EEOC's Joint Response to 164 Defendants' Motion for Order Shortening Time byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/16/2007) Modified on 8/17/2007 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2007)
166 Reply Memorandum re 164 MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Court−Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to be Filed Under Seal filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 8/17/2007) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
167 Declaration of Thomas B. Ridgley in Support of 166 Reply Memorandum, filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 166 ) (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 8/17/2007) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
168 ORDER re: defendant's motion for order shortening time; setting schedule on defendant's motion for order directing Court−appointed monitor's annual compliance reports and executive summaries to be filed under seal. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2007) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal. Motion Hearing set for 9/14/2007 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2007) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
169 Memorandum in Opposition re 162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal Lead Counsel's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Seal the Monitor's Reports and Executive Summaries filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/24/2007) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
170 RESPONSE in Support re 162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc.. (McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 8/31/2007) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
171 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 9/14/2007 before Illston (Date Filed: 9/18/2007). The Court indicated that she will have the reports filed under seal and the file publically the executive summary. (Court Reporter Yeomans.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
172 Proposed Order re 162 MOTION Order Directing Court Appointed Monitor's Annual Compliance Reports and Executive Summaries Thereof to Be Filed Under SEal by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
173 ORDER by Judge Illston granting 162 Motion to file under seal annual complaince reports and to file executive summeries in public record (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
174 STATUS REPORT Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's First Annual Compliance Report by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
175 STATUS REPORT Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's Second Annual Compliance Report by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. (McKinney, Patrick) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 40 of 45

09/21/2007 10/02/2007 05/20/2008
05/20/2008
05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/23/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008

176 Court−Appointed Monitor's Second Annual Compliance Report by Fred W. Alvarez, esq.. FILED UNDER SEAL. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2007) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
177 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/28/2007 before Illston (Date Filed: 10/2/2007). Counsel will try to resolve the issue of marketing/diversity prior to going back before Hunter Hughes (mediator). () (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
178 PETITION Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision Regarding Abercrombie's Motion to Dismiss Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Proceedings against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. Filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision, # 2 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/20/2008) Modified on 5/23/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
179 PETITION Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision Regarding Abercrombie's Motion to Dismiss Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Proceedings against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co.. Filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision, # 2 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision)(Gochanour, Gregory) (Filed on 5/20/2008) Modified on 5/23/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
180 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi (Revised) re 178 , 179 filed byAnthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Lee, Jack) (Filed on 5/22/2008) Modified on 5/23/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
181 NOTICE by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu of Hearing (Lee, Jack) (Filed on 5/22/2008) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
182 Proposed Order re Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu. (Lee, Jack) (Filed on 5/22/2008) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing re 178 , 179 set for 7/18/2008 09:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2008) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
183 CLERK'S NOTICE Motion Hearing set for 8/15/2008 09:00 AM re 178 , 179 . (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2008) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
184 Memorandum in Opposition to 179 Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decisions filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 7/25/2008) Modified on 7/28/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/25/2008)
185 Declaration of Thomas B. Ridgley in Support of 184 Opposition to Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision (part 1 of 2) filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 7/25/2008) Modified on 7/28/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/25/2008)
186 Declaration of Thomas B. Ridgley in Support of 184 bercrombie's Opposition to Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal of Special Master's Decision (part 2 of 2) filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 185 ) (Young, Douglas)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 41 of 45

07/25/2008 08/01/2008 08/12/2008 10/16/2008
10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/17/2008 07/06/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/23/2009 10/27/2009
08/26/2010 09/15/2010

(Filed on 7/25/2008) Modified on 7/28/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/25/2008)
187 Proposed Order Denying Lead Counsel and EEOC's Appeal and Affirming Special Master's Decisions by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 7/25/2008) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
188 Reply Memorandum in Support of 179 Lead Counsel and EEOCs Appeal of Special Masters Decision Granting Defendants Motion To Dismiss Dispute Resolution and Enforcement Proceedings filed byEduardo Gonzalez. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/1/2008) Modified on 8/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2008)
189 ORDER AFFIRMING SPECIAL MASTER'S DECISION. Signed by Judge Susan Illston. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2008) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
190 NOTICE by Anthony Ocampo, Carla Grubb, Eric Fight, David Culpepper, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Patrice Douglass, Robair Sherrod, Eduardo Gonzalez, Johan Montoya, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Jennifer Lu, Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, Ivy Nguyen, Angela Wu Notice of Annual Status Conference (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
191 STATUS REPORT Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's Third Annual Compliance Report by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
192 STATUS REPORT Manual Filing Notification re: Court−Appointed Monitor's Third Annual Compliance Report by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
193 Court−Appointed Monitor's Third Annual Compliance Report by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc.. FILED UNDER SEAL(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
194 Letter from Jahan C. Sagafi and Mark A. Knueve (Joint letter from Plaintiffs and Defendants re scheduling). (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/6/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
195 STATUS REPORT Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's Fourth Annual Compliance Report by A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(Young, Douglas) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
196 NOTICE by A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Manual Filing Notification: Court−Appointed Monitor's Fourth Annual Compliance Report filed under seal (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(Young, Douglas) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
197 Court − Appointed Monitor's Fourth Annual Compliance Report by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. FILED UNDER SEAL (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
198 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 10/23/2009). (Court Reporter C. Kuhl.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/23/2009) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
199 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10−21−09, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Connie Kuhl, Telephone number 415−431−2020. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2010. (ck, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2009) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
200 NOTICE of Change of Address by Bill Lann Lee (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 8/26/2010) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
201 Letter from both parties to Honorable Susan Illston. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/15/2010) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 42 of 45

11/16/2010 12/10/2010
12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/14/2010 12/16/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 03/15/2011
03/15/2011
03/15/2011

Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 12/15/2010 10:00 AM. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
202 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Court−Appointed Monitor's Fifth Annual Compliance Report and Executive Summary of same filed by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Edwards, Sandra) (Filed on 12/10/2010) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
203 CLERKS NOTICE HEARING set for 12/20/2010 02:00 PM. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2010) Modified on 12/13/2010 (tfS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2010)
204 STATUS REPORT Executive Summary of Court−Appointed Monitor's Fifth Annual Compliance Report by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 12/13/2010) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
205 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Court−Appointed Monitor's Fifth Annual Compliance Report filed by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Edwards, Sandra) (Filed on 12/13/2010) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
206 Notice of Withdrawal of 202 Motion to File Under Seal filed byA&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Edwards, Sandra) (Filed on 12/13/2010) Modified on 12/14/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2010)
***Deadlines terminated. 199 Transcript. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
207 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Continuing Status Conference From December 20, 2010 to January 12, 2011 by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Young, Douglas) (Filed on 12/16/2010) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
208 ORDER granting (205) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in case 3:03−cv−02817−SI (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
209 ORDER Status Conference set for 1/12/2011 04:00 PM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
210 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 1/14/2011). (Court Reporter C. Triska.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/14/2011) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
211 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 1/12/2011 before Illston (Date Filed: 1/14/2011). (Court Reporter C. Triska.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/14/2011) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
212 Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time filed by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Jack W. Lee in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Order Shortening Time)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
213 Ex Parte Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal filed by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Application to File Documents Under Seal)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
214 MOTION Extend the Consent Decree filed by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Consent Decree (Exhibits 1−11), # 2 Proposed Order

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 43 of 45

03/16/2011
03/17/2011 03/17/2011 03/17/2011 03/17/2011 03/17/2011 03/17/2011 03/18/2011
03/18/2011 03/25/2011 04/01/2011
04/01/2011

Proposed Order Granting Motion to Extend the Consent Decree)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu re 213 Ex Parte Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal, 212 Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time, 214 MOTION Extend the Consent Decree (Lee, Jack) (Filed on 3/16/2011) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
216 ORDER granting 212 Motion to Shorten Time (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 213 Ex Parte Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 214 MOTION Extend the Consent Decree. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
217 ORDER granting (213) Ex Parte Application in case 3:03−cv−02817−SI (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
218 ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to (214 in 3:03−cv−02817−SI) MOTION Extend the Consent Decree, (51 in 3:04−cv−04730−SI) MOTION Extend the Consent Decree, (61 in 3:04−cv−04731−SI) MOTION Extend the Consent Decree. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
COUNSEL IS REMINDED TO E.FILE THEIR SEALED DOCUMENTS Remark (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
219 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 217 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal − MOTION to Extend the Concent Decree by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Consent Decree (Exhibits 1−11), # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion to Extend the Consent Decree)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 3/18/2011) Modified on 3/18/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/21/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 219 MOTION to Extend. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2011) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
220 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION to (re 214 MOTION Extend the Consent Decree ) Opposition to filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit)(Knueve, Mark) (Filed on 3/25/2011) Modified on 3/28/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2011)
221 REPLY (re 214 MOTION Extend the Consent Decree, 219 MOTION ) Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Extend the Consent Decree filed byWillis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit 1 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 3 Exhibit 2 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 4 Exhibit 3 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 5 Exhibit 4 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 4/1/2011) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
222 Ex Parte Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal filed by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu.

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 44 of 45

04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011
04/06/2011 04/29/2011 04/29/2011
04/29/2011
05/13/2011 05/20/2011 06/06/2011

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 4/1/2011) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
223 ORDER granting (222) Ex Parte Application to file Declaration under seal in case 3:03−cv−02817−SI; granting (66) Ex Parte Application in case 3:04−cv−04731−SI; granting (56) Ex Parte Application in case 3:04−cv−04730−SI (COUNSEL E.FILE THE SEALED DOCUMENT AND PROVIDE CHAMBERS WITH A COURTESY COPY IMMEDIATELY) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2011) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
224 ORDER Granting 222 Motion to File Under Seal (link sealed documents to this order) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2011) Modified on 4/5/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2011)
225 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 224 Order Granting Motion to File Under Seal − Supplemental Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support 214 , 219 of Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Consent Decree with Exhibits 1−4 by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 2 Exhibit 2 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 3 Exhibit 3 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 4 Exhibit 4 − To Declaration of Bill Lann Lee)(Lee, Jack) (Filed on 4/5/2011) Modified on 4/6/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/2011)
226 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND THE CONSENT DECREE re 214 , 219 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2011) Modified on 4/7/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2011)
227 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Hayden Wilensky (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 4/29/2011) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
228 MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of Special Master's Order filed by Willis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/29/2011) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
229 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of 228 MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of Special Master's Order filed byWillis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−11, # 2 Exhibit 12 Part 1 of 3, # 3 Exhibit 12 Part 2 of 3, # 4 Exhibit 12 Part 3 of 3)(Related document(s) 228 ) (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/29/2011) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
230 RESPONSE/Opposition to (re 228 MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of Special Master's Order ) filed byAbercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Knueve, Mark) (Filed on 5/13/2011) Modified on 5/13/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2011)
231 REPLY (re 228 MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of Special Master's Order ) filed byAustin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 5/20/2011) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
232 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2011 before Susan Illston (Date Filed: 6/6/2011) re (228 in 3:03−cv−02817−SI) MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of Special Master's Order filed by Patrice Douglass, Johan Montoya, Willis E. Brown, IV, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Anthony Ocampo, Eduardo Gonzalez, Ivy Nguyen, Jennifer Lu, Carla Grubb, David Culpepper, Austin Chu, Angela Wu, Robair Sherrod, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Eric Fight, (71 in 3:04−cv−04731−SI) MOTION To Modify Consent Decree and Partial Appeal of

Case: 3:03-cv-2817 As of: 12/03/2018 08:16 AM PST 45 of 45

06/23/2011 02/21/2012
02/24/2012
02/27/2012 03/02/2012
03/05/2012 03/06/2012

Special Master's Order filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Matter submitted. The Court will issue a written order. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2011) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
233 ORDER AFFIRMING SPECIAL MASTER'S DECISION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2011) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
234 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Scott Andrews, # 2 Declaration of Todd Corley, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Andrews, Christopher) (Filed on 2/21/2012) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
235 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' AND EEOC'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO ABERCROMBIE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL filed by Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
236 ORDER by Judge Illston granting (235) Stipulation in case 3:03−cv−02817−SI (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2012) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
237 RESPONSE (re 234 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byWillis E. Brown, IV, Austin Chu, David Culpepper, Patrice Douglass, Eric Fight, Juancarlos Gomez−Montejano, Eduardo Gonzalez, Carla Grubb, Encarnacion Gutierrez, Jennifer Lu, Johan Montoya, Ivy Nguyen, Anthony Ocampo, Robair Sherrod, Angela Wu. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
238 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL re 234 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/5/2012) Modified on 3/6/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
239 NOTICE by A&F California, LLC, A&F Ohio, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. [NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORT] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Andrews, Christopher) (Filed on 3/6/2012) (Entered: 03/06/2012)