Doc um ent Num be r Case Num be r

aa2

06-C-0516-(

United States Dist ri ct Cou rt

_. . ') !'-'" }.,~. C~ West ern Di str ict of Wiscons in

\) lJ ( ,I ~~' , ~ ~: Theresa M. Owens

,~ ~ I-~ "'''\ I '" L .

" .'c ' -

Filed / Received

o t,; a4/25/2aaZ 11 ' 12 '59 AM COT

co~;r ,,> ~ (\;,~y '~(f\~i~~\' UNITED STATES DISTRICT

'1 ~~\~

Srf-..O!

'\ C.
J

~\ r

D WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSm~:, \~ ()~; \',! \

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AREA ERECTORS INC.
Defendant.

) ) )

c

)

Civil Action No. - - - - - - -

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

(Jury Trial Demand)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation. It requests appropriate relief for Giles L. Jefferson, and a class of African American employees, who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in Paragraph seven (7) below, the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleges that Area Erectors Inc. ("Area") terminated Giles L. Jefferson and a class of African American employees because of their race, and that Area retaliated against Jefferson by terminating his employment because he filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC and otherwise complained about race discrimination. In addition, EEOC is seeking an order directing Area to prepare, execute, and file accurate and complete Employer Information Report EEO-l s ("EEO-l reports") as required by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c)

and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.P.R. §§1602.7 - 1602.11, for each calendar year from 2001 to the present.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(£)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(£)(1) and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a and 42 U.S.c. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 c.P.R. §1602.9. 2. The employment practices and actions alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
PARTIES 3. EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.P.R. §1602.9. 4. At all relevant times the Defendant has continuously been a company doing business in the State of Wisconsin, and has continuously had at least 100 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
2

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than 30 days prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, Giles L. Jefferson filed a charge with EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least August of2003, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). These practices include, but are not limited to: A) terminating Jefferson, and other African American employees because of their
race; and B) terminating Jefferson in retaliation for his filing of a charge of discrimination with
EEOC and otherwise complaining about race discrimination. 8. Since at least September of2001, and continuing thereafter until the present, Defendant has failed to fully comply with its obligations to file EEO-l reports. 9. Defendant's failure to file said reports is in violation of 42 U.S.c. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.F.R. §1602.7 - 1602.14. 10. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Jefferson and a class of African American employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are intentional.
3

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to Jefferson's and a class of African American employees' federally-protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the plaintiff EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Area, and their officers, agents, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or retaliation for activity protected by Title VII; B. Order Area to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Jefferson and a class of African American employees, and which eradicates the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing appropriate back-pay, front-pay, pre-judgment interest, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement; D. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including loss of benefits, job search expenses and relocation expenses, if applicable, in an amount to be proven at trial;
4

E. Order Area to make Jefferson and a class of African American employees whole

by compensating them for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above, including injury to professional reputation,

emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined

at trial;

F. Order Area to pay Jefferson and a class of African American employees punitive

damages for the Defendant's malicious and reckless conduct described in Paragraph 7 above, in

amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Order that Area, without further delay, shall prepare, execute, and file accurate

and complete EEO-l reports as required by law for each calendar year from 2001 to the present;

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest; and

1.

Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The EEOC requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 14, 2006

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel

James Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

5

/;

//',//~ C /~:/~;j,\ /"t; i eli;; '), I; It

--~.--~--~~~~~----~--+,J)'I

John C. Hendrickson

.'

ftegional Attorney
i

/f/
./~/
//j~ "

Je~nP. Kamp i¥ssociate Regional Attorney

,

1'/

Deborah J. Powers /

Senior Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Milwaukee Area Office 31 0 West Wisconsin Avenue - Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2992 (414) 297-3983

6

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

GILES JEFFERSON,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

AREA ERECTORS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING )

ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 139

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING )

ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 150

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING )

ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 649

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

)

BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL )

AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS )

LOCAL UNION NO. 112

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-02339
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JUDGE PHILIP G. REINHARD MAGISTRATE JUDGE P. MICHAEL MAHONEY

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 10

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

)

BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL )

AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS )

LOCAL UNION NO. 380

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

)

BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL )

AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS )

LOCAL UNION NO. 393

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party,

)

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

)

BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL )

AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS )

LOCAL UNION NO. 498

)

)

Rule 19 Non-Aligned Party.

)

__________________________________________)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation. It requests appropriate relief for Giles L. Jefferson, and a class of African American employees, who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in Paragraph fifteen (15) below, the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges that Area Erectors Inc. (“Area”)
2

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 3 of 10
terminated Giles L. Jefferson and a class of African American employees because of their race, and that Area retaliated against Jefferson by terminating his employment because he filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC and otherwise complained about race discrimination. In addition, EEOC is seeking an order directing Area to prepare, execute, and file accurate and complete Employer Information Report EEO-1s (“EEO-1 reports”) as required by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued there under, 29 C.F.R. §§1602.7 - 1602.11, for each calendar year from 2001 to the present.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued there under, 29 C.F.R. §1602.9. 2. The employment practices and actions alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued there under, 29 C.F.R. §1602.9.
3

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 4 of 10
4. At all relevant times Area has continuously been a company doing business in the States of Illinois and Wisconsin, and has continuously had at least 100 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Area has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
NON-ALIGNED PARTIES 6. On July 25, 2007, the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney issued an Order granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Join Certain Local Unions as Non-Aligned Parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). 7. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 150 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union. 8. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 139 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union. 9. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 649 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and
4

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 5 of 10
conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union.
10. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 112 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union.
11. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 380 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union.
12. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 393 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union.
13. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 498 is named as a non-aligned party pursuant to the above
5

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 6 of 10
referenced Order. The union at all relevant times has continuously been a labor organization which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least 15 members, and is a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Area who are members of the union.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 14. More than 30 days prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, Giles L. Jefferson filed a charge with EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Area. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 15. Since at least August of 2003, Area has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). These practices include, but are not limited to:
A) terminating Jefferson, and other African American employees because of their race; and
B) terminating Jefferson in retaliation for his filing of a charge of discrimination with EEOC and otherwise complaining about race discrimination.
16. Since at least September of 2001, and continuing thereafter until the present, Area has failed to fully comply with its obligations to file EEO-1 reports.
17. Area’s failure to file said reports is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued there under, 29 C.F.R. §1602.7 - 1602.14.
18. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 15 above has been to deprive Jefferson and a class of African American employees of equal employment opportunities
6

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 7 of 10
and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 15 above were
and are intentional. 20. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 15 above were
and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to Jefferson’s and a class of African American employees’ federally-protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the plaintiff EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Area, and their officers, agents, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or retaliation for activity protected by Title VII; B. Order Area to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Jefferson and a class of African American employees, and which eradicates the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing appropriate back-pay, front-pay, pre-judgment interest, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement; D. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
7

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 8 of 10
practices complained of above, including loss of benefits, job search expenses and relocation expenses, if applicable, in an amount to be proven at trial;
E. Order Area to make Jefferson and a class of African American employees whole by compensating them for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in Paragraph 15 above, including injury to professional reputation, emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Area to pay Jefferson and a class of African American employees punitive damages for the Area’s malicious and reckless conduct described in Paragraph 15 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order that Area, without further delay, shall prepare, execute, and file accurate and complete EEO-1 reports as required by law for each calendar year from 2001 to the present;
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
I. Award the EEOC its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The EEOC requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by its Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
8

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 9 of 10

Date: August 9, 2007 Date: August 9, 2007 Date: August 9, 2007

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 “L” Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
s/ John C. Hendrickson John C. Hendrickson Regional Attorney ARDC # 1187589 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
s/ Jean P. Kamp Jean P. Kamp Associate Regional Attorney ARDC # 1390635 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7719 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: jean.kamp@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
s/ Deborah J. Powers Deborah J. Powers Senior Trial Attorney Wisconsin State Bar # 1025826 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
9

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 72 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 10 of 10

Date: August 9, 2007

COMMISSION Milwaukee Area Office 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292 Telephone: (414) 297-3983 Fax: (414) 297-3146 E-mail: deborah.powers@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
s/ Ann M. Henry Ann M. Henry Trial Attorney ARDC # 6272394 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8558 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: ann.henry@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff

10

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

) )

GILES L. JEFFERSON,

) )

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

) )

vs.

)

)

AREA ERECTORS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 07 C 02339
Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

.. ~

. ~

.... ol .....,--.,.......... ; • ~

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleges that Defendant, Area Erectors Inc., terminated Giles L. Jefferson and other African American employees because of their race. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant terminated Mr. Jefferson's employment in retaliation for Jefferson's complaints about racial discrimination and in retaliation for filing charges with the EEOC. On September 28,2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Protective Order. On October 3, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel. Both of these motions concern the same discovery dispute. At issue is whether certain EE0-3 reports within the EEOC's possession along with claimants' medical/psychological, arrest, and prior litigation records are properly the subject of
1

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 2 of 8
discovery. I. EE0-3 Reports Within the Possession of the EEOC:
Request No. 1 of Defendant's Third Request for Production sought all EE0-3 reports submitted to the EEOC by sixteen various labor organizations since January 1, 1985. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.22, local unions having 100 or more members must file a Local Union Report EE0-3 ("EE03 report") with the EEOC on a biennial basis. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel at 1. Defendant claims these reports are relevant because they identify the racial makeup of the pool of union employees from which Defendant does its hiring.
However, the EEOC has objected to producing these EE03 reports. The EEOC bases it objections on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(e), which provides:
(e) Prohibited disclosures; penalties It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the institution of any proceeding under this subchapter involving such information. Any officer or employee ofthe Commission who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(e) (emphasis added). The question becomes, does this proceeding "involve" the EE03 reports? The answer is no. This action does not "involve" the EE03 reports because this case concerns the wrongful termination of Defendant's employees based on race, not the wrongful refusal to hire. Therefore, the racial identity of the pool of employees available to Defendant is not at issue, and this case does not "involve" the reports that contain such data. Because
2

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 3 of 8 Defendant has failed to demonstrate how this case "involves" the EE03 reports, the court will not compel the EEOC to produce them at this time.
IT. Claimant's Medical/Psychological Records: Defendant's Request to Produce Number 1.i. states: 1. For each individual for whom the EEOC is claiming relief, produce the following documents: i. A signed and notarized Authorization to Release Medical Records . . . for each healthcare provider such individual has sought treatment from for the past five years and/or in connection with any damages claimed on behalf of such individual in this action.
Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support at 10.1 Defendant insists that claimants' past five years of medical and psychological records are discoverable because Plaintiff has made a claim for compensatory damages rooted in the emotional distress of the claimants. See Amended Complaint, Prayer for Relief,~ E (wherein EEOC requests that the court "[o]rder Area to make [claimants] whole by compensating them for ... injury to professional reputation, emotional
pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment oflife, and humiliation...."). In order to identify sources of
claimants' emotional distress other than Defendant's conduct, Defendant seeks production of claimants' medical and psychological records.
Plaintiff objected by stating, in relevant part, that such discovery is:
a gross invasion ofprivacy, a breach ofthe doctor/patient privilege, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . . . To the
1 Defendant has since offered to narrow this request to seek only medical records relating to workers compensation claims for all claimants and psychological records for each individual claimant who is seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress. See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support at 17-18. The EEOC responded by offering to produce documents from workers' compensation health care providers indicating dates the claimants were unable to work because of work-related injuries. See Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order at 4. Neither party elected to accept the other's proposed compromise.
3

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 4 of 8
extent section (I) is requesting information regarding treatment sought for medical and/or psychological conditions that were caused by the discriminatory actions of Area Erectors, and for which the individual is claiming damages, EEOC will provide the information. Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order at 3. It is the EEOC's position that a garden variety compensatory damages claim rooted in emotional distress does not open the door to extensive discovery into claimants' psychological records so long as the claimants do not intend to rely on their psychological symptoms, conditions, or treatment to support their claim for compensatory
damages. See Id. at 5. The broad scope of discovery provides that parties "may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1 ). Since this case is based upon a federal cause of action, Title VII, the question whether the desired medical and psychological records are privileged is a question that must be answered pursuant to the federal common law. Fed.R.Evid. 501; Mem 'I Hasp. for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1061 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1981).
Federal common law recognizes a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996). The state of Illinois also recognizes this privilege. 740 ILCS 110; Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 756 N.E.2d 1002, 1007-08 (Ill.S.Ct. 2002). Like other privileges, the psychotherapist-patient privilege can be waived. Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 15 n. 14, 116 S.Ct. 1923. One way a privilege holder waives their privilege is by placing the privileged communications directly at issue in a lawsuit. Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306, 308 (N.D. Til. 1999). After all, a party who "asserts a claim as a sword should not also be permitted to assert a privilege as a shield to deflect questions regarding the claim." 6 Moores Federal Practice, §26.47[5] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.).
4

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 5 of 8
At issue here is whether claimants have waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by claiming compensatory damages rooted in "emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation." There is a mix of authority on the subject, as the parties' briefs illustrate.
However, in the Northern District of illinois, Judge Kennelly's opinion in Santelli v. Electro-Motive supplies the most appealing approach. 188 F.R.D. 306, 307-310 (N.D. Ill. 1999); see also Krocka v. City of Chicago, 193 F.R.D. 542, 544 (N.D. Ill. 2000); Saket v. American Airlines, Inc., 2003 WL 685385, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Santelli concerned a Title VII Plaintiff claiming compensatory damages for the emotional distress she suffered as a result of defendant's alleged discrimination. Id. at 307. The mere existence of this emotional distress claim was not held to constitute a waiver of the Plaintiffs psychotherapist-patient privilege. Rather, the court determined that because Plaintiffs claim was limited to compensation for "the negative emotions that she experienced essentially as the intrinsic result of the defendant's alleged conduct," and because Plaintiff was "barred from introducing evidence of any resulting symptoms or conditions that she might have suffered," Plaintiffs claim was narrowed to such an extent that she had successfully avoided waiving her psychotherapist-patient privilege. Id. at 309. The court went
on to recognize that "a party waives her psychotherapist-patient privilege by electing to inject into a case either the fact of her treatment or any symptoms or conditions that she may have
experienced." Id. Looking to the case at hand, the EEOC has attempted to impose Santelli type limitations
on its emotional distress claims. The EEOC states: IdcsrfeuoiscEfmcofEerrpirOdmeesnCdisrnaeaiadtlntoaeidortneynttdihfadetitoaeAmsttrhreaaeenagatyetmErscereloaeanntcimtmtotheharensent,tospsaronswuydshgchthohehotehslbcaooelvugacegiiacmhsuatosla, eunsEgtoyEhwmftOdippsiCshtsocyemrwscihmtsiololiolnbopraagrstcoiieocodahnnulid.cstiertHoeiorpaohntswmyseecrehvhcneeoltarlo,doimuirgfeisftchhotaoeerl
5

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 6 of 8
cdcrcellaoaasmniuimdmalitgaatienonosttfncdcstloa,haneeoimsrtdetn,risEosetctiaEfrtwyOimmaoCeninnntwltayttitoiloaolrbnsneouolyupattpnpoodtrnhoretdchhauinsnicesneogoorarretthichvteoeeerrsrdttecirsfmelyoaaoitfmatmtibroeefononaustrttmhtcopeeosnmsoytu,crppbhespuonholtseorawtgetoiaixlcrlpcyaaeolgdrmirsaeeypmnemecatnegphsdetaaosttam.otshrsyea, Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order at 7 (emphasis added).
However, the EEOC's proposed limitations do not go far enough. The court holds that the EEOC is forced to choose between: 1) tailoring claimants' emotional distress claims to the "garden variety," thereby closing the door to any discovery into claimants' treatment and symptoms2 and agreeing not to introduce any evidence of the same; or 2) agreeing to waive claimants' psychotherapist-patient privilege in exchange for the freedom to introduce evidence of claimant's treatment and symptoms in support of their emotional distress claims.3 See, e.g., Santos v. Boeing Co., No. 02 C 9310, 2003 WL 23162439 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2003) (discussing "garden variety" type emotional distress claim).
The court orders the EEOC to identify those claimants, if any, who intend to waive their psychotherapist-patient privilege and to produce all relevant medical and psychological records pertaining to those claimants. Once Defendant knows the identity of the claimants who have waived their psychotherapist-patient privilege and has received this initial disclosure, Defendant may seek further discovery from the court as appropriate. Claimants willing to limit their emotional distress claim to the negative emotions that they experienced as the intrinsic result of
2 Examples of symptoms include nervousness, sleeplessness and depression. Saket, 2003 WL 685385, at *1. daoleptfeeirncnsiaettnh3eteTcbdaheuoecsoaweursasmeiovuftehccrheloaywifmoitndhaleenyrtpostsh'fyafecenmhretoohdttehiroeeEnrcaEaoplOriddsCsits-dptpriarerotseipsec.ontlstyTepdhrre,eilvmaEitlaEeekdgOientCogo'ptsahelpentresaorlntplhaeoetgseeedcddoaodluirimsstecoisrtiadomtiifsoiccnnloasatviiwemorneya.rneotWsf' aiver emotional distress discoverable wherever waiver has been established.
6

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 7 of 8 the defendant's alleged conduct have avoided waiving their psychotherapist-patient privilege and are not required to produce any psychological or medical records. III. Arrest Records
Interrogatory No. 5 of Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories states: For Each individual for whom the EEOC is claiming relief, identify any and all situations or events which have led to said individual's arrest, incarceration or conviction. Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support at 20. The EEOC objected to providing information about claimants' arrests, but agreed to produce information about incarcerations and convictions. Defendant responds that "[i]t is the conduct on the job which may or may not have led to an arrest or conviction that Defendant is interested in investigating." Id. at 22. In the event that the Defendant is able to articulate some particularized suspicion that a claimant may have been arrested for work related misconduct conduct, the court will consider compelling the production of his or her arrest records. However, without a particularized showing, the speculative benefit of such a wide sweeping inquiry is outweighed by the threat of annoyance, embarrassment and oppression.4 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Claimant's arrest records will not be compelled at this time. IV. Prior Litigation Records Defendant's Interrogatory No.4 states:
4 The usefulness of claimants' arrest records is questionable for two reasons: 1) an arrest record (as opposed to evidence of a conviction) can not be used to impeach a witness's credibility under F.R.E. 609(a); and 2) Defendant's 30(b)(6) representative, Steve Schrader, admitted during his deposition that Defendant did not have any policy against hiring convicted felons. This admission disproves Defendant's suggestion that, if the arrest would have led to a termination of the arrested employee, newly revealed evidence of the arrest could act to limit the damages owed Plaintiff. If Defendant had no qualms about hiring a convicted felon in the first place, why would it fire an employee who was merely arrested, but never charged?
7

Case 1:07-cv-02339 Document 120-2 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 8 of 8
For each individual on behalf of whom the EEOC is claiming relief, identify all litigation that such individual has been involved in as a party for the past five years. Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support at 18. The EEOC agreed to produce only information relating to civil rights violations, claiming that the identification of any other prior litigation is an invasion of privacy, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, claimants' prior litigation concerning personal injuries could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, a claimant's testimony about the extent of his or her injuries could be used to impeach later testimony about his or her availability to work. However, defendants have failed to identify any impeachment value in discovery relating to other types of civil cases. Therefore, the court will compel the EEOC to identify only those prior cases which concern the personal injury of a claimant, whether that injury was work related or not. No other prior litigation needs to be identified at this time.
ENTER:

P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, MAGI UNITED STATES DISTRI

TEJUDGE

8

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:592

·~<"* ~IS~"l9~.,~~,~ V FIONRTTHHEEUNNOIWTRETEDHSTESERTRNANTDEDISSIVTDRIISISICTOTRNOICFTICLOLUIRNTO%I~~ ~

~ .
')-<?

<~> ·.

• .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

4~~'"~~~"c~A

0

Plaintiff,

)

o~;""

)

and

)

No. I:O?-CV-02339

)

GILES L. JEFFERSON

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor.

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

)

P. MICHAEL MAHONEY

v.

)

)

AREA ERECTORS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and

)

)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING )

ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. I39, et. al., )

)

Rule I9 Non-Aligned Parties.

)

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER

I. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") and Defendant, Area Erectors, Inc. ("Area") and the undersigned Rule I9 parties ("Rule I9 parties") (all collectively referred to herein as "the Parties"). With respect to the undersigned Rule I9 parties, it is agreed that this consent Decree imposes no affirmative obligations on such parties, and this Consent Decree only applies to said Rule I9 parties to the extent set forth in Paragraph 20 below.
I

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:593

2. On September 15, 2006, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint against

Area alleging Area violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including

amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et ~· ("Title VII"),

when it terminated the employment of Giles L. Jefferson and a class of African American

employees because of their race, and that Area retaliated against Jefferson by terminating his

employment because he filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC and otherwise complained

about race discrimination. In addition, EEOC sought an order directing Area to prepare, execute,

and file accurate and complete Employer Information Report EEO-ls ("EE0-1 reports") as

required by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.F.R. §§1602.7-

1602.11, for each calendar year from 2001 to the present. On August 9, 2007, EEOC filed an

Amended Complaint pursuant to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney's Order to add certain

unions as Rule 19 Non-aligned Parties.

3. On or about November 22, 2006, Area filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses

to the Complaint, denying the allegations. On or about August 23, 2007, Area filed its Answer

and Affirmative Defenses to the First Amended Complaint, denying the allegations. In the

interest of resolving this matter and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement

negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this

Decree. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case.

Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute an admission by either party with

respect to the claims or defenses of the other.

4.

This Decree constitutes the complete agreement between EEOC and Area with

respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any

provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this

2

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:594
Decree and approved by the Court or ordered by the Court. FINDINGS
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the Parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree.
6. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just. 7. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII, and will be in the best interests of the Parties, those for whom EEOC seeks relief, and the public. The terms of this Decree are binding on all parties to this Action. 8. This Decree resolves all claims EEOC brought on behalf of Giles Jefferson and a class of African-American employees arising out of the Charge of Discrimination filed by Giles L. Jefferson against Area, Charge No. 260-2005-00212C, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under Title VII that EEOC made on behalf of Giles Jefferson and a class of AfricanAmerican employees in this action.
DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE 9. Subject to paragraph 33, all provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of three (3) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the three (3) year period, any disputes under Paragraph 33, below, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
3

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:595
GENERAL PROVISIONS I 0. Area, its successors, and assigns shall not take any action discriminating against employees on the basis of their race. As used herein, the terms "race discrimination" and "discriminating against employees on the basis of their race" means unlawful discrimination against an employee on the basis that he or she is African American, including but not limited to retaliation against an employee because he or she has opposed practices he or she believes in good faith to constitute unlawful race discrimination or has participated in processes designed to obtain relief for alleged unlawful race discrimination.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-RETALIATION POLICY 11. Area shall develop and implement policies, procedures and practices as follows:
a. Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Policy, and Complaint Procedure. Area has adopted an Equal Employment Policy and an Unlawful Harassment Policy and shall maintain such policies for the duration of the decree. If Area makes revisions to it Equal Employment Policy or Unlawful Harassment Policy, it shall provide a copy of the revised policy to EEOC within fourteen (14) days of issuing the revised policy. The inclusion of this paragraph does not represent the EEOC's or the Court's approval of Area's policies.
b. Persons In Charge of Retaliation and Race Discrimination Issues. Area shall appoint no less than two (2) people to be in charge of development, implementation and enforcement of its retaliation and race discrimination policies required pursuant to paragraph ll(a) of this Decree. In addition, these two people shall be responsible for the 4

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:596
implementation and compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 11 (c) through (e) ofthis Decree. c. Complaint Procedures. Area shall designate the two people appointed pursuant to paragraph 11 (b) as persons who may be contacted, and their names, responsibilities, work locations and telephone numbers shall be continuously posted in all of Area's offices, as well as at all off-site construction projects. 1. Area shall develop and implement a policy regarding complaint
handling and disciplinary procedures as necessary to ensure that all complaints of race discrimination and/or retaliation are investigated and addressed promptly. Specifically, Area shall make best efforts to investigate all complaints of race discrimination and/or retaliation promptly and to complete investigations within three (3) weeks. Area will further make best efforts to prepare its written findings of the results of each investigation and the remedial actions proposed within seven (7) days after completion of the investigation, and shall thereupon promptly communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation and the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any. 2. Area shall make best efforts to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken to resolve complaints and to avoid the occurrence of incidents of race discrimination and/or retaliation. Area shall also revise its discipline policy to provide for substantial discipline, up
5

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:597
to and including termination, as a possible consequence for violations of its race discrimination and/or retaliation policy. d. Dissemination of Race Discrimination and Retaliation Policies: Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Decree, and annually thereafter for the remainder of the term of the Decree, Area shall disseminate its Equal Employment Policy and No Harassment Policy to all employees. Area shall provide all new employees with a copy of the Equal Employment Policy and the No Harassment policy on the day the employee is hired. Within fourteen (14) days of dissemination of the policies, Area shall send EEOC a written verification of the date the policies were distributed to all of Area's current employees. Furthermore, Area shall include its Equal Employment Policy and No Harassment Policy in its union employee booklet (or as an attachment thereto) entitled, "Area Erectors, Inc., Hazard Recognition and Injury Management, Work Rules for Employees," and in all other employee manuals or booklets covering general employment issues. e. Policies Designed To Promote Supervisor Accountability. 1. Area shall impose appropriate discipline (consistent with any applicable labor agreement) -- up to and including termination, suspension without pay or demotion - upon any supervisor, foreman, field superintendent and/or manager who engages in race discrimination or knowingly permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees under his or her
6

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:598
supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such conduct. Area shall communicate this policy to all of its supervisors and managers. 2. Area shall include "commitment to equal employment opportunity" as a criterion for qualification for the position of supervisor, foreman, field superintendent and/or manager.
TRAINING 12. Area shall provide for the duration of this Decree (a) mandatory annual race discrimination and retaliation training to all field superintendents, managers, senior management officials and human resource personnel; and (b) mandatory training for all new field superintendents, managers, senior management officials, and human resource personnel within seven (7) days of being hired or promoted to such position. 13. The first annual training shall be completed within 90 days of entry of this ·Decree, and shall be repeated once per calendar year thereafter until the expiration of this Decree. The annual trainings shall be conducted by one or more outside trainers chosen by Area. Area shall provide EEOC with the name and qualifications of the outside trainer(s) no less than fourteen (14) business days before the training is scheduled to begin. EEOC has seven (7) business days in which to object, in writing, to the qualifications of the outside trainers selected by Area. The training shall include, at a minimum, information concerning: (a) Title VII, including, but not limited to, race discrimination in termination and hiring and retaliation; (b) complaint procedures available to employees who have complaints of race discrimination and/or retaliation, including the name and contact information for specific Area employees
7

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:599
charged with the handling of race discrimination and retaliation complaints or concerns; and (c) Area's duty to actively monitor the work areas to ensure employees' compliance with the company's race discrimination and retaliation policies, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of race discrimination and/or retaliation of which it becomes aware to the department charged with handling such complaints. Within ten (10) business days of completion of each annual training, Area shall provide EEOC with a list of all field superintendents, managers, senior management officials and human resource personnel employed at the time of the training, a list of all field superintendents, managers, senior management officials and human resource personnel who received the training, the date the training occurred, and a description of the training provided.
14. Training for new field superintendents, managers, senior management officials, and human resource personnel and for those employees that were unable to attend the annual training, may be conducted by any Area management personnel who has previously attended the training discussed above which was conducted by outside trainers.
15. Foreman and other Area employees not required to be trained as provided above shall have race discrimination and retaliation training conducted by Area field superintendents or management personnel at job site "tool box" talks as deemed necessary by Area. At a minimum, Area shall conduct tool box talks regarding race discrimination and retaliation training annually during the duration of the Consent Decree. Area shall conduct the first tool box talks within 90 days of entry of the decree.
REINSTATE ME NT 16. The following individuals shall be placed on a priority hiring list provided they are eligible for referral under their local Union's referral system rules:
8

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:600

Iron Workers Local 1
Iron Workers Local 8
Iron Workers Local 46 Iron Workers Local 112 Operating Engineers Local139 Iron Workers Local 340 Iron Workers Local383 Iron Workers Local395 Iron Workers Local498 O]l_erating Engineers Local 649 Iron Workers Local 848

Clyde Cooper, Jr. Ronald Dunlap Darcy Durham Ricky Holmes Elmer Johnson Cedric Pollard (currently not eligible) Alvin Powell Gregory Townsend Anthony Smith Christopher Cummings, Sr. Kyle Brountie Michael Ford Clarence Sellers Danny Means Cornelius Jones (currently not eligible) Ward Landrum James Alston (currently not eligible) Oscar Richards

Area need not offer employment to James Alston, Cedric Pollard, Cornelius Jones, or Kyle Brountie until they have provided actual notice to Steve Schrader at Area that they are currently eligible for referral under their local Union's referral system rules.
Area shall make offers of reinstatement to claimants Sheila Askew, Zeffrey Burrell, Carl McKnight and Troy Miller.
17. For the duration of the Decree, when Area fills positions within the claimants' local union jurisdictions, Area shall first offer employment to claimants on the priority hiring list for the applicable local union jurisdiction. Area shall continue hiring from each priority hiring list until all claimants on the priority hiring list for that local union jurisdiction have been offered reinstatement. After Area offers reinstatement to all claimants on the priority hiring list for a local union jurisdiction, Area may hire employees through its normal hiring processes for that local union's jurisdiction.
18. Each claimant who is eligible to be on the priority hiring list shall provide a
9

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:601
signed Work Offer Skill and Preference Sheet (attached as Exhibit A) to the EEOC. Area will not offer work to a claimant until it receives a signed copy of the Work Offer Skill and Preferences Sheet from the EEOC for that claimant. For Operating Engineers, individual must submit their Basic Data Cards, or an equivalent list of their skills, instead of completing the skill and preference section of Exhibit A. It is the obligation of the EEOC to provide any amended Work Offer Skill and Preferences Sheets to Area. Only one contact person (union business agent or claimant) and no more than two telephone numbers shall be included. Area shall call a claimant on the priority hiring list unless the required work is not listed on the claimant's Work Offer Skill and Preference Sheet, Basic Data Card, or equivalent list of skills.
19. Offers shall be made by Area as follows: a. Same Day Calls: In the event Area requires a worker to fill a position on the same day the offer is made (for example, to replace an injured or absent worker), Area shall first offer employment to claimants on the priority hiring list for the applicable local union jurisdiction. The claimant shall then have one-half hour to confirm his or her availability to work, and one hour to be on the job site ready for work. If no claimant accepts the offer, or if a claimant fails to arrive at the job site as required, Area may offer the position to workers not on the priority hiring list. b. Planned Calls: In the event Area requires a worker to fill a position commencing on any day after the day the offer is made, Area shall first offer employment to claimants on the priority hiring list for the applicable local union jurisdiction. The claimant shall then have four (4) hours to accept the offer. If no claimant accepts the offer, or if a claimant fails to
10

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:602
arrive at the job site as required, Area may offer the position to workers not on the priority hiring list. In the event there are multiple individuals on the list in a given jurisdiction, Area may call two individuals and the first individual to respond shall be given priority. For individuals in the jurisdiction of Ironworkers Local 8, Area may call through the list without leaving messages. If Area is not able to contact any individuals, it will, to the extent possible, leave messages with the first two individuals on the list. If neither individual accepts the offer in a timely fashion or fails to arrive at the jobsite as required, Area may offer the position to workers not on the priority list. In the next instance where messages are left, the messages will be left for the next two individuals down the priority list. 20. To the extent that the provisions of this Consent Decree conflict with any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into between Area and one of the undersigned Rule 19 Non-aligned parties, Iron Workers Local 383, or International Union of Operating Engineers Local 649, the provisions of this Consent Decree shall supercede the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. To the extent that Area's obligations hereunder would violate the collective bargaining agreement between Area and any union not a party to this Decree, Area and the EEOC shall enter into negotiations for a reinstatement procedure that does not violate the applicable labor agreement. If the parties are unable to agree on a procedure, the Court shall devise an appropriate compromise procedure that does not violate the applicable labor agreement. Area's obligations to comply with the above reinstatement provisions shall be tolled during the negotiations, and pending further Order of the Court. The Court shall not, however, have the authority to award any monetary relief in connection with the compromise procedure.
11

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:603
21. If a claimant accepts an offer of reinstatement, or unreasonably fails to report after accepting an offer of reinstatement, the claimant shall be removed from the priority hiring list. If a claimant rejects an offer of reinstatement because the claimant is unavailable for work or fails to respond to or accept three consecutive offers of reinstatement, the claimant shall be removed from the list until the claimant notifies Steve Schrader at Area in writing that the claimant is available for work. Except as provided herein, a claimant who has not accepted an offer of reinstatement from Area shall remain on the priority hiring list until the claimant or EEOC informs Area in writing that the claimant is not interested in future employment with Area.
22. Area shall treat all claimants who accept Area's offer of reinstatement the same as all non-claimants with respect to termination of employment. Area shall apply the same factors when deciding whether to terminate a claimant's employment as it would when deciding whether to terminate a non-claimant's employment.
23. If Area terminates any reinstated claimant's employment during the term of the Consent Decree, Area shall submit a report regarding the termination to EEOC by the close of the next business week following the claimant's date of termination. Area shall include the following information in each such report: (a) the claimant's name; (b) the claimant's hire date; (c) the claimant's termination date; (d) the identity of the individuals involved in the decision to terminate the claimant's employment; (e) the reason(s) the claimant's employment was terminated.
24. Any disputes regarding whether a claimant was terminated because of his or her race shall be resolved using the dispute resolution process outlined in Paragraph 33, below.
EE0-1 REPORTS 25. Area has already completed its EE0-1 reports for the reporting years 2001
12

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:604
through 2008. Area shall on an annual basis file its EE0-1 reports as required pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1602.7- 1602.11.
POSTING 26. Within five (5) days following entry of this Decree, Area shall post a same-sized copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Decree in a conspicuous location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by Area's employees at each of Area's office locations and at each off-site construction project that has facilities for notice posting that are within Area's control for the duration of this Decree, or, in the case of an off-site construction project for the duration that Area is working on the project. Area shall make its best efforts to ensure that the postings are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. In the event a notice is altered, removed or defaced, Area shall promptly post a new notice. Area shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) days after entry of this Decree that the copies of the Notice have been properly posted and the location of each such posting. Within ten (I 0) business days of Area beginning work on a new off-site construction project, Area shall post the Notice in a conspicuous location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by Area's employees at the off-site project. Such requirement shall apply only where the project has facilities for notice posting that are within Area's control. Notices may be posted on the inside covers of"gang boxes." Area shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter Area's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours.
REPORTING 27. In addition to the reports identified in Paragraph 23 above, Area shall furnish to EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of three (3) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Decree. The final
13

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:605
report shall be due thirty-five (35) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall include:
a. a list of all employees, who worked at Area during the six months preceding the report, including the following information for each employee: (1) name; (2) address; (3) phone number; (4) race; (5) job title; (6) date employment began; (7) job site assignment; (8) date employment ended (if applicable); and (8) reason employment ended (if applicable);
b. a summary of all complaints of race discrimination and/or retaliation made to Area, whether formal or informal, written or verbal, including the following information: (1) name, address, phone number, job title, and race of the complainant; (2) the date of the complaint; (3) a description of the complaint; and (4) a summary of the investigation, conclusions and remedial measures, if any, that were taken by Area. Area shall maintain all documents pertaining to such complaints for the full (3) year reporting period, and for two (2) years thereafter, and shall make such documents available for inspection by EEOC pursuant to Paragraph 28 herein.
c. A certification that, to the best of the Company's knowledge, the Notices required to be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26 remained posted as required during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
d. If "tool box" talks as described in Paragraph 15 are conducted during the reporting period, a certification that the tool box talks occurred; the date of tool box talks occurred; the identity of the person conducting the tool box talk; a list of all employees employed at the time the tool box talks were
14

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:606

held; and a list of all employees who attended the tool box talks.

RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR INSPECTION ·

28. The EEOC shall have the right to enter upon Area's offices upon five days written

notice and inspect any relevant documents or records for the purpose of determining Area's

compliance with this Consent Decree and Order.

MONETARY RELIEF

29. Area shall pay a total of $630,000.00 to the claimants and to the applicable

benefit trust funds as follows:

Name of Claimant Back pay

Giles Jefferson

$2,026.06

Benefits $1,538.72

Non-Pecuniary Damages $76,435.22

Total Gross Settlement $80,000

James Alston Sheila Askew Kyle Brountie Zeffrey Burrell Clyde Cooper, Jr. Christopher Cummings, Sr. Ronald Dunlap Darcy Durham Michael Ford Ricky Holmes Bernard Jackson Elmer Johnson

$2,583.00 $2,406.60 $2,415.82 $2,251.20 $2,193.63 $2,208.80 $2,193.63 $2,121.35 $2,406.60 $2,121.35 $2,193.63 $2,121.35

$997.53 $1,173.69 $1,175.94 $1,336.16 $1,400.11 $1,380.00 $1,400.11 $1,459.62 $1,173.69 $1,459.62 $1,400.11 $1459.62

$20,332.51 $20,332.75 $20,321.28 $20,325.68 $20,319.30 $20,324.24 $20,319.30 $20,332.07 $20,332.75 $20,332.07 $20,319.30 $20,332.07

$23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04

15

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:607

Cornelius Jones, Jr. $2,026.06

Ward Landrum

$2,235.92

Carl McKnight

$2,406.60

Danny Means

$2,210.00

Troy Miller

$2,251.20

Cedric Pollard

$2,121.35

Alvin Powell

$2,121.35

Oscar Richards

$2,583.00

Clarence Sellers

$2406.60

Anthony Smith

$2,238.60

Gregory Townsend $2,121.35

$1,538.72 $1,349.76 $1,173.69 $1357.85 $1,336.16 $1,459.62 $1,459.62 $997.53 $1,173.69 $1,337.42 $1,459.62

$20,348.26 $20,327.36 $20,332.75 $20,345.19 $20,325.68 $20,332.07 $20,332.07 $20,332.51 $20,332.75 $20,337.02 $20,332.07

$23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04 $23,913.04

The amounts allocated between backpay benefits is based on Union wage/benefit rates current through May 31, 2009. In the event that an increase in Union wage and/or benefits rates takes effect before payment is made, a new allocation between backpay/benefits and compensatory damages may be made so long as the total gross settlement for each claimant is the same as is shown above.
30. EEOC shall mail a copy of the release agreement (attached as Exhibit C) to each claimant, other than Giles Jefferson. Each claimant, other than Jefferson, must execute and return a release agreement to EEOC. EEOC will send to Area the executed release agreements it receives from the claimants. Jefferson, who was represented by private counsel in this litigation, shall execute a release agreement ("Jefferson's Release Agreement") that was separately agreed to by Jefferson and Area. The EEOC did not take part in the negotiation of Jefferson's Release
16

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:608
Agreement and has not approved Jefferson's Release Agreement. $55,000 of Jefferson's settlement amount will be paid according to the terms provided in Jefferson's Release Agreement and the remaining $25,000 will be paid according to the terms provided herein.
31. The claimants' share of all applicable withholdings may be made from the back pay portion of the payment. For those amounts designated as "benefits," Area shall pay the amount into the appropriate trust funds as required by Area's Collective Bargaining Agreement covering the claimant in his/her home local union at the time it makes the initial payment to each claimant. Benefit contributions will be reported as contributions allocated to the month in which payment is made.
32. Within 30 days of receiving a claimant's executed release agreement, Area shall pay to that claimant his or her total back wages and the non-pecuniary initial payment in the amounts listed in Exhibit D and shall pay the benefits amount listed in Exhibit D to the appropriate benefit trust funds. Monthly thereafter, Area shall make 24 installment payments to each claimant in the amounts listed in the columns entitled "Non-Pecuniary Monthly Payments 1-23" and "Non-Pecuniary Monthly Payment 24." Area shall make each payment under the decree by issuing and mailing a check by certified mail to each claimant. Area shall mail the payment checks to the addresses provided to Area by EEOC and shall simultaneously provide a copy of the payment checks to EEOC.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 33. In the event that either party believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provisions of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged non-complying party in writing of such non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party fifteen (15) days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-
17

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:609
complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within fifteen (15) days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 34. Area shall pay its costs associated with the administration of this Decree, except as is specifically provided otherwise in this Decree. Area shall not, however, be responsible for any costs or fees incurred by EEOC or others. 35. The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon Area's successors and assigns. Defendant, and any successor(s) of Defendant, shall provide a copy of this Decree to any organization or person who proposes to acquire or merge with Defendant, or any successor of Defendant, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph shall not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court regarding a violation of this Decree. 36. If any provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect. 37. Each Party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorneys' fees associated with this litigation, except as otherwise provided for in this Decree, and neither party shall seek reimbursement for any outstanding litigation costs. 38. Except as is otherwise provided for in this Decree, all notifications, reports and communications to the Parties required under this Decree shall be made in writing and be hand-delivered, sent by first class mail, e-mailed or faxed to the following persons: For EEOC: Ann Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
18

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:610
Facsimile: (312) 353-8555 e-mail: ann.henry@eeoc.gov
For Area:
Daniel D. Barker Melli Law, S.C. Ten East Doty Street, Suite 900 P.O. Box 1664 Madison, WI 53701-1664 (608) 257-4812 (608) 258-7470 (Fax) e-mail: danbarker@mellilaw.com
Any party may change such addresses by written notice to the other parties, setting forth
a new address for this purpose.
Agreed to in form and content:
FOR PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
James Lee Acting General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Re Associat Ge

P. Kamp ssociate Regional Attorney

7 Date: J ~- ..2 J- D
19

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:611

---- --~~-=;;>--------·------··-----··uate:5/'2.-&jtJ7

AnnHenry

0

Trial Attorney

Agreed to in form and content:
FOR DEFENDANT
AREA~RS, INC.
IL(/#d_lfl
Daniel D. Barker Melli Law, S.C. Ten East Doty Street, Suite 900 P.O. Box 1664 Madison, WI 53701-1664 (608) 257-4812 (608) 258-7470 (Fax) e-mail: danbarker@melli1aw.com

20

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:612

FOR RULE 19 NON-ALIGNED PARTY INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 139

f'f:;;t,J q. ~ A..liuJii
By; o f its attorneys
Pasquale Fioretto Brian Hlavin Baum Sigman Auerback & Neuman, Ltd. 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606

Date .;-11 r /o 7

21

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:613
~
_.j .
FOR RULE 19 NON-ALIGNED PARTY INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 498

Pasquale Fioretto Brian Hlavin Baum Sigman Auerback & Neuman, Ltd. 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606

Date:._.\.-1-t__c_/r-1-/_0---+-1/ I

22

. 05/22/2009 Ca1s3e:1:01:07-3c1v2-206233235912Document #: 149 FiGleRdE:G0O5RI/O27A/0S9SOPCaIAgTeES23 of 33 PageID #P:6AG1E4 02 FOR RULE 19 NON-ALIGNED PARTY INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. ll2
Frank Marco Gregorio & Associates Two N. LaSaUe St. Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60606
23

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:615

~

SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED tbicliday of

2009

24

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 25 of 33 PageID #:616
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 26 of 33 PageID #:617
AREA ERECTORS, INC. Work Offer Skill and Preferences Sheet
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 1:07-CV-02339
CLAIMANT: ________________________
UNION: ____________________________
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR WORK OFFERS:
Name: ---------------------------
Title: ---------------------------Address: -------------------------
Phone: ---------------------------
THE UNDERSIGNED HAS THE FOLLOWING JOB SKILLS AND PREFERENCES (check all that apply):
D Re-bar and rod busting D Connecting (beams) D Welding (general) D Any height is acceptable 0 Ground work only D Pre-cast D Decking D Bolting up D Welding bridge D Plumbing the building D Welding angles
You will not receive an offer for a job involving one of the above skills unless you check that skill. For example, if Area has a job available requiring connecting, and you do not check "connecting" above, you will not be offered that job.

Date

Signature (Claimant)

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 27 of 33 PageID #:618
EXHIBITB

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 28 of 33 PageID #:619

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AREA ERECTORS, INC.

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), entitled EEOC and Giles Jefferson vs. Area Erectors. Inc., Case Number 1:07-CV-2339, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.

A copy of the Consent Decree is available by contacting the following Area Erectors' employees: Steve Schrader or Jeff Shelton at (815) 398-6700

In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Area Erectors, Inc. ("Area") violated Title VII when it terminated a class of African American workers because of their race, and retaliated against an individual African American employee because he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and because of his complaints of race discrimination.

United States Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney has entered a consent decree, which provides that:

•

Area will make payments to certain affected African American workers and union benefit

funds in the gross amount of $630,000.00;

•

Area will not discriminate against current and former employees because of their race

and will not retaliate against current and former employees because they opposed race

discrimination or participated in any proceeding regarding race discrimination;

•

Area will develop and implement policies prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation

in the workplace. This will include the development of a document to be given to all new

hires stating their rights to be free from race discrimination and retaliation, and will also

include a description of the complaint procedure the employee can follow in the event of

a discriminatory act; and

•

Area will conduct an annual training program to implement and train all employees

regarding its policies against race discrimination and retaliation.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for three years from the date below, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or Consent Decree may be directed to Area Erectors Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60661, (312) 353-8558.

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __

Honorable P. Michael Mahoney United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of Illinois, Western Division

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 29 of 33 PageID #:620
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 30 of 33 PageID #:621

RELEASE
In consideration for _ _ _ _ paid to me by Area Erectors, Inc., in connection with the resolution of EEOC, et al. v. Area Erectors, Inc., 07 C 2339 (N.D. Ill.), I waive my right to recover for any claims of termination based on my race arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §198la, that I had against Area Erectors, Inc. prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC, et al. v. Area Erectors, Inc., 07 C 2339 (N.D. Ill.), or which could have been asserted in the above lawsuit.

Date:- - - - - -

[Claimant Name]

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 31 of 33 PageID #:622
EXHIBITD

Name Jackson, Bernard Cooper, Jr., Clyde Dunlap, Ronald Durham, Darcy Holmes, Ricky Johnson, Elmer Pollard, Cedric Powell, Alvin Townsend, Gregory Smith, Anthony Cummings, Sr., Christopher Brountie, Kyle Askew, Sheila McKnight, Carl Miller, Troy Burrell, Zeffrey Means, Danny Jefferson, Giles Jones, Jr., Cornelius Landrum, Ward Ford, Michael

NonPecuniary
Initial Payment
689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02 689.02

Back Pay Pmt
W/Benefits
3,593.74 3,593.74 3,593.74 3,580.97 3,580.97 3,580.97 3,580.97 3,580.97 3,580.97 3,576.02 3,588.80 3,591.76 3,580.29 3,580.29 3,587.36 3,587.36 3,567.85 3,564.78 3,564.78 3,585.68 3,580.29

Wages

Benefits

2,193.63 1,400.11

2,193.63 1,400.11

2,193.63 1,400.11

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,121.35 1,459.62

2,238.60 1,337.42

2,208.80 1,380.00

2,415.82 1,175.94

2,406.60 1,173.69

2,406.60 1,173.69

2,251.20 1,336.16

2,251.20 1,336.16

2,210.00 1,357.85

2,026.06 1,538.72

2,026.06 1,538.72

2,235.92 1,349.76

2,406.60 1,173.69

-

--

Total In~ial Payment
4,282.76 4,282,76 4,282.76 4,269.99 4,269.99 4,269.99 4,269.99 4,269.99 4,269.99 4,265.04 4,277.82 4,280.78 4,269.31 4,269.31 4,276.38 4,276.38 4,256.87 4,253.80 4,253.80 4,274.70 4,269.31
- ------

NonPecuniary
Monthly Payments
1-23 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 820.34 863.74 820.34 820.34 820.34

NonPecuniary Monthly Payment
24 762.46 762.46 762.46 775.23 775.23 775.23 775.23 775.23 775.23 780.18 767.48 764.44 775.91 775.91 768.84 768.84 788.35 880.18 791.42 770.52 775.91

Back Pay Payment

Total NonPecuniary

W/Benefits

Payment

3,593.74 20,319.30

3,593.74 20,319.30

3,593.74 20,319.30

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,580.97 20,332.07

3,576.02 20,337.02

3,588.80 20,324.32

3,591.76 20,321.28

3,580.29 20,332.75

3,580.29 20,332.75

3,587.36 20,325.68

3,587.36 20,325.68

3,567.85 20,345.19

3,564.78 21,435.22

3,564.78 20,348.26

3,585.68 20,327.36

3,580.29 20,332.75

-

-

--

Grand Total
23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 I 23,913.04 1 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04 25,000.00 23,913.04 23,913.04 23,913.04
--

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 32 of 33 PageID #:623

Sellers, Clarence Alston, James
Richards, Oscar

689.02 689.02
.
689.02

3,580.29 2,406.60 1,173.69 4,269.31 3,580.53 2,583.00 997.53 4,269.55
3,580.53 2,583.00 997.53 4,269.55

820.34 820.34
820.34

775.91 775.67
775.67

3,580.29 20,332.75 23,913.04 3,580.53 20,332.51 23,913.04
3,580.53 20,332.51 23,913.04

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 149 Filed: 05/27/09 Page 33 of 33 PageID #:624

 
 Document Number Case Number
Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 1 of 6 P00a2geID #:7 06 C- 05 16-C

United States Oistnct Court

: . ·"' _\Q ·~

Wes1ern District of Wiscons.n

r\ (j
... , '

I(,,I

rr.~:

.
I\

~ Theresa M. Ovvens
.

·~ -

'. ' -· Filed/Received

S ~\\' tjf'\{\:r~

ceo
'\ \

\

t\Jtl '-> - - ·

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJi\ : ~: ,b
,S WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSJfjR (.J \1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AREA ERECTORS INC.
Defendant.

) ) )

c c

)

Civil Action No. - - - - - - -

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

(Jury Trial Demand)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation. It requests appropriate relief for Giles L. Jefferson, and a class of African American employees, who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in Paragraph seven (7) below, the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleges that Area Erectors Inc. ("Area") terminated Giles L. Jefferson and a class of African American employees because of their race, and that Area retaliated against Jefferson by terminating his employment because he filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC and otherwise complained about race discrimination. In addition, EEOC is seeking an order directing Area to prepare, execute, and file accurate and complete Employer Information Report EE0-1 s ("EE0-1 reports") as required by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c)

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:8
and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.P.R. §§1602.7 - 1602.11, for each calendar year from 2001 to the present.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(£)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.P.R. §1602.9. 2. The employment practices and actions alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
PARTIES 3. EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(±)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.P.R. §1602.9. 4. At all relevant times the Defendant has continuously been a company doing business in the State of Wisconsin, and has continuously had at least 100 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
2

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:9
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than 30 days prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, Giles L. Jefferson filed a charge with EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least August of2003, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). These practices include, but are not limited to: A) terminating Jefferson, and other African American employees because of their
race; and B) terminating Jefferson in retaliation for his filing of a charge of discrimination with
EEOC and otherwise complaining about race discrimination. 8. Since at least September of2001, and continuing thereafter until the present, Defendant has failed to fully comply with its obligations to file EE0-1 reports. 9. Defendant's failure to file said reports is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c) and regulations issued thereunder, 29 C.F.R. §1602.7- 1602.14. 10. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Jefferson and a class of African American employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are intentional.
3

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:10
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to Jefferson's and a class of African American employees' federally-protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the plaintiff EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Area, and their officers, agents, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or retaliation for activity protected by Title VII; B. Order Area to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Jefferson and a class of African American employees, and which eradicates the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing appropriate back-pay, front-pay, pre-judgment interest, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement; D. Order Area to make Jefferson and other African American employees whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including loss ofbenefits, job search expenses and relocation expenses, if applicable, in an amount to be proven at trial;
4

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:11

E. Order Area to make Jefferson and a class of African American employees whole by compensating them for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above, including injury to professional reputation,

emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined

at trial;

F. Order Area to pay Jefferson and a class of African American employees punitive damages for the Defendant's malicious and reckless conduct described in Paragraph 7 above, in

amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Order that Area, without further delay, shall prepare, execute, and file accurate and complete EE0-1 reports as required by law for each calendar year from 2001 to the present;

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and

I.

Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The EEOC requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 14, 2006

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel

James Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

5

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:12
-Jo-h.n-f./-·._~_/::.-;-G:c.e_n-dn..:~-:k~'--~'--~_.:·~-/,_:_'.Ll:..:l_.~.:_! -/+,!; _i_,._.".•_,_"·->t-, 1 /;
}iegional Attorney
i
I /'
,..'//
//j~
Je~nP. Kamp J¥ssociate Regional Attorney

•

I •"

Deborah J. Powers/

Senior Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Milwaukee Area Office 310 West Wisconsin Avenue - Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2992 (414) 297-3983

6

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. AREA ERECTORS, INC.,
Defendant.
GILES L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
AREA ERECTORS, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) No. 06 C 0516 C ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) No. 06 C 0516 C ) ) ) Jury trial demanded )

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
Nature ofthe Case
Giles L. Jefferson ("plaintiff' or "Jefferson") brings this intervenor complaint pursuant to Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("§ 1981 ") to (1) redress unlawful employment practices on the basis of race discrimination; (2) redress, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation; and (3) to provide appropriate relief. As stated more fully below, Jefferson alleges, among other things, that defendant Area Erectors Inc. ("Area Erectors") unlawfully retaliated against him and unlawfully discriminated against him in the terms and conditions of his employment and by terminating his employment.

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:14
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. This Court has original jurisdiction of plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
3. Venue lies with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 and 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(f)(3).
Parties 4. Plaintiff Giles Jefferson, an African-American, is presently a journeyman iron worker. Jefferson has been a member oflron Workers Local Union 498 ("Local 498") since 1999. At the time of the events alleged in this complaint, Jefferson had passed the test to become a journeyman iron worker but was still in need of further work experience hours to qualify for journeyman status within Local498. Jefferson resides in Rockford, Illinois. 5. Defendant Area Erectors is an Illinois corporation that has continuously had at least 15 employees during all times pertinent to this lawsuit. Area Erectors is headquartered in Rockford, Illinois. At all relevant times, Area Erectors has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§701(b), (g), and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h). 6. Area Erectors is a company specializing in steel erection services for fabricators and general contractors. Area Erectors is the largest steel erection company in the Rockford area, and it was ranked as the seventh largest such company in the country based on it 2002 revenues. 7. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this complaint through the present, none of the management employees and foremen employed by Area Erectors at its main office in Rockford, Illinois have been African-American. These individuals include the president; controller; purchasing and special projects manager; safety representative; division team leader, estimator, and project manager; two project mangers; field superintendent; maintenance department head; contract coordinator; and approximately 18 foremen.
2

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:15
8. In his dealings with Area Erectors, which included a visit to its Rockford office, Jefferson observed only one African-American employee at the company. This person was employed in a clerical capacity.
Plaintiffs Allegations 9. On or about March 22, 2004, Jefferson filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In his charge, Jefferson averred that Iron City Constructors, Inc. ("Iron City"), The Boldt Company (f/k/a Oscar J. Boldt Construction Co.) ("Boldt"), and Riverside Contractors, LLC, all companies who had employed Jefferson through Local498, subjected him and certain other African-Americans to a hostile working environment based on race. In addition, Jefferson reported that the aforementioned companies subjected him to (a) disparate treatment in work assignments based on his race; (b) retaliation because he protested the discriminatory conduct and conditions that were imposed upon him; and©) fired him because of his race and/or in retaliation for his protests of discriminatory conduct and conditions. Jefferson's charge of discrimination has EEOC charge no. 260 2004 03199. 10. Shortly after Jefferson filed his EEOC charge, it became common knowledge at Local498 and in the regional ironworking industry that Jefferson had complained to the EEOC regarding his claims of racial discrimination against Boldt and Iron City. On several occasions, other iron workers have approached Jefferson to ask about the EEOC charge and the EEOC's investigation. 11. The EEOC subsequently investigated Jefferson's charges, ultimately found cause and thereafter in June 2005 filed a lawsuit captioned Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Iron City Constructors, Inc. and The Boldt Company (the "Boldt Lawsuit"), No. 05 C 0386 S, against Iron City and Boldt in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In August 2005, Jefferson was granted leave to file an intervenor complaint in the Boldt Lawsuit. The Boldt Lawsuit was settled prior to trial. The Court entered
3

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:16
consent decrees in November 2005 (regarding the claims against Boldt) and in December 2005 (regarding the claims against Iron City).
12. Area Erectors is a member of the Northern Illinois Building Contractors Association, Inc. (the "Association"), which has a collective bargaining agreement (the "Agreement") with Local498. The Agreement requires the Association's members- including Area Erectors - to observe certain rules when it employs the union's iron workers.
13. Among other things, the Agreement requires that members of the Association that hire iron workers from Local 498 must maintain an on-site ratio of four journeymen iron workers to one apprentice iron workers.
14. The Agreement further provides that the direction of the working forces and the right to suspend, transfer, layoff, promote, demote or relieve employees of their duty is vested exclusively in its members (including Area Erectors).
15. The Agreement was in effect at all times relevant to this complaint. 16. Area Erectors employs iron workers from Local 498 at many of its various work projects on a regular basis. 17. Area Erectors employees a number of Local 498 iron workers on an on-going basis. Area Erectors transfers these iron workers from project to project without terminating them from its employ. None ofthese iron workers are African-Americans. 18. When Area Erectors has needed additional unionized iron workers for one of its project, it has contacted iron workers union locals (including Local498) and the union locals have furnished the number ofjourneymen and apprentice iron workers required by Area Erectors. 19. Unless Area Erectors requests a particular worker, the union local (including Local 498) determine which individual iron workers they send out. 20. On or about June 29, 2004, Area Erectors hired through Local498 a group of iron workers to work at the Frito-Lay construction site in Beloit, Wisconsin (the "Frito-Lay site"). Because Area Erectors requested that the union provide more than four journeymen ironworkers,
4

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:17

the Agreement required Area Erectors to hire at least one apprentice ironworker to maintain a four to one journeyman apprentice ratio.
21. Local498 sent Jefferson as the apprentice iron worker of this group. Jefferson was the only apprentice and the only African-American iron worker hired to work at the FritoLay site.

22. Bill Lopke ("Lopke"), who is white and a member ofLocal498, was employed by Area Erectors as one of its foremen at the Frito-Lay site. Lopke was Jefferson's supervisor at the Frito-Lay site.

23. On the morning of July 1, 2004, Jefferson's third day of work at the Frito-Lay site, Lopke approached him and stated words to the effect that Lopke understood Jefferson had filed a complaint with the EEOC against Boldt and Iron City. Lopke further stated that what Jefferson had done was a "no no."

24. Later that same day, Lopke told Jefferson that Jefferson was going to be "laid off." Lopke claimed the reason was because work was slow in the area. He said that Area Erectors was going to replace Jefferson, effective that same day, with one of the iron workers it regularly used.

25. Jefferson was the only iron worker from Local 498 who was laid off from the Frito-Lay site.

26. 498.

Area Erectors replaced Jefferson with a white journeyman iron worker from Local

27. After replacing Jefferson, Area Erectors did not have, nor did it seek to have, any other apprentice iron worker on the Frito-Lay site. This was in contravention of the Agreement's required apprentice-journeyman ratio.
28. Iron workers from Local498 continued to work on the Frito-Lay site for at least another month after Area Erectors terminated Jefferson on July 1, 2004.
29. On or about July 12, 2004, On or about June 29, 2004, Area Erectors hired through Local 498 a group of iron workers in the four to one journeyman apprentice ratio to work

5

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:18
on a construction site in Rockford, Illinois (the "Rockford site"). Local498 sent Jefferson as the apprentice iron worker of this group.
30. Again, Jefferson was the only apprentice and the only African-American iron worker hired to work at the Rockford site.
31. Jeff Hobbs ("Hobbs"), a white male, is employed by Area Erectors as the field superintendent for its various sites. In this capacity, Hobbs travels from site to site and serves as a high-level supervisor for iron workers working for Area Erectors.
32. Travis Nelson ("Nelson"), a white male foreman employed by Area Erectors, was also Jefferson's supervisor while working at the Rockford site.
33. On July 15, 2004, Jefferson was working at the Rockford site when Hobbs walked by. Hobbs appeared surprised to see Jefferson and refused to speak to him, despite Jefferson saying hello. Instead, Hobbs gave Jefferson a dirty look and spoke with some ofthe white iron workers nearby.
34. The next day, July 16, 2004, just four days after Jefferson had started working at the Rockford site, Nelson told Jefferson that he was being "laid off' because work was slow in the area and that Area Erectors wanted to bring in the iron workers that it used on a regular basis.
35. After leaving the Rockford site, Jefferson went to Area Erectors' Rockford office where he encountered Hobbs and asked him why he was being laid off. Hobbs told Jefferson that when it is a federal or state job, we have to have one of you but when it is a private job we don't have to have any of you. When Jefferson pointed out that he was the only apprentice, Hobbs told him that he was laid off so he should just accept it.
36. Jefferson was the only iron worker from Local498 who was laid off from the Rockford site.
37. Area Erectors replaced Jefferson with a white journeyman from Local498. 38. After replacing Jefferson, Area Erectors did not have, nor did it seek to have, any other apprentice iron worker on the Rockford site. Once again, this was in contravention of the Agreement's required apprentice-journeyman ratio.
6

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:19
39. Iron workers from Local498 continued to work on the Rockford site for at least another month after Area Erectors terminated Jefferson on July 16, 2004.
40. As a result of the aforementioned events, Jefferson filed EEOC charge number 260-2005-00212 against Area Erectors for discrimination and retaliation which led to the present action.
41. Thereafter, Local498's apprentice coordinator, Bob Schulser approached Jefferson and stated words to the effect that guys like Jefferson were seen as troublemakers and if he continued to complain about discrimination, the union and/or industry would "blackball" Jefferson, and he would never work again.
42. Jefferson has been referred to Area Erectors by Local 498 and hired only to be "laid off' (or terminated) by Area Erectors within a short span of days and replaced by white journeymen workers on at least four occasions.
43. During the brief periods of time in which he was allowed by Area Erectors to actually perform work on its behalf, Jefferson was often assigned to dangerous and/or menial jobs that the white ironworkers whom Jefferson worked with were not assigned to perform. On other occasions, Jefferson was singled out by Area Erectors white foremen and subjected to abusive treatment that the white journeymen were not subjected to.
44. Jefferson was laid off from both the Frito-Lay site and the Rockford site as a result of Area Erectors practice of discrimination against African-Americans and in retaliation for his filing an EEOC complaint against Boldt and Iron City.
45. Jefferson was not considered for retention by Area Erectors as one of its iron workers that it employs on an on-going basis because he is an African-American.
46. As a result of Area Erectors' discriminatory and retaliatory adverse actions, Jefferson has experienced emotional distress, substantial lost wages, and the lost opportunity to gain work hours as an iron worker that would enable Jefferson to move from being an apprentice to a journeyman iron worker.
7

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:20
COUNT I Violation of Title VII
47. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by this reference the allegations set forth in ,,[1-46, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
48. Defendant's unlawful retaliation against Jefferson and discrimination against Jefferson is in violation ofthe rights secured to him by Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
49. By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally violated Jefferson's rights under Title VII.
50. As a result of the violation of his Title VII rights, Jefferson is entitled to equitable and injunctive relief, including "rightful place" and "make-whole" remedies and equitable monetary relief, to remedy and compensate for the effects of defendant's unlawful actions.
51. As a result of defendant's intentional violation ofthe Title VII rights of Jefferson, he has suffered emotional distress, physical pain, substantial lost wages, and lost opportunity to gain work hours as an iron worker that would have enabled him to more quickly advance to the status ofjourneyman.
52. In its discriminatory and retaliatory actions as alleged above, defendant has acted with malice or reckless indifference to Jefferson's rights, thereby entitling him to an award of punitive damages.
53. To remedy the violation of Jefferson's rights secured by Title VII, plaintiff requests that the Court award the relief prayed for below.
54. To remedy the violation of Jefferson's rights secured by Title VII, plaintiff requests that the Court award the relief prayed for below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Giles Jefferson respectfully request that this Court: (a) declare defendant's actions to be in violation of the law;
8

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:21
(b) enjoin defendant from engaging in discrimination in terminations/lay offs, transfers in lieu of termination/lay off, and other terms and conditions of employment because of race;
(c) award plaintiff damages in the amount of all salary and other benefits (including the lost opportunity to gain work hours as an iron worker that would enable Jefferson to move from being an apprentice to a journeyman iron worker) that he lost on account of defendant's unlawful conduct;
(d) award plaintiff compensatory damages for the emotional distress that he sustained on account of defendant's wrongful conduct;
(e) award plaintiff punitive damages; (f) award plaintiffhis reasonable attorney's fees and costs; (g) award plaintiff prejudgment interest; and (h) award such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT II Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981
55. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by this reference the allegations set forth in ~~1-54, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
56. By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally deprived Jefferson of the same rights as are enjoyed by white citizens to the creation, performance, enjoyment, and all benefits and privileges, of his contractual employment relationship with defendant, in violation of42 U.S.C. §1981.
57. As a result of defendant's discrimination in violation of §1981, Jefferson has been denied employment opportunities providing substantial compensation and benefits, thereby entitling him to injunctive and equitable monetary relief. Jefferson also has suffered emotional distress, substantial lost wages, and lost opportunity to gain work hours as an iron worker that would have enabled him to advance his status (from apprentice to journeyman) in Local498 because of defendant's actions, thereby entitling him to compensatory damages.
58. In its discriminatory and retaliatory actions as alleged above, defendant has acted with malice or reckless indifference to Jefferson's rights, thereby entitling him to an award of
9

Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-4 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:22

punitive damages. To remedy the violations of Jefferson's rights secured by §1981, Jefferson requests that the Court award the relief prayed for below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Giles Jefferson respectfully request that this Court:

(a) declare defendant's actions to be in violation of the law;

(b)

ternajnosifnerdseifnenldieauntoffrtoemrmeinnagtaigoinn,gainnddoitshcerirmteirnmatsioanndinctoenrmdiitnioantisonosf/layoffs,

employment because of race;

©) award plaintiff damages in the amount of all salary and other benefits

(including the lost opportunity to gain work would enable Jefferson to move from being

hours as an iron an apprentice to

worker that a journeyman

iron worker) that he lost on account of defendant's unlawful conduct;

(d)

award plaintiff compensatory damages for the emotional sustained on account of defendant's wrongful conduct;

distress

that

he

(e) award plaintiff punitive damages;

(f) award plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs;

(g) award plaintiff prejudgment interest; and

(h) award such other relief as the Court deems just.

Miner, Barnhill & Galland 14 W. Erie St. Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170
Miner, Barnhill & Galland 44 E. Mifflin St. Madison, WI 53703 (608) 255-5200

One of the Attorneys for Plaintilffs

10

 
 U.S. District Court Web PACER(v1.2) Docket Report July 13, 2007 14:05:23

http://pacer.wiwd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl
Web PACER (v1.2)

U.S. District CourtWestern District of Wisconsin (Madison) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 06-C-0516-C Case Number: 06-C-0516-C
Case Title: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. AREA ERECTORS INC. Filed On: 09/15/2006 Nature of Suit: 442
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff Jury Demand: Yes
Closed On: 04/24/2007 Origin: Original Proceeding
Rule 23: No Monetary Demand: $ 0,000 Assigned To: Judge Barbara B. Crabb Cause: CIVIL RIGHTS; Employment Magistrate Judge: Crocker Last Updated On: 04/25/2007

1 of 5

7/13/2007 2:04 PM

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v1.2) Docket Report
Plaintiffs
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION JEFFERSON, GILES L.
Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs
DEBORAH J. POWERS US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 310 W. WISCONSIN AVE, #800 MILWAUKEE, WI 53203-2218 (414) 297-3983 For: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SARAH SISKIND MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 44 EAST MIFFLIN STREET, SUITE 803 MADISON, WI 53701 (608) 255-5200 For: JEFFERSON, GILES L. JEFFREY I. CUMMINGS MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 WEST ERIE STREET CHICAGO, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 For: JEFFERSON, GILES L.

http://pacer.wiwd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl
Defendants AREA ERECTORS INC.
Attorney(s) for Defendants DANIEL D. BARKER MURPHY DESMOND S.C.. P.O. BOX 2038 MADISON, WI 53701-2038 (608) 257-7181 For: AREA ERECTORS INC. JAMES D. ZEGLIS JAMES D. ZEGLIS & ASSOCIATES 202 W. STATE STREET, SUITE 410 ROCKFORD, IL 61101-1116 (815) 965-6818 For: AREA ERECTORS INC.

DOCKET FOR CASE # 06-C-0516-C

# Date

Docket Entry

001 09/15/2006 JS-44

002 09/15/2006 COMPLAINT - WAIVER FORM USED

06-C-516-C, complaint.pdf

003 11/03/2006 WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

Waiver of Service.pdf

004 11/22/2006 ANSWER

Answer and Affirmative Defenses.pdf

Certificate of Service.pdf

005 11/22/2006 DISCLOSURE OF CORP. AFFIL. & FINAN. INT. BY DEFT.

Disclosure Statement.pdf

006 11/22/2006 MOTION BY DEFT. TO ADMIT JAMES D. ZEGLIS PRO HAC VICE.

Petition for Admission.pdf

2 of 5

7/13/2007 2:04 PM

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v1.2) Docket Report

http://pacer.wiwd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

007 11/27/2006 ORDER GRANTING DEFT. MOTION TO ADMIT JAMES D. ZEGLIS RO HAC VICE. (TMO) CC MLD. 06-C-516-C, order admitting Zeglis pro hac vice.pdf
008 12/11/2006 JOINT PPTC REPORT. Rule 26(f) Report filed 12-11-06.pdf Certificate of Service for Rule 26(f) Report.pdf
009 12/20/2006 PTC ORDER ; AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS DUE 1/31/07; DISP. MOTIONS DUE 6/22/07. (SLC) 06-C-516-C-12-20-06.PDF
010 01/19/2007 MOTION BY GILES L. JEFFERSON TO INTERVENE. 06-C-516-C, motion for leave to intervene.pdf
011 01/19/2007 MOTION BY INTERVENOR JEFFERSON TO ADMIT JEFFREY I. CUMMINGS AND TIFFANY F. GLANVILLE PRO HAC VICE. 06-C-516-C, motion to admit pro hac vice.pdf
012 01/19/2007 AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH E. SISKIND. 06-C-516-C, affidavit of Sarah E. Siskind.pdf
013 01/19/2007 ORDER ADMITTING JEFFREY I. CUMMINGS AND TIFFANY F. GLANVILLE PRO HAC VICE. (TMO) CC MLD. 06-C-516-C, order admitting pro hac vice.pdf
014 01/29/2007 ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF GILES L. JEFFERSON TO INTERVENE .
015 02/19/2007 ANSWER BY DEFT. TO INTERVENOR COMPLAINT. Answer to Compaint in Intervention.pdf
016 02/28/2007 MOTION BY DEFT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Not of Mot and Mot to Change Venue.pdf
017 02/28/2007 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Brief in Supp of Mot to Change Venue.pdf
018 02/28/2007 MOTION BY DEFT. TO JOIN CERTAIN LOCAL UNIONS AS NON-ALIGNED PARTIES. Mot to Join Unions.pdf
019 02/28/2007 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. MOTION TO JOIN CERTAIN UNIONS AS NON-ALIGNED PARTIES. Brief in Supp of Mot to Join Unions.pdf
020 02/28/2007 AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN M. SCHRADER. Schrader Affidavit.pdf
021 02/28/2007 AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL D. BARKER. Barker Affidavit.pdf
022 03/14/2007 MOTION BY DEFT. TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer.pdf Cert of Service VI.pdf 06-C-516-C, JS-44.pdf

3 of 5

7/13/2007 2:04 PM

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v1.2) Docket Report

http://pacer.wiwd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

023 03/14/2007 ANSWER - PROPOSED AMENDED. First Amended Answer.pdf
03/14/2007 BRIEFING SET ON MOTION TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER, DKT. #22; RESPONSE DUE 3/19/07, REPLY DUE 3/23/07. (SLC)
024 03/19/2007 INTERVENOR LETTER STATING NO OPPOSITION TO DEFT. MOTION TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER. 06-C-516-C, intervenor letter.pdf
025 03/20/2007 ORDER GRANTING DEFT. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. 06-C-516-C, 3-20-07 order.pdf
026 03/20/2007 ANSWER - AMENDED TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. 06-C-516-C, answer, 1st amended.pdf
027 03/20/2007 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION BY PLTF.-INTERVENOR TO DEFT. MOTIONS TO JOIN LOCAL UNIONS AND TO TRANSFER VENUE. Plaintiff-intervenor's consolidated response to defendant's motion to join certain local unions and to transfer venue.pdf
028 03/20/2007 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION BY PLTF. TO DEFT. MOTIONS TO JOIN LOCAL UNIONS AND TO CHANGE VENUE. EEOC'S response to mtn join unions-change venue.pdf Cert of Service for Response Mtn Join Unions-Venue Change.pdf
029 04/02/2007 BRIEF IN REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND MOTION TO JOIN LOCAL UNIONS AS NON-ALIGNED PARTIES. Brief in Supp Transfer Venue.pdf Cert of Service VII.pdf
030 04/20/2007 DEFT. LETTER REQUESTING PROMPT DECISION ON MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Crabb lt.pdf Cert of Service VIII.pdf
031 04/24/2007 ORDER GRANTING DEFT. MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IL; DEFT. MOTION TO JOIN LOCAL UNIONS DENIED. 06-C-516-C-04-24-07.PDF
04/25/2007 CERTIFIED COPIES OF TRANSFER ORDER AND DOCKET SHEET SENT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

BRIEFING SCHEDULES FOR CASE # 06-C-0516-C
Be advised that this briefing schedule information is for internal use of the court only and is not to be relied upon by counsel/parties as actual due dates. Actual due dates for dispositive motions are to be computed as set
forth in the judge's standard orders and/or orders on pretrial conferences.

4 of 5

7/13/2007 2:04 PM

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v1.2) Docket Report

http://pacer.wiwd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

No BRIEFING SCHEDULES Entries

APPEALS FOR CASE # 06-C-0516-C

No APPEALS Entries

CALENDAR FOR CASE # 06-C-0516-C

Date Time

Calendar Entry

12/19/2006 9:00 a.m. Telephone Preliminary Pretrial Conference

Room Judge 540 Crocker

[END OF DOCKET 06-C-0516-C]

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

07/13/2007 14:05:49

hs0328

Client Code:

docket report Search Criteria:

6

Cost:

eeoc 06-C-0516 0.48

5 of 5

7/13/2007 2:04 PM

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 1 of 10
INTRADIST−TRANSF,MAHONEY,PROTO
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−02339

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Area Erectors, Inc. Assigned to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Date Terminated: 05/27/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8098 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah J. Powers U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 310 West Wisconsin Avenue #800 Milwaukee, WI 53203−2292 (414) 297−3983 Email: deborah.powers@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8099 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Area Erectors, Inc.

represented by April Renee Walkup Hall Prangle & Schoonveld 200 South Wacker Drive 33rd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 345−9600 Email: awalkup@hpslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley G. Kennedy Murphy Desmond SC 33 East Main Street Suite 500 Madison, WI 1049527 608 257 7181 Email: bkennedy@murphydesmond.com

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 2 of 10

TERMINATED: 04/01/2009

Daniel D Barker Jackson Lewis LLP 1 South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 608−807−5273 Email: daniel.barker@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Minko Murphy Desmond SC 33 East Main Street Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703 608 268 5624 Email: dminko@murphydesmond.com TERMINATED: 04/01/2009

James D. Zeglis James D. Zeglis & Associates 202 West State Street Suite 510 Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 965−6818

Jonathan P. Bruni Murphy Desmond SC 33 East Main Street Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703 608 257 7181 Email: jbruni@murphydesmond.com TERMINATED: 04/01/2009

Kevin James Caplis Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. 175 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60604−2827 (312) 540−7000 Email: kcaplis@querrey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Giles L. Jefferson

represented by Jeffrey Irvine Cummings Miner Barnhill & Galland, P.C. 325 N. LaSalle St. Ste. 350 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 751−1170 Email: jcummings@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E. Siskind Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. 44 East Mifflin Street Suite 803 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 255−5200 Email: ssiskind@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tiffany Fonseca Glanville

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 3 of 10
Miner, Barnhill & Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751−1170 Email: tglanville@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant Attorney Nathan Dane Eisenberg Attorneys for Iron Workers Locals 8 and 383
Movant Iron Workers Local No. 8
Movant Ironworkers Local No. 383

Date Filed 09/15/2006 11/22/2006 01/29/2007 02/19/2007 03/20/2007 04/26/2007
04/26/2007 05/17/2007
05/22/2007 06/01/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007

# Docket Text
COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand. (to view an image of this document see entry number 32).(vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. (To view an image of this document see entry number 32).(vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
INTERVENOR complaint filed by Giles L. Jefferson against Area Erectors, Inc. (To view an image of this document see entry number 32).(vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Area Erectors, Inc. (To view an image of this document see entry number 32).(vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
ANSWER AMENDED to Complaint in Intervention by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc.(To view an image of this document see entry number 32). (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
32 RECEIVED from USDC Western District of Wisconsin; the transfer record consisting of transmittal letter, certified copy of docket sheet and transfer order. Case No. 06−C−0516−C (Attachments: # 1 Complaint# 2 answer to complaint# document# 4 (3) intervenor complaint# document# 10(4) answer to intervenor complaint# document #15 (5) answer − amd cmp in intervention document #26) (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
47 CIVIL Cover Sheet (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
33 MINUTE entry before Judge Charles P. Kocoras :Status hearing set for 6/5/2007 at 09:30 AM. At the initial hearing, parties to report on the following: 1. Possibility of settlement. 2. If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to prepare the case for resolution. Plaintiff is directed to advise all other parties of the Court's action herein. Lead counsel for each party is required to attend the initial hearing.Mailed notice (sct, ) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
34 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. by James D. Zeglis. (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
35 STIPULATION (Joint) to Transfer (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Cummings, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
36 MINUTE entry before Judge Charles P. Kocoras :Parties having stipulated to the transfer of this case to the Western Division, status hearing set for 6/5/2007 is stricken.Telephone notice (sct, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
38 MINUTE entry before Judge Charles P. Kocoras : Pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation to Transfer 35 , order cause transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 4 of 10

06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007 06/18/2007

06/05/2007)
37 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson (Hendrickson, John) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
48 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Area Erectors, Inc. by Bradley G. Kennedy; Order entered granting leave by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Filing fee $50 paid, receipt number 10910077. (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
49 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Area Erectors, Inc. by David Minko; Order entered granting leave by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Filing fee $50 paid, receipt number 10910077. (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
50 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Area Erectors, Inc. by Jonathan P. Bruni; Order entered granting leave by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Filing fee $50 paid, receipt number 10910077. (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
51 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Area Erectors, Inc. by Daniel D Barker; Order entered granting leave by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Filing fee $50 paid, receipt number 10910077. (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
39 MOTION to quash or Modify Subpoena (Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
40 NOTICE of Motion by Nathan D Eisenberg for presentment of motion to quash 39 before Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 7/3/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
41 MEMORANDUM by Iron Workers Local No. 8 in support of motion to quash 39 or Modify Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
42 AFFIDAVIT of Matthew R. Robbins by Iron Workers Local No. 8 regarding motion to quash 39 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A to Defendant's Subpoena dated 5/7/07 to Ironworkers Local 8)(Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
43 MOTION to quash or Modify Subpoena (Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
44 NOTICE of Motion by Nathan D Eisenberg for presentment of motion to quash 43 before Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 7/3/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
45 MEMORANDUM by Ironworkers Local No. 383 in support of motion to quash 43 or Modify Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Matthew R. Robbins by Ironworkers Local No. 383 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A to Defendant's Subpoena dated 5/7/07 to Ironworkers Local 383)(Eisenberg, Nathan) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
52 INTRA district transfer from the Eastern Division. Case assigned to Judge Philip G. Reinhard and P. Michael Mahoney for all further proceedings. Western Division received a Transfer Letter. (jat, ) Modified on 6/11/2007 (jat, ). (Entered: 06/08/2007)
THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11(d). (jat, ) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
53 MINUTE entry before Judge Charles P. Kocoras :This cause having been transferred to the Western Division, all hearings set before Judge Kocoras are hereby stricken. Mailed notice (sct, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
54 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ann M Henry (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
55 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Status hearing set for 6/20/2007 at 01:30 PM.Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
56 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Protective Order)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 5 of 10

06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/20/2007
06/20/2007 06/20/2007 07/10/2007
07/10/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/18/2007 07/25/2007
08/09/2007 08/09/2007

57 NOTICE of Motion by Ann M Henry for presentment of motion for protective order 56 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 6/20/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
58 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
59 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Plaintiff's application for Deborah Powers to appear pro hac vice is granted. Plaintiff's agreed motion for protective order 56 is granted. Case management order approved as stated. FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure exchanged. Plaintiffs' FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due October 1, 2007. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due November 1, 2007. Depositions by December 31, 2007. Defendants given 20 depositions. Depositions limited to 4 hours. Amended pleadings due July 10, 2007. All discovery closed December 31, 2007. Dispositive motions due February 4, 2008. Discovery conference to set ADR set for August 29,2007 at 1:30 pm. [ For further detail see separate order(s).] (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
60 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Deborah J. Powers; Order entered granting leave by Judge P. Michael Mahoney. (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
61 Agreed PROTECTIVE Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 6/20/2007:(jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
62 MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. for joinder of Certain Local Unions (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing # 2 Affidavit of Daniel D. Barker# 3 Affidavit of Steve Schrader# 4 Text of Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service)(Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
63 MEMORANDUM by Area Erectors, Inc. in support of motion for joinder, 62 of Certain Local Unions (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
64 MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to motion for joinder, 62 (Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
65 DECLARATION of Deborah J. Powers regarding memorandum in opposition to motion 64 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
66 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding memorandum in opposition to motion 64 (Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
67 REPLY by Area Erectors, Inc. to memorandum in support of motion 63 , memorandum in opposition to motion 64 , MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. for joinder of Certain Local Unions 62 (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
68 CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. regarding reply to response to motion 67 (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
69 STIPULATION to withdraw motion to join Ironworkers Local 383 (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
70 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's Motion for joinder 62 is taken under advisement; Magistrate Judge will rule. (glg, ) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
71 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Defendant's Motion to Join Certain Local Unions as Non−Aligned Parties 62 is granted in part. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Locals 150, 139, & 649, and Ironworkers Locals 112, 380, 393, & 498 are joined as non−aligned parties. Defendant is to effect service of process on these unions. [For further details see text below.]judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
72 AMENDED complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against all defendants (Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
73 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding amended complaint 72 (Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 6 of 10

08/16/2007
08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/28/2007
08/29/2007
09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007
10/03/2007

74 SUMMONS Issued seven original as to Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 649, Ironworkers Local 112, Ironworkers Local 380, Ironworkers Local 393, Ironworkers Local 498 (las, ) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
75 ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended) by Area Erectors, Inc.(Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
76 CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
77 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff Giles L. Jefferson by Tiffany Fonseca Glanville (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Glanville, Tiffany) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
78 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Discovery hearing held on 8/29/2007. Discovery Hearing to set ADR and new discovery schedule set for 11/7/2007 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
79 ANSWER to amended complaint by Ironworkers Local 393(Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
80 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Ironworkers Local 393 by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
81 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Ironworkers Local 393 by Brian C. Hlavin (Hlavin, Brian) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
82 ANSWER to amended complaint by Ironworkers Local 498(Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
83 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Ironworkers Local 498 by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
84 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Ironworkers Local 498 by Brian C. Hlavin (Hlavin, Brian) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
85 ANSWER to amended complaint by Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139(Hlavin, Brian) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
86 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 by Brian C. Hlavin (Hlavin, Brian) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
87 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
88 ANSWER to amended complaint by Ironworkers Local 112(Marco, Frank) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
89 ANSWER to amended complaint by Ironworkers Local 380(Marco, Frank) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
90 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 by Dale D. Pierson (Pierson, Dale) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
91 MOTION by Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead (Agreed) (Pierson, Dale) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
92 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 by Charles R Kiser (Kiser, Charles) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
93 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
94 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah J. Powers for presentment of motion for protective order 93 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/10/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
95 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's Motion for extension of time to answer 91 is granted. Response to complaint due by 10/22/2007.Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 7 of 10

10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007
10/09/2007 10/10/2007
10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007

96 MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. to dismiss Operating Engineers Local 649 as a Non−Aligned Party and Notice of Motion (Attachments: # 1)(Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
97 DOCUMENT ENTERED IN ERROR(Barker, Daniel) Modified on 10/4/2007 (gcy, ). (Entered: 10/03/2007)
98 Notice of Motion to Compel NOTICE of Motion by Daniel D Barker for presentment of before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/10/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
99 MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. to compel Discovery (Attachments: # 1)(Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
100 MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
101 RE−MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. to dismiss Operating Engineer Local 649 as a Non−Aligned Party (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Barker, Daniel) Modified on 10/4/2007 (gcy, ). (Entered: 10/04/2007)
102 CORRECTED NOTICE of Motion by Daniel D Barker for presentment of motion to dismiss 96 , motion to dismiss 101 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/10/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Barker, Daniel) Modified on 10/4/2007 (gcy, ). (Entered: 10/04/2007)
103 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. to compel Discovery 99 (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
104 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : As stated in open court. Defendant Area Erectors' motion to dismiss Operating Engineers Local 649 as a non−aligned party 96 101 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for protective order 93 and Defendant's motion to compel 99 are taken under advisement. Responses due 10/17/2007. Replies due 10/26/2007. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Magistrate Judge will rule.Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
105 Letter to Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney in response to Court Order entered 10/10/07 by Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
106 CERTIFICATE of Service by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto on behalf of Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 regarding other 105 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
107 Letter to Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney in response to Court Order entered 10/10/07 by Ironworkers Local 393 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
108 CERTIFICATE of Service by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto on behalf of Ironworkers Local 393 regarding other 107 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
109 Letter to Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney in response to Court Order entered 10/10/07 by Ironworkers Local 498 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
110 CERTIFICATE of Service by Pasquale Angelo Fioretto on behalf of Ironworkers Local 498 regarding other 109 (Fioretto, Pasquale) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
111 Letter to Magistrate Judge Mahoney re 10/10/07 order by Giles L. Jefferson (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Glanville, Tiffany) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
112 Letter to Magistrate Judge Mahoney in response to Court Order entered 10/10/07 by Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 (Kiser, Charles) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
113 MEMORANDUM by Area Erectors, Inc. in support of motion to compel 99 (Supplemental) (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
114 CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. regarding memorandum in support of motion 113 (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 8 of 10

10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/25/2007 11/06/2007 11/07/2007 11/27/2007
12/17/2007 01/21/2008 01/22/2008 01/23/2008
02/15/2008
03/12/2008 04/22/2008 06/27/2008 07/08/2008 08/13/2008

115 Letter by Ironworkers Local 380 (Marco, Frank) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
116 ANSWER to amended complaint by Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150(Pierson, Dale) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
117 MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of motion for protective order 93 supplemental (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Powers, Deborah) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
118 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 by Robert Glenn Reiter, Jr (Reiter, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
119 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Discovery hearing held on 11/7/2007. Settlement Conference set for 12/17/2007 at 01:30 PM. Real parties in interest to be present. Parties to submit a 3 page settlement document to chambers by 12/14/07. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
120 Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 11/27/2007: Plaintiff's motion for a protective order 93 and Defendant's motion to compel 99 are granted in part as stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order. [For further details see separate order(s).]Notices mailed by Judicial Staff notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER)(pg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
121 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Settlement conference held on 12/17/2007. Parties to hold Rule 26 Meeting. Case management order due by 1/22/2008. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/23/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
122 Proposed Revised Case Management Order by Area Erectors, Inc. (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2008)
123 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of counsel, Initial Pretrial Conference reset as to time only, for 1/23/2008 at 10:30 AM. Conference to be heard telephonically. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
124 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Telephonic Initial Pretrial conference held on 1/23/2008. Case management order approved. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 10/2/08. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 11/3/08. Rubuttal FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 11/24/08. Expert depositions held by 12/31/08. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 9/2/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 11/3/2008. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 3/12/2008 at 10:30 AM. Settlement Conference set for 3/27/2008 at 10:30 AM. Parties to submit 2 page update on settlement to chambers by 3/26/08. Real parties in interest to be present. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
125 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Third−party Iron Workers Local 383 filed two motions to quash or modify plaintiff's subpoena on 6/7/07 39 , 43 . Because these motions were not noticed up pursuant to Local Rule 5.3, they are hereby dismissed without prejudice. Notices mailed by Judicial staff. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
126 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 3/12/2008. Pursuant to request of counsel, Settlement Conference reset for 4/22/2008 at 10:30 AM. Same procedures to be followed as set forth in order of 1/23/08. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
127 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Settlement conference held on 4/22/2008. Settlement Conference set for 6/26/2008 at 10:30 AM. (glg, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
128 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Settlement conference held. Status hearing set for 8/13/08 at 1:30 PM. Notices mailed by Judicial staff. (jat, ) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
129 NOTICE by Ann M Henry of Change of Address (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
130 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Status hearing held on 8/13/2008. By agreement, intervenor Jefferson may serve discovery on the union.

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 9 of 10

08/29/2008 08/29/2008 10/15/2008 12/12/2008 01/05/2009
02/10/2009 02/25/2009 03/06/2009 03/23/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 04/01/2009 04/14/2009 04/24/2009
04/30/2009 05/01/2009 05/22/2009

Status hearing to set new discovery schedule, if necessary, set for 10/15/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
131 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. by April Renee Walkup Additional Appearance (Walkup, April) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
132 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. by Kevin James Caplis Additional Appearance (Caplis, Kevin) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
133 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Status hearing held on 10/15/2008. Status hearing set for 12/12/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
134 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Status hearing held on 12/12/2008. Telephonic Status hearing to report on settlement set for 1/5/2009 at 09:45 AM. Plaintiff to place the call. (glg, ) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
135 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Settlement conference held on 1/5/2009. Settlement Conference set for 2/10/2009 at 01:30 PM. Parties to submit settlement letters to the court by 2/9/09. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
136 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Settlement conference held on 2/10/2009. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 2/25/2009 at 09:30 AM. (glg, ) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
137 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 2/25/2009. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 3/23/2009 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
138 Notification of Change of Attorney Address by Area Erectors, Inc. (Barker, Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
139 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 3/23/2009. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 4/24/2009 at 11:00 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
140 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. to withdraw as attorney (Kennedy, Bradley) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
141 MOTION by Defendant Area Erectors, Inc. for order granting withdrawal of Jonathan P. Bruni, David Minko, Bradley G. Kennedy and Murphy Desmond S.C. as attorneys for defendant, Area Erectors Inc. (Kennedy, Bradley) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
142 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Area Erectors' motion withdraw J. Bruni, D. Minko and B. Kennedy as counsel is granted.Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
143 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
144 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 4/24/2009. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 4/30/2009 at 09:30 AM. All parties to participate unless they have a consent decree. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
145 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 4/30/2009. Parties to submit consent decree. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
146 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard: Parties consent to exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. This case is transferred to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney.Electronic notice (pg, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
147 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Consent Decree)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-2339 As of: 02/15/2018 08:59 PM CST 10 of 10

05/27/2009 05/28/2009
06/02/2009 06/02/2009 06/08/2009 06/11/2009

149 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/27/2009:(pg, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
148 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Motion to approve consent judgment 147 is granted. Enter consent decree and order. This case is closed. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
150 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Enter signed official notice to all employees of Area Erectors, Inc. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
151 OFFICIAL NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AREA ERECTORS, INC. Signed by the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 6/2/2009:(jat, ) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
152 STIPULATION of Dismissal between plaintiff−intervenor and defendant (Cummings, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
153 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiff−intervenor Giles Jefferson and Defendant Area Erectors, the complaint−in−intervention is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own fees and costs. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)