Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 1 of 38 PAGEID #: 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

AL WASHINGTON,

)

11155 Terwilligers Hill Court

)

Cincinnati, Ohio 45249

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

~

)

)

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

)

c/o CT Corporation System,

)

its statutory agent

)

1300 East Ninth Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

)

)

and

)

)

LARRY SPEICHER,

)

812 Auburn Avenue

)

Napierville, Illinois 60565

)

)

and

)

)

ROYPIKUS

)

Ill Settlers Drive

)

Napierville. Illinois 60565

)

)

Defendants. )

. J. BLACV
Racial and Age Discrimination

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND PlaintifJAl Washington, complaining of Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, and Roy Pikus, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT This is an employment discrimination class action, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991

I

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 2 of 38 PAGEID #: 4
("Section 1981"); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII"); and the Ohio Unfair Business Practices Act.
Plaintiff AI Washington, a 52 year-old African-American man, has been employed by General Motors, the world's largest automotive manufacturer that employs over 300,000 people, since 1978. Mr. Washington is a graduate of Birmingham Southern College. Since graduation, Mr. Washington has held several positions of responsibility at General Motors ("GM"). From 1989 until the present, Mr. Washington has been working in Fleet Operations. During this time, Mr. Washington's performance has been stellar. He, of course, has always easily passed his job retention examinations. He has been placed in charge of GM's largest customer accounts in his region. GM has assigned Plaintiff Washington to help train District Managers and other Fleet Account Executives. In 2000, Mr. Washington was presented with an award for scoring the
highest in the nation among all Fleet Account Executives on the All Product Exam. In 2001 Mr.
Washington was given the Shining Star Award, which is awarded to the Fleet Account Executive that has the highest percentage of new business in the North Central Region, a fifteen state area. In 2003, Mr. Washington received the Pete Gerosa Award, which is the highest award that can be given to a Fleet Account Executive. In short, Mr. Washington has won virtually every GM award and recognition possible.
In sharp and sad contrast to this outstanding performance, Mr. Washington's career advancement has been in inverse proportion to his achievements because he has been the victim of intentional and systemic race and age discrimination. This discrimination includes failure to promote, a racially motivated transfer and demotion, harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation. Mr. Washington has not been promoted since 1989, even though his performance has been outstanding and despite the fact that he has won every award possible. GM routinely
2
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 3 of 38 PAGEID #: 5

promoted younger, less experienced and less qualified white employees to levels above Mr.

Washington, some of whom Mr. Washington had personally helped train.

In January 2005, Defendant Speicher, a white supervisor in the Fleet Division, threatened

Mr. Washington using the slur used by racists from the days of slavery and Jim Crow to demean

black men. It has always been the slur preferred above all others to remind and keep black men

in their place. At a companywide "state of the business" meeting, Defendant Speicher stopped

Washington at a company reception and, in front of another Fleet Account Executive,

disparagingly called Washington a "boy." Speicher threatened Washington saying, "We have

plans for you, boy. We are going to get after you."

In the eleven months since the slur, Defendants Speicher, Pikus and GM have carried out

Speicher's threat against Washington with vengeance. From January to May, Speicher and the

other defendants schemed to transfer Washington from his position in Cincinnati as a Fleet

Account Executive to Naperville, Illinois, and an entirely new position as a Commercial Sales

Manager, a demotion. This transfer and demotion was conducted under the pretext of a

companywide consolidation. Instead of transferring Washington to another Fleet Account

Executive position, GM assigned less qualified white employees to those positions. Mr.

Washington was demoted to a lesser position in Naperville, where Defendant Speicher became

his immediate supervisor.

Since Defendant Speicher became his supervisor, Mr. Washington has been subjected to

constant harassment, humiliation and disparate treatment. This vile conduct has included:

•

Speicher and Pikus lying to the Fleet Division senior management and to GM

Human Resources about Washington's job performance;

3
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 4 of 38 PAGEID #: 6

•

Refusal to approve Mr. Washington's legitimate expenses that are routinely

approved by Speicher and Pikus for white employees, thereby causing these expenses to be

deducted from Washington's paycheck;

•

Harassing non-business hour telephone calls from Defendant Speicher about

insignificant matters that have been made late at night, while Washington was on vacation and

while he was on bereavement leave for the funeral of his father-in-law;

•

Interfering with and undermining Washington's relationship with customers;

•

Imposing higher and different performance goals on Washington than those

imposed on white employees;

•

Inadequate training for a new position;

•

Subjecting Washington to an annual job evaluation in the front seat of a car in the

parking lot of a convention center during a 90-degree day in August with no air conditioning;

• Not providing a written job evaluation;

•

Threatening Washington with termination in retaliation for complaints about

Defendant Speicher's arbitrary and disparate rules for reimbursement of expenses;

•

Threatening Washington with termination for filing late expense reports, an

infraction committed by thousands of white employees who have never been threatened with

termination or even reprimanded for such an infraction; and

•

Terminating Washington for the filing of late expense reports, on the same day

that his supervisors were served with an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Discrimination Charge.

Regrettably, this lawsuit has become necessary to redress these wrongs, as more fully

articulated below.

4
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 5 of 38 PAGEID #: 7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e; Sections 4112.02, 4112.14 and 4112.99 ofthe Ohio Revised Code; and Ohio common law. 2. Jurisdiction over Counts I and II of this action is conferred upon this Court by 42 U.S.C. § 1981,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because these counts arise under the laws of the United States. This Court's jurisdiction over Counts III and IV is based upon supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. After reviewing the facts set forth herein, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued Plaintiff a notice of right to sue letter on June 27, 2006 (copy attached as Exhibit A). 3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue for this action is proper in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, because Defendant is doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein arose in Cincinnati, Ohio while Plaintiff worked and/or resided here.
THE PARTIES 4. General Motors Corporation ("GM") is the largest automotive manufacturer in the world. GM employs approximately 317,000 people worldwide. GM is a Delaware corporation whose corporate headquarters and principal place of business is located in Detroit, Michigan. 5. GM has manufacturing facilities in thirty-two countries and sells automobiles in 200 countries. In 2004, GM sold 9 million automobiles and trucks worldwide, the second
5
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 6 of 38 PAGEID #: 8
highest sales total in GM history. Thousands of GM cars are sold annually in Cincinnati, Ohio.
6. GM uses a numerical level-based system to determine the duties and compensation for its corporate employees. The higher the level number, the greater the responsibility for the employee as well has the higher the compensation and other benefits. GM, because of systemic racial discrimination, has kept Washington locked into a Level 7 position for nearly 20 years without one promotion within that time.
7. AI Washington, an African-American, is currently a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio and is 52 years of age. Mr. Washington began work for GM in 1978, shortly after he graduated from college.
8. Larry Speicher, who is white, is a resident of and has worked primarily in Napierville, Illinois at all relevant times.
9. Roy Pikus, who is white, is a resident of and has worked primarily in Napierville, Illinois at all relevant times.
WASHINGTON'S EARLY CAREER: EXCELLENT JOB PERFORMANCE AND RAPID PROMOTION THROUGH
LOWER LEVELS OF THE COMPANY 10. Mr. Washington's first job title at GM in 1978 was "salaried employee m training," and he was based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This job was a Level 5 position. 11. Despite his short amount of time with GM, in 1978, Mr. Washington was quickly promoted to the Metro District Service Manager for the Pontiac Division of GM, a Level 6 position.
6
124398.0020115032653 8v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 7 of 38 PAGEID #: 9
12. The position of Metro District Service Manager placed Mr. Washington in charge of all automotive-service-related issues for the Pontiac brand in the area designated as the Metro District of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
13. After excelling in his position as Metro District Service Manager for four years, in 1982, Mr. Washington was promoted to District Sales Manager for the Pontiac Division and was assigned to East Lansing, Michigan.
14. In 1986, Mr. Washington was again promoted by GM to Metro Sales Manager in Detroit, Michigan for the Pontiac Division. This promotion gave Mr. Washington a Level 7 Employee status.
15. While Mr. Washington was in this position, his area was number one in market penetration in the nation for Pontiac. Because GM is based in Detroit, the Metro Sales Manager there is on GM's "home-turf," making the position highly desirable for those employees with great ambition and potential, such as Mr. Washington. Mr. Washington, as Metro Sales Manager, was responsible for all sales related issues for the Pontiac division for Oakland County and Detroit, Michigan.
16. For a period of time before 1989, Mr. Washington, in addition to his job duties as Metro Sales Manager, took on the responsibilities of Metro Service Manager for the Pontiac Division in Detroit, Michigan. This was the first time GM had ever given the dual responsibilities of Service Manager and Sales Manager to the same employee in Metro Detroit. With a Herculean effort, Mr. Washington successfully performed the job duties of two employees.
7
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 8 of 38 PAGEID #: 10
EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE CONTINUES BUT NOT ONE PROMOTION IN 20 YEARS-MR. WASHINGTON HITS ARTIFICIAL
CEILING CREATED BY A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF PERVASIVE DISCRIMINATION
17. In November of 1989, Mr. Washington was transferred to Cincinnati, Ohio as a Level 7 employee and was named Zone Fleet Manager (a job now known as Fleet Account Executive or "FAE") for the Pontiac Division.
18. As part of Mr. Washington's new duties, he was in charge of Fleet Operations for most of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio for the Pontiac Division. Fleet Operations generally involve the sale of numerous vehicles to companies in need of trucks or automobiles in order to do business. Some of Mr. Washington's clients have included over the years: Wendy's Inc., Eli Lilly, NCR Corp., Meade Corporation, Reynolds & Reynolds, ACE Rental Cars, Hertz Rental Cars, Nationwide Insurance, David Joseph Company and others.
19. Mr. Washington was required to maintain existing customer relationships as well as create new accounts with companies that had previously obtained their fleet vehicles from another manufacturer. Mr. Washington, although still a Level 7 employee, was also charged with assisting in the training of District Managers for the Pontiac Division without the commensurate pay.
20. The vast majority of Fleet Account Executives ("FAE") had an employee status of Level 8. Beginning in 1989, Mr. Washington was assigned the job duties and was expected to perform the job duties of a Level 8 FAE.
21. For more than 16 years, Mr. Washington not only met but exceeded the job performance of a Level 8 FAE, winning virtually every GM Fleet Division award possible. Not one time in these 16 years was Mr. Washington promoted to Level 8.
8
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 9 of 38 PAGEID #: 11
22. This failure to promote is the result of a pervasive and systemic pattern of racial discrimination within GM.
23. Of twenty-eight Fleet Managers, twenty-five were white in this time frame. All of the twenty-five white Fleet Managers were Level 8 employees. Only one of the three nonwhite Fleet Managers was a Level 8 employee.
24. On April20, 1994, Mr. Washington wrote to Jack Losch, his supervisor, about not being promoted. Losch would only provide a verbal response to the letter, stating that a level increase was coming for Mr. Washington if he would only be patient, continue to work hard and "wait".
25. Mr. Washington continued to work hard, performing the duties of a Level 8 FAE, and waited.
26. In 1996, Bill Affelt and Ray Nathan, representatives from GM's Corporate Office, and Mr. Washington's supervisors, each stated that a Level 8 employee status was coming for Mr. Washington ifhe would just continue to work hard, be patient and wait.
27. Mr. Washington continued to work hard, performing the job duties of a Level 8 employee, and waited.
28. Ed Pascoe was Mr. Washington's direct supervisor m 1996. In frequent conversations between Mr. Washington and Pascoe regarding Mr. Washington's Level 8 status, Pascoe routinely responded that a Level 8 status was on the horizon if Mr. Washington would just continue to work hard, be patient and "wait".
29. Mr. Washington continued to work hard, performing the job duties of a Level 8 employee, and waited.
9
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 10 of 38 PAGEID #: 12
30. At the same time GM refused to promote Mr. Washington, GM promoted less qualified whites. In 1996, Jerry Meyer was splitting FAE duties for the Cincinnati Region with Mr. Washington.
31. Meyer, who is white, was criticized for having poor writing and communication skills.
32. Because of Meyer's poor communication and customer relation skills, Mr. Washington was assigned to replace Mr. Meyer as FAE on the larger accounts in the Cincinnati Region.
33. In 1998, Dave Grisham, the Fleet Supervisor for Mr. Washington and Meyer, criticized Meyer for his poor skills as an FAE. Shortly after being cited for his poor skills, Meyer was promoted soon after from a Level 7 to a Level 8 employee and moved to Detroit, Michigan. Today he is employed as a Level 8 FAE.
34. Mr. Washington, despite handling the largest accounts in the region and despite being more qualified, was passed over for this promotion.
35. In 2000, GM underwent a corporate consolidation. As part of this consolidation, FAEs were required to be tested in order to retain their positions. Despite already performing all of the duties of a Level 8 FAE, Mr. Washington was not allowed to take the Level 8 job test.
36. The vast majority ofthe other FAEs were Level 8 employees, and all ofthe Level 8 FAEs were white.
37. Mr. Washington passed his Level 7 test and assessment of skills with ease. 38. Later in 2000, Joel Sassa was hired as Mr. Washington's supervisor. In his conversations with Mr. Washington, Sassa told Mr. Washington to keep working hard, and that all FAEs would eventually be given Level 8 status.
10
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 11 of 38 PAGEID #: 13
39. After speaking with Sassa, Mr. Washington spoke with Richard Lee, the Director of Fleet Operations, about failing to be promoted to Level 8 status. Lee told Mr. Washington that all FAEs would be given Level 8 status. Dave Hansen, Lee's successor, told Mr. Washington the same thing.
40. In 1999, GM administered a product test to all Fleet Account Executives at the National GM "Spring Training" in Florida. Mr. Washington won the Product Test Award, scoring higher than all of the FAEs across the nation. Although Mr. Washington scored higher than all white Level 8 FAEs, he has never been promoted to Level 8.
41. In 2001, Mr. Washington received another national GM Fleet Division award called the Shining Star Award. The Shining Star Award is given to the Fleet Account Manager who earned the highest percentage of new business in the North Central Region. Despite receiving this prestigious award, Mr. Washington was not promoted to Level 8.
42. Hansen then proceeded to hire, in 2002, four new white employees, Mr. Resinger, Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Mellon, and Mr. Sturgis, from outside GM. None of these men had either GM experience or FAE experience. Each of these new, white employees was immediately given Level 8 status.
43. Mr. Washington, who continued to excel while performing Level 8 job duties, was never promoted to Level 8.
GM RE-ASSIGNS WASHINGTON'S MAJOR ACCOUNTS TO WHITE FAEs AND THEN CITES THE SMALL NUMBER OF HIS ACCOUNTS
AS A REASON FOR NOT PROMOTING WASHINGTON 44. In 2002, Mr. Washington was made the only FAE in the Cincinnati Region. 45. Shortly thereafter, the regions were arbitrarily realigned, removing portions of Indianapolis, Indiana and all of Columbus, Ohio from Mr. Washington's region, giving him a
11
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 12 of 38 PAGEID #: 14
much smaller base to work within and dramatically reducing the number of accounts for which he was responsible. The accounts taken from Mr. Washington included some of the largest companies in the country, such as Wendy's, Eli Lily, SMC Corp., Carolina Health, ACE Rent-A~ Car and Nationwide Insurance. Mr. Washington had a long history of working with these accounts.
46. The scheme to take accounts from Mr. Washington was hatched by Defendant Pikus and other senior management at GM.
47. Shortly after realigning the regions and taking accounts from Mr. Washington, Defendant Pikus told Mr. Washington that in order to be considered for a Level 8 promotion, a "new" GM policy required that an FAE have annual 3,000 sales in his accounts.
48. Mr. Washington had significantly more than 3,000 annual sales in his accounts prior to the time Defendant Pikus took accounts from him and gave those accounts to other FAEs, all of whom were white. Afterwards, Mr. Washing had less than 3,000 sales in his accounts, through no fault of his own.
49. The decision by Defendant Pikus to take accounts from Mr. Washington and then announce a new unwritten policy that denied Mr. Washington a promotion because he did not have sufficient sales accounts is an especially pernicious example of the pervasive pattern and practice of race discrimination at GM.
50. In 2003, Mr. Washington had another strong year as an FAE, and received numerous letters of congratulations from his supervisor, as well as letters of appreciation from several national companies that were customers.
51. Despite the ceremonial acknowledgement of his outstanding work, Mr. Washington was still not promoted to Level 8.
12
124398.0020 I/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 13 of 38 PAGEID #: 15
52. In late 2003, Mr. Washington was given the Pete Gerosa Award as the highest achieving FAE in the North Central Region. The Pete Gerosa Award is the highest award possible for an FAE.
53. Despite winning the Fleet Division's highest award, Mr. Washington was never promoted to LevelS.
54. In 2004, GM used another corporate consolidation as a pretext for continuing its pattern and practice of race discrimination. During this consolidation, two of Mr. Washington's white peers with less experience and none of the accolades that Mr. Washington has achieved, L.V. Turner and Eric Reich, were promoted to LevelS, while Mr. Washington remained at Level 7.
DEFENDANT SPEICHER'S RACIAL SLUR AGAINST MR. WASHINGTON AND HIS PLAN TO "GET" MR. WASHINGTON 55. In January of 2005, Mr. Washington attended a GM Regional Conference at the Chicago Marriott Hotel. While at the conference, Mr. Washington met Bob Lawler, a fellow Fleet Account Executive, and Defendant Larry Speicher at a company reception. Speicher is the Regional Commercial Manager for the North Central Region. Speicher and Lawler, both white, were Level S employees. 56. During this encounter, Speicher disparagingly called Mr. Washington "boy." Mr. Speicher threatened Mr. Washington and said, "We have plans for you, boy. We are going to get after you!" 57. Two days after Defendant Speicher's racial slur, Mr. Washington reported the incident with Speicher to Defendant Pikus, the supervisor for both Mr. Washington and Speicher.
13
l24398.0020l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 14 of 38 PAGEID #: 16
58. Defendant Pikus told Mr. Washington that he had heard about Speicher's racial slur and that those comments could get Speicher into a lot of trouble. Defendant Pikus, however, took no action to investigate, address or remedy the situation.
59. Defendant Pikus' inaction is not surprising because he was part of the plan to "get" Mr. Washington.
THE PLAN TO "GET" WASHINGTON IS EXECUTED: HE IS TRANSFERRED AND DEMOTED
60. From the time Defendant Speicher called Mr. Washington a "boy" and threatened to "get after" him in January 2005, Speicher and Pikus schemed between themselves and with others in GM management to marginalize Mr. Washington by demoting and transfering Mr. Washington to a new city and to a new job that he had not performed in more than 16 years.
61. In May of 2005, Mr. Washington was transferred to the Naperville, Illinois area, where he was made a Level 7 Commercial Sales Manager ("CSM").
62. Not surprisingly, his new supervisor was none other than Defendant Speicher. Washington was required to report directly to the man who, five months earlier, insulted Washington with an ugly and hateful racial epithet. In further perfection of the plan to "get after" Washington, Speicher reported to Pikus. Beginning in May 2005, Washington's two immediate supervisors were Speicher and Pikus.
63. Reassigning Mr. Washington as a CSM from a Fleet Account Executive was a demotion. All CSMs are level 7 or lower. There are no Level 8 CSM's because of the lower level of responsibilities of CSMs compared to FAEs. In transferring Washington to the CSM position, GM, Speicher and Pikus put Mr. Washington into a much smaller role and eliminated any possibility of advancement beyond Level 7.
14
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 15 of 38 PAGEID #: 17
64. As an FAE, Mr. Washington routinely dealt with major, large, public companies, giving his position a great amount of prestige and opportunity. As a CSM, Mr. Washington deals almost exclusively with automotive dealerships, which offers less prestige and opportunity for advancement.
65. This change in jobs was a functional job change, removing Mr. Washington from a position in which he was extremely successful, and moving him to a smaller-market area (Wisconsin and Central Illinois), where he had no current contacts.
66. The elimination of opportunity and reduction in authority clearly constitutes a demotion and, therefore, an adverse employment action.
67. This transfer and demotion was the first step in Defendants' plan to "get after" Washington. The first step was taken under the pretext of a companywide consolidation carried out in the first halfof2005.
68. During the consolidation planning in early 2005, Mr. Washington learned that the FAE in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was retiring. Washington asked Pikus to assign him to the Minneapolis FAE position. The FAE position in Minneapolis was a Level 8 position. Instead of promoting Washington to the Level 8 position in Minneapolis, GM and Pikus gave it to a less qualified white male, Jeff Hague. Not only had Jeff Hague failed to win any of the awards and recognitions won by Mr. Washington, Hague had absolutely no experience, not even one day, as a Fleet Account Executive. By comparison, Mr. Washington had 16 years of experience in the FAE position, with great success and achievement.
69. Throughout the consolidation in the beginning of 2005, white employees were treated more favorably than Mr. Washington and similarly situated black employees.
15
124398.0020 I/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 16 of 38 PAGEID #: 18
70. For example, Clifford Forsythe, a white employee, declined a move to the Naperville, Illinois area. He was permitted to remain in his position in Iowa, an option which was not given to Mr. Washington.
71. Mr. Washington was also told that no employee in the North Central region would be moved to a region different than the North Central region. The truth was to the contrary. A white employee named Susan Smittson was permitted to move from the North Central region to the Denver, Colorado region.
72. Mr. Washington, ironically, was forced to replace Smittson as CSM for the Wisconsin area he now covers. When Defendant Pikus was asked about this disparate treatment, Pikus said he had to speak about it to Mr. Gerosa, the head of GM's entire vehicle sales and service operations.
73. Throughout the consolidation, whites were permitted to remain in their current positions or received their first choice of reassignment. Black employees were given no choice and much less preferential treatment, similar to the treatment Mr. Washington received.
SPEICHER AND PIKUS ESCALATE THE PLAN TO "GET AFTER" WASHINGTON BY INSTITUTING A CAMPAIGN TO HARASS AND THREATEN HIM ON REGULAR AND REPEATING BASIS
74. On June 6, 2005, within a few days of Mr. Washington first reporting to Defendant Speicher in Napierville, Speicher repeatedly called Mr. Washington's cell phone while Washington was in a sales meeting with a GM client. Speicher knew that Mr. Washington was in an important sales meeting yet still called his cell phone repeatedly. Mr. Washington did not interrupt his client meeting to take the phone calls from Speicher.
16
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 17 of 38 PAGEID #: 19
75. During a break in the client meeting, Mr. Washington returned Speicher's telephone calls. Speicher then proceeded to scream at Mr. Washington, curse and berate him for not answering his cell phone during the client meeting. Speicher accused Mr. Washington of deliberately removing voicemail from his cell phone in order to avoid Speicher's calls.
76. Mr. Washington's cell phone was given to him by GM at the time of his relocation to Naperville. It previously belonged to Ms. Smittson, who never had voicemail.
77. In addition to being designed to "get after" and harass Mr. Washington, Speicher's calls had the purpose of disrupting Mr. Washington's sales call and to emotionally upset Mr. Washington and divert his attention so that he would not be as effective with the customer. From the very beginning of his supervision over Mr. Washington, Defendant Speicher has been doing whatever it takes to "get after'' Mr. Washington in an attempt to make him fail.
78. Shortly after this incident, also in June, 2005, Speicher and Pikus began to harass and discriminate against Mr. Washington over Company expense reports. This harassment includes, but is not limited to: 1) Speicher's practice of timely reviewing the expense reports of white employees, but not Mr. Washington's; 2) denying approval of certain expenses on Mr. Washington's expense report while approving similar expenses for white employees; and 3) imposing rules and restrictions on Mr. Washington that are not imposed on white employees.
79. For example, Mr. Washington presented Speicher with his expense report before a deadline Speicher set prior to his two-week summer vacation. Although Speicher reviewed and approved the expense reports of white employees, he did not review Mr. Washington's expense report before leaving on vacation.
80. Upon his return, Speicher refused to approve Mr. Washington's expense report. Speicher told Mr. Washington that "new" expense report policies did not allow Company
17
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 18 of 38 PAGEID #: 20
payment for numerous items Washington had submitted. Speicher told Washington that he had to pay for a number oflegitimate business expenses out of his relocation stipend.
81. Speicher also told Mr. Washington that any future expenses must be pre-approved by Speicher. This requirement was imposed by Speicher to harass, insult and demean Mr. Washington, a very successful, 27-year employee. It is not and never has been a requirement imposed on Speicher's white supervisees nor other white employees at GM.
82. Mr. Washington asked Defendants Pikus and Speicher for a written copy of these "new" expense report rules. Speicher and Pikus refused to provide the rules in writing.
83. There are other examples of Defendant Speicher using GM's expense reports procedures to harass and humiliate Mr. Washington. Speicher has imposed on Mr. Washington, but not on white employees, a 125 mile radius rule. Pursuant to this rule, Speicher has forbidden Mr. Washington from spending the night in any hotel that is within 125 mile radius of Naperville/Chicago. On November 15, 2005, Mr. Washington and a white employee named Doug Dittrich were meeting with GM customers in Milwaukee. The meeting was in late afternoon followed by dinner. Under GM and Speicher's discriminatory policy, Mr. Dittrich, the white employee, was permitted to stay, at company expense, in a hotel located a few minutes from the dinner meeting with customers. Mr. Washington's only choice was to drive for more than three hours late at night back to the Naperville/Chicago area or to pay for the room out of his own pocket. He paid for the room himself in order to comply with Speicher's mandate. The white employee submitted the room charge as a company expense.
84. In addition to the 125 mile radius rule, Speicher routinely imposes on Mr. Washington other absurd, unwritten rules about travel expenses.
18
124398.00201150326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 19 of 38 PAGEID #: 21
85. For example, Speicher has instructed Mr. Washington that he must ask Defendant Speicher in writing, at least four days in advance, for pre-approval if he plans to spend the night in a hotel at Company expense. Mr. Washington is required to seek this pre-approval with no exceptions for bad weather conditions, dinner meetings with customers that run late into the evening or similar unforeseen events.
86. None of Mr. Washington's white colleagues are subject to this four-day preapproval rule. It is imposed on Mr. Washington to harass, humiliate and "get after" him.
87. These expense reimbursement rules, as well as Speicher's other outrageous behavior, are all designed to reinforce, underscore and constantly remind Mr. Washington that he is a "boy," incapable of exercising independent judgment, someone that Speicher needs to watch like a child, someone who is unimportant to GM.
88. On September 27 and 28, 2005, Mr. Washington needed to stay in hotels in Madison and Green Bay, Wisconsin, respectively. Mr. Washington requested the "required approval" from Speicher and called the American Express Travel Service, which is used by GM employees to make work-related travel arrangements.
89. GM does not have a maximum hotel room charge in place for the Madison-Green Bay, Wisconsin area. When no charge maximum, or cap, is in place, the employee may stay anywhere, but should use his discretion to keep expenses low.
90. American Express was only able to find one hotel with vacancies for the nights Mr. Washington had requested, and would charge $140.00 per night. Since there was no hotel room cap in place, and it was the only hotel available, Mr. Washington made his reservation. Mr. Washington requested that American Express make a notation on his bill that he was staying in the only available hotel in the area.
19
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 20 of 38 PAGEID #: 22
91. Despite American Express' notation, and the lack of a cap, Mr. Washington was still subjected to a verbal reprimand from Speicher for staying in ''too nice of a hotel."
92. Since the day Mr. Washington began reporting to him, Defendant Speicher routinely has engaged in many other types of harassment and disparate treatment. On at least eight separate occasions and dates, Speicher has hung up the telephone while in the middle of business-related conversations with Mr. Washington. Speicher does not hang up on white CSMs.
93. Since June 2005, Defendant Speicher has repeatedly refused to provide Mr. Washington with necessary business-related information that is routinely provided to white CSMs. Whenever Mr. Washington asks Speicher a question, the reply is to get the answer from one of the other CSMs, all of whom are white. Again, with this behavior, Speicher is reminding Mr. Washington that he is a "boy," unworthy of Speicher's time, and needing to be schooled by his white co-workers.
94. This pattern of hiding information from Mr. Washington and forcing him to get it from co-workers, all of whom are white, is harassment and humiliation enough. It is particularly egregious in this case because Defendants GM, Speicher and Pikus transferred Washington to a new city and new job, while refusing to provide him with the usual training afforded white employees under the circumstances. He has been required and expected to complete several CSM reports and related tasks with no training. As a result of this lack of training and pattern of harassment, Defendants GM, Speicher and Pikus have created a hostile environment in the hope and expectation that Washington will fail and simply leave GM, a company with whom he has spent his entire adult career-27 years-and for whom he has performed and achieved at the highest levels.
20
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 21 of 38 PAGEID #: 23
95. Defendant Speicher has also harassed Mr. Washington with frequent telephone calls and emails to Mr. Washington during non-business hours, by calling Mr. Washington's customers, and opening Mr. Washington's mail.
96. The off-hours telephone calls and voicemails from Speicher are of no business importance. The calls came from Speicher not only late at night since June 2005, but also while Mr. Washington was on vacation in August 2005 and while on bereavement leave, attending the funeral of his father-in-law in September 2005.
97. While Mr. Washington was on bereavement leave at his father-in law's funeral, Speicher called to ask about a fact that Washington had already communicated in a memorandum submitted to Speicher immediately before going on bereavement leave.
98. Speicher then called again while Mr. Washington was on bereavement leave to inquire about a presentation that Mr. Washington was previously working on with Roger Beedle. Speicher was told prior to Mr. Washington leaving for bereavement that Mike Wilson would be taking over his portion and assisting Roger Beedle.
99. With these calls, Defendant Speicher is demonstrating to Mr. Washington that even late at night, on vacation and at a father-in-law's funeral, the "man" Speicher is getting after the "boy," Washington.
100. Defendant Speicher has harassed Mr. Washington by interfering directly with Mr. Washington's customers and undermining his effectiveness with them.
101. For example, Speicher has called David Kinnard at Thornstad Chevrolet, Gary Schwind at Holtz Chevrolet, Jim Schnoll at Bob Fish Chevrolet, as well as Mark Towne, Larry Rodema of Frank Boucher, Tony Pirlot of Five Corners, and Mr. Washington's contacts at other dealerships in Wisconsin. Defendant Speicher made these calls without Mr. Washington's
21
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 22 of 38 PAGEID #: 24
knowledge. Speicher asked these customers to critique Washington's job performance and attempted to solicit unfavorable comments about Mr. Washington.
102. The calls to Mr. Washington's customers were designed to undermine his relationship with them and cause him to fail. In these calls, Speicher portrayed Mr. Washington as an employee who was new and unskilled-a "boy"-who needed to be "watched over" and monitored by his supervisor. He also confused the customers as to whom they should turn and rely upon within GM.
103. Defendant Speicher does not make similar calls to the customers of white CSMs. 104. For the record, all of these customers have spoken highly of Mr. Washington and appreciate his talent and service in ironic contrast to Defendants Speicher, Pikus and GM. 105. Defendants Speicher, Pikus and GM have discriminated against Mr. Washington with respect to how he is evaluated. There are six CSMs supervised by Speicher. During the annual job performance evaluation process conducted in July 2005, Speicher spent a half-day with the new CSM who covers the Chicago area and discussed his performance evaluation with him in a professional setting and manner. As to the other new CSMs, Speicher spent a full day traveling with them and also discussed their performance evaluations in a professional setting and manner. All of these CSMs are white. 106. Speicher conducted Mr. Washington's annual performance evaluation in a parked car between trade shows, at a convention center, during ninety-degree heat without air conditioning. Again, this treatment was meant to reinforce Speicher's slur that Mr. Washington was a "boy"-a lowly and unimportant employee deserving of no respect and having no future at GM.
22
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 23 of 38 PAGEID #: 25
107. There were more irregularities. Mr. Washington was given high marks in his performance evaluation, but Speicher has refused to give Mr. Washington a copy of the evaluation, against corporate policy, and despite Mr. Washington requesting a copy on numerous occasions. To this day, Defendant Speicher has refused to give Mr. Washington a final copy of his positive evaluation.
IN OCTOBER 2005, THE PLAN TO "GET" WASHINGTON ESCALATES: HE IS THREATENED WITH TERMINATION
IN RETALIATION FOR CHALLENGING SPEICHER'S EXPENSE REPORT POLICIES
108. From the time Mr. Washington began to report to Speicher in June 2005, he and the other defendants imposed a number of arbitrary and discriminatory rules and restrictions on Washington with respect to company expense reports. These rules and restrictions were not imposed on similarly situated white employees.
109. As a result of this discrimination, many legitimate business expenses incurred by Mr. Washington were disallowed by Speicher, even though similar expenses are routinely approved for white employees.
110. Under GM's policies, business expenses are charged on a company American Express card. If a supervisor disallows expenses, those disallowed expenses are deducted from the employee's paycheck. As a consequence of Speicher refusing to permit legitimate business expenses, Mr. Washington received little or no pay for several weeks.
111. After many meetings with both Speicher and Pikus, it became clear to Mr. Washington that they would neither change their decision to disallow past expenses nor change their discriminatory practices going forward. Mr. Washington told them that it was unfair and discriminatory to have policies that applied "only to Al Washington."
23
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 24 of 38 PAGEID #: 26
112. On August 15, 2005, Mr. Washington also told Speicher and Pikus that he was going to appeal their decision with respect to expenses through GM's "Open Door Policy." The Open Door program allows an employee to have his or her grievance against a supervisor or other problem heard by an independent manager at GM. Mr. Washington then began making calls within the Company to gather facts and prepare for the grievance.
113. Upon learning of Mr. Washington's plan to use the Open Door Policy to challenge their decision to deny expenses, Speicher and Pikus immediately began planning to pre-empt Mr. Washington's grievance procedure and to retaliate against him.
114. In a classic retaliatory counter attack, they began telling their supervisor, Jim Bunnell, the General Manager of the North Central Region, and 0. J. Atkins of GM's Human Resource Department, that they were having job performance issues with Washington. They outright lied to Bunnell and Atkins, telling them, among other lies, that since 1999 Washington's "performance had deteriorated."
115. Speicher and Pikus convinced Bunnell and Atkins that the four of them needed to summon Mr. Washington to a meeting and give him a written warning about his job performance and to threaten Washington with termination.
116. The meeting was scheduled for October 13, 2005. Speicher and Pikus lied to Mr. Washington when they informed him of the meeting. They told him that they had scheduled a meeting between Mr. Washington and Bunnell, Atkins and themselves so that they all could discuss and "straighten out" the issues over expense reports. They misrepresented the purpose of the meeting to keep Washington off balance and to enhance the shock value of the written warning and threat of termination they planned to deliver.
24
124398.0020 1/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 25 of 38 PAGEID #: 27
117. At the meeting on October 13, 2005, they handed Mr. Washington an official written warning on General Motors Corporation North Central Region letterhead. The warning was signed by "Jim Bunnell, General Manager," but actually written by Speicher and Pikus. The first paragraph of the 3-page Memorandum contained lies so outrageous and contrary to the
actual recorded facts that they can only be explained by a blind racial animus toward Mr.
Washington. 118. The first paragraph states: "Since 1999, your performance has deteriorated. You
have received feedback and support from your supervisors, but your performance continues to be inconsistent and unacceptable."
119. During that time period, Mr. Washington has not received any reprimands, oral or written, for any of these so called "performance'' issues.
120. The facts, as documented in GM's own records, are that since 1999: • Mr. Washington has received excellent performance evaluations. • Mr. Washington has passed all job retention examinations. • In 2000, Mr. Washington received an award for scoring first among all Fleet Account Executives in the North Central Region on the All Product Exam.
• In 2001, Mr. Washington received the Shining Star Award presented to the
Fleet Account Executive who developed the highest percentage of new business in the North Central Region. • In 2003, Mr. Washington received the Pete Gerosa Award given to the top Fleet Account Executive in the North Central Region, the highest award possible for an FAE. 121. The truth is that Mr. Washington has received no support and only negative feedback and harassment from his supervisors, Speicher and Pikus. He has not received appropriate training from them. Since June 2005, they have executed a plan to "get after" the "boy" and make him fail.
25
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 26 of 38 PAGEID #: 28
122. The only basis of the October 13, 2005, written warning is a trumped up allegation about filing administrative reports, inconsequential "paper work," late. Most of the late filings concern expense reports. At worst, these late filings are minor infractions committed regularly by thousands of white GM employees with absolutely no negative job action taken against them.
123. Under GM policy, if an employee is so chronically late with expense report filings, his or her company credit card is revoked. Mr. Washington's company credit card has never been revoked.
124. Within GM's workforce there are literally thousands of white employees who have filed late expense reports on a more frequent basis than Mr. Washington. None of these white employees, however, received a trumped up written warning like Mr. Washington received nor have these similarly-situated white employees been threatened with termination.
125. On December 7, 2005, Plaintiff Al Washington filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. This Charge of Discrimination was served upon Bunnell, Speicher, Oliver Adkins, and GM's Human Resource Department on the same day by facsimile.
126. After having received a copy of the Charge of Discrimination, Bunnell met with and terminated Mr. Washington for filing late expense reports.
127. Defendant GM's employment practices and systems discriminate against AfricanAmericans and employees over the age of forty in all divisions below Level 8. The discriminatory practices engaged in by GM are intentional and systematic in nature, and adversely affect Plaintiff and other members of the class with respect to the opportunities for hiring, promotion, transfer, job assignment, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment, as specifically summarized below.
26
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 27 of 38 PAGEID #: 29
128. According to GM's 2004 annual report, the upper level of management is comprised almost exclusively of whites. Level 7 is a glass ceiling for African-American employees and employees over the age of forty.
129. The homogenous racial composition of GM's management is reflected not only at the highest levels of management, but also at every level above Level 7 (where there is only a sprinkling of African-Americans). The percentage of African-Americans in each level decreases as the levels increase. The percentage of African-American employees at Level 8 drops off precipitously.
130. When GM has an upper level position to fill, they "tap" their white employees for the promotions. Supervisors make subjective and biased decisions to fill Level 8 and other high level positions with white employees. Most of the time, an open supervisory or managerial position is filled by hiring a white employee or promoting a white employee, and those positions are largely unknown to African-American employees who are not given the opportunity to apply and compete for the positions.
131. African-American employees are discriminated against in the scope and extent of their job assignments as a result of subjective and biased decisions made by predominantly white managers. African-Americans are frequently given less desirable work assignments. For example, in all divisions where a geographic area is assigned, desirable territories in which to work, such as sales and leasing, are given to whites. When African-Americans excel in a given territory, in many instances, that territory is taken from them and reassigned to white employees.
132. African-Americans are rarely, if ever, hired into Level 8 positions while whites are hired in at the Level 8 position with no prior GM experience and no prior experience in that position.
27
124398.0020 l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 28 of 38 PAGEID #: 30
COUNT I (42 U.S.C. § 1981- Failure to Promote) 133. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 134. Mr. Washington is an AfricanwAmerican. 135. Despite Mr. Washington's excellent performance in handling a position where the duties are normally completed by a LevelS employee, Mr. Washington has repeatedly been denied a promotion from Level 7 to Level 8. 136. While Mr. Washington was not being promoted to a LevelS status, younger, less experienced non-African American people were made LevelS employees despite handling the same job duties. 137. This failure to promote Mr. Washington to LevelS status has resulted in Mr. Washington receiving less compensation and fewer benefits than his contemporaries who are white. 138. In light of Mr. Washington's exemplary record, there is no reasonable explanation for him not being promoted to an employee status of LevelS, except for illegal, racially discriminatory reasons. 139. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by discriminating against Mr. Washington when he was not promoted. Defendants' discriminatory actions were taken against Mr. Washington because of his race and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Mr. Washington is entitled to damages for lost wages, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
28
124398.0020 1/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 29 of 38 PAGEID #: 31
COUNT II (42 U.S.C. § 1981- Disparate Treatment) 140. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 141. Mr. Washington is an African-American. 142. Despite Mr. Washington's excellent performance in handling a position where the duties are normally completed by a Level 8 employee, Mr. Washington has repeatedly been denied a promotion from Level 7 to Level S. 143. While Mr. Washington was not being promoted to a LevelS status, younger, less experienced non-African American people were made Level S employees despite handling the same job duties. 144. This failure to promote Mr. Washington to LevelS status has resulted in Mr. Washington receiving less pay and fewer benefits than his contemporaries that are white. 145. In light of Mr. Washington's exemplary record, there is no reasonable explanation for him not being promoted to an employee status of Level 8, except for illegal, discriminatory reasons. 146. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 19S1 by discriminating against Plaintiffwhen he was not promoted while white employees oflesser ability were. Defendant's discriminatory actions were taken against Plaintiff because of his race and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for lost wages, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
29
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 30 of 38 PAGEID #: 32
COUNT III (Racial Discrimination-42 U.S.C. § 2000e) 147. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 14S. Despite Mr. Washington's excellent performance in handling a position where the duties are normally completed by a LevelS employee, Mr. Washington has repeatedly been denied a promotion from Level 7 to Level S. 149. While Mr. Washington was not being promoted to a LevelS status, younger, less experienced whites were made Level S employees despite handling the same job duties and other whites with no experience were hired in at LevelS. 150. This failure to promote Mr. Washington to LevelS status has resulted in Mr. Washington receiving less pay and fewer benefits than his contemporaries who are white. 151. In light of Mr. Washington's exemplary record, there is no reasonable explanation for him not being promoted to an employee status of Level S, except for illegal, discriminatory reasons. 152. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) by discriminating against Mr. Washington because of his race. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory actions against him, Mr. Washington is entitled to a sum equal to his back pay plus interest, damages for lost future wages, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
COUNT IV (Racial Discrimination-Ohio Rev. Code§ 4112.99) 153. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below.
30
124398.00201 /50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 31 of 38 PAGEID #: 33
154. Defendants' discriminatory treatment of Mr. Washington because of his race violates sections 4112.01(A) and 4112.99 of the Ohio Revised Code.
155. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to lost wages from a lack of promotion, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, including costs and attorney's fees.
COUNTY (Age Discrimination-29 U.S.C. §§ 622 et seq. (ADEA) and Ohio Rev. Code§ 4112.99-
Failure to Promote) 156. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 157. Mr. Washington is over 40 years of age. 158. Despite Mr. Washington's excellent performance in handling a position where the duties are normally completed by a LevelS employee, Mr. Washington has repeatedly been denied a promotion from Level 7 to Level 8. 159. While Mr. Washington was not being promoted to a LevelS status, younger, less experienced people were made Level 8 employees despite handling the same job duties and younger people with no experience were hired in at Level 8. 160. In light ofMr. Washington's exemplary record, there is no reasonable explanation for him not being promoted to an employee status ofLevel8, except for illegal, discriminatory reasons. 161. Defendants' discriminatory treatment ofMr. Washington because of his age violates sections 4112.14 and 4112.99 of the Ohio Revised Code.
31
124398.00201/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 32 of 38 PAGEID #: 34
162. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, Mr. Washington is entitled to lost wages from lack of promotion, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, including costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT VI (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress-Common Law of Ohio) 163. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 164. Defendants owed to Mr. Washington a duty to refrain from intentional injury to him. 165. Defendants breached their duty to Mr. Washington. 166. Defendants' intentional actions as set forth above and relating to Plaintiffs employment and terms of employment with Defendant proximately caused injury to Plaintiffin the form of embarrassment, mental anguish, loss of reputation, loss of self-esteem, fear and other emotional distress. 167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions Plaintiff suffered damages.
COUNT VII (Retaliation based on Race) 168. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 169. Mr. Washington was subjected to a different set of parameters and requirements for his expenses and expense reports than his white peers.
32
124398.00201/5032653 8v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 33 of 38 PAGEID #: 35
170. Mr. Washington attempted to resolve the differences in his expense reporting procedures by following the standard corporate policies for complaints, which is to notify a supervisor.
171. As a direct result of this action taken by him, Mr. Washington was retaliated against by his supervisors because he is African-American. Mr. Washington was provided with an October 13, 2005 memorandum threatening his termination for his behavior.
172. On December 7, 2005, Mr. Washington filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. This Charge of Discrimination was served upon Bunnell, Speicher, Oliver Adkins, and GM's Human Resource Department on the same day by facsimile.
173. After having received a copy of the Charge of Discrimination, Bunnell met with
and terminated Mr. Washington for filing late expense reports.
174. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to lost wages from a lack of promotion, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, including costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT VIII (Wrongful Termination) 175. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth below. 176. Mr. Washington is an African-American male over the age of fifty. 177. Despite Mr. Washington's excellent performance in handling a position where the duties are normally completed by a Level 8 employee, Mr. Washington has repeatedly been denied a promotion from Level 7 to Level 8.
33
124398.00201/5032653 8v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 34 of 38 PAGEID #: 36
178. From 1999 until December of2005, Mr. Washington received numerous corporate awards for his performance and was routinely praised by both his customers and his supervisors.
179. Mr. Washington was subjected to a different set ofparameters and requirements for his expenses and expense reports than his younger, white peers.
180. Within GM's workforce there are literally thousands of white employees who have filed late expense reports on a more frequent basis than Mr. Washington. None of these white employees, however, received a trumped up written warning like Mr. Washington received nor have these similarly-situated white employees been threatened with termination.
181. After having received a copy of the Charge of Discrimination on December 7. 2005, Bunnell met with and terminated Mr. Washington for filing late expense reports.
182. In light ofMr. Washington's exemplary record, there is no reasonable explanation for him being terminated, except for illegal discriminatory reasons.
183. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981,42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and sections 4112.0l(A), 4112.14 and 4112.99 of the Ohio Revised Code by discriminating against Mr. Washington when he was terminated. Defendants' discriminatory actions were taken against Mr. Washington because of his race and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Mr. Washington is entitled to damages for lost wages, damages for lost benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, punitive damages, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
34
124398.0020l/50326538v.2

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 35 of 38 PAGEID #: 37
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays as follows: (a) Judgment finding that Defendant has violated federal and Ohio law as set forth above; (b) An order that Defendant pay to Plaintiff al1 wages and benefits due and owing as a result ofDefendant's discriminatory acts; (c) An award of compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff, in an amount to be determined at trial; (d) An award of Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney's fees in this action; and (e) Any such other and further relief as may be just and necessary.
Respectfully submitted, BLANK ROME LLP
Nathaniel R. Jones, Es (0026866) Michael L. Cioffi, Esq. (0031 098) Counsel for Plaintiff 1700 PNC Center 201 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 362-8700 Facsimile: (513) 362-8702 jones-n@blankrome.com cioffi@blankrome.com
35

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 36 of 38 PAGEID #: 38 Jury Demand
Plaintiff hereby gives demands a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury.
36

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 37 of 38 PAGEID #: 39

! EEOC Form 161-B (3198)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

To: AI Washington 11155 Terwilligers Hill Court Cincinnati, OH 45249

From:

Cincinnati Area Office • 473
John W. Peck Fed. Bldg 550 Main St Room 10·019 Cincinnati, OH 45202

JUN 2 8 iUlJ·

D

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR § 1601. 7(a))

Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

221-2006-00497

Deborah B. Curtis, Enforcement Supervisor

(513) 684-2843

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII and/or the ADA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII or the ADA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a state claim may be different.)

0 More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge. D Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will
be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of the charge.
0 The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge. D The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until 90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below
applies to your case:

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

0 The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing of your charge, you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you file suit based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

~o~n b~•~h~a~'?~n~m-!'";'o;";:--~-

Enclosure( s)

Director

U

'·~~7.~
\T~·~ate Mai/Ji)

cc: Chief Executive Officer GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 155 Tri·County Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45249

David Johnston

Ms. Sharon Zealey, Attorney

EEO Consultant

1700 PNC Center

1616 S. Voss Suite 300 201 E. Fifth Street

Houston, TX 77057 Cincinnati, OH 45202

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/06 Page: 38 of 38 PAGEID #: 40

Form 2.2 EEOC Charge of Discrimination Form

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

AGENCY CHARGE NUMBER

This fonn is affected by the Privacy Act Of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing this fonn.

OFEPA
lXI EEOC

Ohio Civil Rights Comission
State or local Agency, ifany

~~\· -..oo'...oo 'let 1
and EEOC

NAME (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.,) Mr. AI Washington

HOME TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
(513) 489- 8602

STREET ADDRESS - 11155 Tetwilligers Hill Court

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE Cincinnati, Ohio 45249

DATE OF BIRTH 11104/1953

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO D!SCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one list below)

NAME General Motors Corporation

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
300,000+

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) (800) 762- 2737

STREET ADDRESS 155 Tri-County Parkway

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE Cincinnati, Ohio 45246

COUNTY Hamilton

NAME

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check
appropriate box(es))
fEJ RACE OCOLOR OSEX OREUGION 0 NATIONAL ORIGIN liD RETALIATION liD AGE 0 DISABILITY 0 OTHER (Specify)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

Ill I /1989 fEJ CONTINUING ACTION

II/ 14 /2005

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ifadditional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):
I have been constantly and repeatedly harassed on the basis of my race by my immediate supervisor, Larry Speicher. He has used offensive, racial slurs against me, and subjects me to rules different than those rules applied to my white peers. In addition, despite having won numerous corporate awards over the past six years, I have repeatedly been denied a promotion, while younger, less experienced, white employees have been promoted above me. GM has also retaliated against me for disputing the manner in which my expenses and expense reports are processed.

777777.77777/50299606v. 2

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/28/06 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCES TO THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES
______________________
GENERAL ORDER OF REFERENCE ______________________
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Western Division Rule 1, all civil cases filed at the Cincinnati location of the Court and assigned to Chief Judge Sandra S. Beckwith (except bankruptcy appeals) are hereby ORDERED referred to either Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hogan or Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black, depending upon the case assignment made by the Clerk in the first instance, who are authorized in such cases (1) to rule on all nondispositive pretrial motions, in no event, however, will the Magistrate Judge grant any deadline extension that will impact final pretrial or trial settings, (2) to hear and report to the Court his recommended disposition on all post-trial motions, including applications for attorney’s fees, (3) to serve as a special master for the non-jury trial of all cases in which the parties consent, in which an exceptional condition exists permitting special master trial, or in which special master trial is permitted by statute, and (4) to perform any and all functions authorized for full-time Magistrate Judges by Western Division Rule No. 1. All dispositive motions will be decided by Judge Beckwith without the benefit of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), in any of the above-referenced cases, upon unanimous consent of the parties, Magistrate Judges Hogan or Black may preside at trial and order the final entry of final judgment without further order of reference from the Court. In any case in which the parties so consent, appeal shall be to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, absent express consent that the appeal be to the District Court.
1

Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/28/06 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 46

In each case referred by this Order, this Order shall act as a reference and no further order of reference shall be required. The Clerk shall advise the parties in each such case of this General Order of Reference and of their right to consent to full magistrate judge trial authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Date: March 17, 2005

s/Sandra S. Beckwith Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief Judge United States District Court

2

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-00631-SSB -TSB Doc #: 53 Filed: 09/19/08 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1712

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Al Washington, Plaintiff
v. General Motors Corporation, et al.,
Defendants

Case No. 1:06-cv-631

______________________
ORDER ______________________

The Court having been advised by the parties that the within action has been settled;
It is ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within Thirty (30) days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. The parties may substitute a more particularized Order of Dismissal within this same time frame, should they so desire. The Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement contract for the purpose of its enforcement.

Date: September 19, 2008

s/Sandra S. Beckwith Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief Judge United States District Court

 
 Washington v. General Motors Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 315103 United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio, Western Division.
Al WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:06–cv–631. | Jan. 30, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Michael Lawrence Cioffi, Nathaniel R. Jones, Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.
Michael Samuel Glassman, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, OH, David C. Vogel, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
SANDRA S. BECKWITH, United States District Court Chief Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Doc. no 8. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. no. 14. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Al Washington brings this employment discrimination class action against Defendants General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and GM employees Larry Speicher and Roy Pikus. Plaintiff brings claims for failure to promote and disparate treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; race discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.99; failure to promote on account of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.99; intentional infliction of emotional

distress in violation of Ohio common law; and retaliation based on race and wrongful and discriminatory termination in violation of § 1981, Title VII, and Ohio Rev.Code §§ 4112.01(A), 4112.14, and 4112 .99. Jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Plaintiff also invokes the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Plaintiff avers that venue for this action is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Cincinnati while Plaintiff worked or resided here.
II. Background
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the complaint: GM is a Delaware corporation whose corporate headquarters and principal place of business are located in Detroit, Michigan. GM has manufacturing facilities in 32 countries. Plaintiff is an African–American who is 52 years-old and a resident of Cincinnati. He began to work for GM in 1978. Defendants Speicher and Pikus are white and are residents of Naperville, Illinois. They have worked primarily in Naperville at all relevant times.
Plaintiff’s first job with GM was a Level 5 position in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was twice promoted and achieved a Level 7 employee status. In November of 1989, Plaintiff was transferred to Cincinnati as a Level 7 employee and was named Zone Fleet Manager (a position now known as Fleet Account Executive or “FAE”) for the Pontiac Division. The vast majority of FAE’s had an employee status of Level 8. Beginning in 1989, Plaintiff was assigned the job duties of a Level 8 FAE. Although for more than 16 years he “exceeded the job performance of a Level 8 FAE, winning virtually every GM Fleet Division award possible,” not once during these 16 years was Plaintiff promoted to Level 8. This failure to promote Plaintiff was the result of a pervasive and systemic pattern of racial discrimination within GM.
In 1994, during frequent conversations in 1996 between Plaintiff and his direct supervisor, and in 2000, Plaintiff was assured in response to inquiries about not being promoted that a level increase was coming if Plaintiff would only continue to work hard, be patient, and wait. In 2000 or thereafter, when Plaintiff spoke with the Director of Fleet Operations and his successor about failing to be promoted to Level 8 status, he was told that all FAE’s would be given Level 8 status.
1

Washington v. General Motors Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

*2 In 1998, a white FAE who Plaintiff had been assigned to replace on some larger accounts because of the FAE’s poor communication and customer relation skills was promoted from Level 7 to Level 8. In 1999, although Plaintiff scored higher than all FAE’s across the nation on a product test administered at a national training event, he was not promoted to Level 8. In 2001, Plaintiff was given an award as the FAE who earned the highest percentage of new business in the North Central Region, but he was not promoted to Level 8.
When all FAE’s were required to be tested in order to retain their positions in connection with a corporate consolidation in 2000, Plaintiff was not allowed to take the Level 8 job test, although the vast majority of the other FAE’s were Level 8 employees, Plaintiff was already performing all the duties of a Level 8 FAE, all of the Level 8 FAE’s were white, and Plaintiff had passed his Level 7 test and assessment of skills with ease. In 2002, four new white employees were hired from outside GM, none of whom had either GM or FAE experience, and each of them was immediately given Level 8 job duties.
In 2002, Plaintiff was made the only FAE in the Cincinnati Region. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Pikus and senior management at GM hatched a scheme to take accounts from Plaintiff. The regions were arbitrarily realigned, removing portions from Plaintiff’s region, giving him a much smaller base, and dramatically reducing the number of accounts for which he was responsible. Defendant Pikus then told Plaintiff that in order to be considered for a Level 8 promotion, a “new” GM policy required that an FAE have 3,000 annual sales in his accounts. Although Plaintiff had significantly more than 3,000 annual sales in his accounts prior to the realignment, he had less than that amount after the realignment through no fault of his own. This decision to take accounts from Plaintiff and then announce a new unwritten policy is an example of the pervasive pattern and practice of race discrimination at GM.
In 2003, Plaintiff had another strong year as an FAE and received numerous letters of congratulations from his supervisors and letters of appreciation from several national companies who were his customers, but still he was not promoted to Level 8. In late 2003, he was given an award as the highest achieving FAE in the North Central Region, the highest award possible for an FAE, but he was never promoted to Level 8.
In 2004, GM used another corporate consolidation as a pretext for continuing its pattern and pretext of race discrimination. During this consolidation, two of

Plaintiff’s white peers with less experience and none of the accolades Plaintiff had received were promoted to Level 8, while Plaintiff remained at Level 7.
In January of 2005, Plaintiff attended a GM Regional Conference in Chicago where he met a fellow FAE, who is white, and defendant Speicher, the Regional Commercial Manager for the North Central Region. During this encounter, Speicher disparagingly called Plaintiff “boy” and told him, “We have plans for you, boy. We are going to get after you!” Two days later, Plaintiff reported the incident to his and Speicher’s supervisor, Pikus, who said he had heard about the slur, but Pikus took no action to investigate or remedy the situation.
*3 From that point on, Speicher and Pikus schemed among themselves and with others in GM management to marginalize Plaintiff by demoting him in May of 2005 to a Level 7 Commercial Sales Manager and transferring him to Naperville, Illinois, where Speicher and Pikus became his two immediate supervisors. By transferring him to the Commercial Sales Manager position, Defendants eliminated any possibility for Plaintiff to advance beyond Level 7.
During the consolidation planning in early 2005, Plaintiff learned that the FAE in Minneapolis was retiring and asked to be assigned to that position, which was a Level 8 position. Pikus instead gave the position to a less qualified white male, who had no experience as an FAE. Throughout the consolidation, white employees were treated more favorably than Plaintiff and similarly-situated black employees.
Beginning in June 2005, Speicher and Pikus escalated the plan to “get after” Plaintiff by instituting a
campaign to harass and threaten him on a regular basis. They refused to provide training to Plaintiff and
engaged in a pattern of harassment that created a hostile environment. This harassment culminated in Plaintiff being threatened with termination in October 2005 in retaliation for challenging certain expense report policies that were discriminatorily applied only
to him. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for planning to appeal their decision with respect to expenses through GM’s “Open Door Policy” by giving him a written warning about his job performance. Plaintiff subsequently filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 7, 2005. Defendants received a copy of the charge by fax that same day. Plaintiff
2

Washington v. General Motors Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

was then terminated for filing late expense reports.
GM’s employment practices and systems discriminate against African–Americans and employees over age forty in all divisions below Level 8. These discriminatory practices are intentional and systematic in nature and adversely affect Plaintiff and other members of the class with respect to opportunities for hiring, promotion, transfer, job assignment, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment. Level 7 is a “glass ceiling” for African–American employees and employees over the age of forty.
III. Motion to transfer venue pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3)
Defendants initially move to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). Defendants contend that venue is not proper in this district for Plaintiff’s Title VII claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3) but that venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants further contend that venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois for Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the alleged unlawful conduct occurred in Illinois. Defendants also allege that the Illinois federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
*4 Section 2000e–5(f)(3) governs venue for claims brought under Title VII. That section provides that a Plaintiff may bring a Title VII claim in any judicial district in the State in which (1) “the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed;” (2) the relevant employment records are maintained and administered; or (3) the aggrieved individual “would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice ...”
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) governs venue over a civil action brought under the court’s federal question jurisdiction. Section 1391(b) provides that such an action may be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.”
Defendants assert that the complaint focuses on two alleged adverse actions: (1) Plaintiff’s failure to be promoted since 1989, with Plaintiff identifying 2004 as the last time when less qualified peers were promoted

instead of him; and (2) unwarranted criticisms of his performance by Defendants Speicher and Pikus following his transfer to Illinois in May 2005, which ultimately led to his December 2005 termination. Defendants allege that the events referenced in the complaint that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was employed in Cincinnati are insufficient to confer venue in this Court because the events are time-barred or are otherwise not actionable. Defendants argue that because the last promotion Plaintiff allegedly failed to receive was in 2004, the only unlawful employment practice alleged to have occurred within Title VII’s 300–day statutory limitations period is Plaintiff’s December 7, 2005 termination, which occurred in Naperville.

Plaintiff argues that venue is proper in this district under Title VII. Plaintiff claims that the vast majority of the discriminatory acts against him took place during the 16 years he was employed in GM’s Cincinnati office and while he lived in Cincinnati, which Plaintiff continued to do until he was terminated in December 2005. These acts include Defendants’ use of racial epithets, GM’s continuous failure to promote Plaintiff going back as far as 1993 and continuing to 2005, and Defendants’ continuing discriminatory practices. Plaintiff avers that he was assigned to the Naperville office for only 8 months before his termination, during which time he continued to live in Cincinnati and to work out of his Cincinnati home one day a week. Plaintiff further contends that he would have continued to work in the Cincinnati area in Fleet Operations had Defendants not transferred him in furtherance of their discriminatory purposes.

Plaintiff also disputes Defendants’ contention that the majority of his Title VII claims are time-barred and argues that Defendants’ argument is not properly considered on a motion to transfer venue. By way of limited response, Plaintiff asserts that he may pursue his claims because GM engaged in a continuing violation as part of a longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination against him, and at least one of the discriminatory acts occurred within the 300–day limitations period. Plaintiff argues that his claims therefore fall under the equitable “continuing violation” exception to the 300–day limitations period, pursuant to which “discriminatory incidents which occur beyond the limitations period are actionable where a plaintiff ... challenges not just one incident ... but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period ...” See Burzynski v. Cohen, 264 F.3d 611, 618 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Haithcock v. Frank, 958 F.2d 671, 677 (6th Cir.1992)).1

1

Plaintiff cites Roberts v. N. Amer. Rockwell Corp., 650

F.2d 823, 827–28 (6th Cir.1981) in support of his

3

Washington v. General Motors Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

position, but the Supreme Court has greatly limited the viability of the continuing violation theory since the Sixth Circuit handed down its decision in Roberts. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 02061 (2002). A plaintiff can no longer establish a continuing violation exception by proving that the alleged acts of discrimination occurring prior to the limitations period are sufficiently related to those occurring within the limitations period. See Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 268 (6th Cir.2003). However, a plaintiff can establish the exception by showing that the alleged violations involve “a longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination” and that “some form of intentional discrimination against the class of which plaintiff was a member was the company’s standing operating procedure.” Id. at 268–269.
*5 Plaintiff further argues that venue is proper in this district under § 1391. Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims arose in Cincinnati, where he was employed by GM and where he lived, and the discrimination had its adverse impact upon Plaintiff here. Plaintiff alleges that he was continuously subjected to discriminatory practices during his years in the Cincinnati office, Speicher directed “racial threats” toward Plaintiff while he was still based in the Cincinnati office, Plaintiff’s transfer from the Fleet Operations Division while in the Cincinnati office to Commercial Sales based in the Naperville office was the final part of Defendants’ discriminatory scheme designed to set Plaintiff up for failure, and Plaintiff maintained substantial and continuous professional ties to Cincinnati.
The Court finds upon review of the record before it that the motion for change of venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) is not well-taken. Plaintiff has alleged at least one unlawful discriminatory practice that occurred within 300 days of the date he filed his EEOC charge and which was committed in this district. This was Plaintiff’s alleged demotion in May of 2005 to a Level 7 Commercial Sales Manager and his transfer out of his FAE position in Cincinnati, a move that Plaintiff claims eliminated the possibility of any future advancement beyond Level 7. Not only did this job action occur in Cincinnati, but the employment records relevant to this decision are presumably located in Cincinnati, and Plaintiff may very well have continued to work in Cincinnati but for this alleged discriminatory job action. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that GM had a longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination against African–Americans, he has made class-wide allegations of discrimination, and Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff will be unable to prove his allegations. Plaintiff may therefore be able to establish that the continuing violation exception applies in

this case and to pursue his Title VII claims based on additional discriminatory acts and omissions that occurred in this district.
As to Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims, it appears from the allegations of the complaint that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to those claims occurred in this district. Accordingly, venue is proper in this district for those claims pursuant to § 1391.
IV. Motion for change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Defendants argue that because this action might have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois, the Court may transfer the action to that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) states:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
The decision whether to transfer venue is within the district court’s sound discretion. Midwest Motor Supply Co., Inc. v. Kimball, 761 F.Supp. 1316, 1318 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (Holschuh, J.). The burden to prove that a change of venue should be granted rests with the movant. Id. When considering a § 1404(a) motion, a district court is to “weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2244 (1988). Some of the factors the district court should consider are “the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systematic integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric of “interests of justice.” Id. at 30, 108 S.Ct. at 2244. Other factors to be considered when determining a motion to change venue are: the nature of the suit; where the operative facts occurred; the location of documentary evidence and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; the nature and materiality of testimony to be elicited from witnesses who must be transported; the respective courts’ familiarity with applicable law and the condition of their dockets; and the residences of the parties. Midwest Motor, 761 F. Supp at 1318 (citing Shapiro v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 634 F.Supp. 587, 589 (S.D.Ohio 1986) (Porter, Sr. J.). In addition, a court may consider the parties’ relative financial status. AMF, Inc. v. Computer Automation, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 1335, 1344 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (Rice, J.). The plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be given considerable
4

Washington v. General Motors Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

weight. Midwest Motor, 761 F.Supp. at 1318 (citing Hanning v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 710 F.Supp. 213, 214–15 (S.D.Ohio 1989) (Graham, J.)). In deciding whether a transfer of venue is appropriate, “the balance of convenience, considering all of the relevant factors, should be strongly in favor of a transfer.” Hanning, 710 F.Supp. at 214–15.
*6 Defendants argue that the factors to be considered under § 1404(a) favor transfer of this case to the Northern District of Illinois because Plaintiff worked for a GM facility in Naperville; Plaintiff was discharged for conduct occurring in Naperville; Plaintiff had transferred from Ohio to Illinois at the time he filed his EEOC complaint; the employment records relevant to the alleged unlawful employment practices are located in Naperville; the factual development of Plaintiff’s claims will involve the exploration of alleged acts and omissions occurring in Illinois; the “convenience of the parties” would best be served by transferring the action to the Northern District of Illinois; the convenience of witnesses favors transfer of the case to Illinois since the two individual Defendants and other witnesses to the events leading up to Plaintiff’s discharge live in the Naperville area, the likely witnesses will be other GM employees at the Naperville facility, and GM’s Illinois employees would not be subject to compulsory process in this court; Plaintiff’s claims are a matter of public concern to the citizens of Illinois and not to the citizens of Ohio since the alleged incidents relating to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Naperville; it appears that Plaintiff’s only ties to Ohio are that his attorney is located in Ohio and Plaintiff resides here, but the location of counsel is an improper consideration; and transfer will not prejudice Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that the interests of justice require that this matter be litigated in Ohio. Plaintiff asserts that this district is the venue he chose; the vast majority of Defendants’ discriminatory acts took place and adversely impacted Plaintiff while he worked here; the location of documentary evidence is only a minor consideration since the documents are within GM’s possession and can be easily transported; the inconvenience to the out-of-state witnesses is insubstantial since most, if not all of them, are GM’s own employees whose attendance GM can

compel and finance; Plaintiff is likely to call witnesses located at GM facilities near Cincinnati; Defendants are better able to bear the costs of litigating this matter in Ohio than Plaintiff is able to bear the costs of litigating the matter in Illinois; Cincinnati has a more substantial interest in the outcome of this lawsuit than Naperville does because Plaintiff was adversely affected by Defendants’ actions here in Cincinnati; and transfer would merely shift the burden of traveling to a less convenient forum from Defendants to Plaintiff.
Upon consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court exercises its discretion to deny Defendant’s motion for change of venue pursuant to § 1404(a). The operative facts occurred in both Cincinnati and Naperville; the pertinent records are presumably located in both cities (although this factor is not entitled to a great deal of weight since it should be relatively easy for GM to transport documents from one city to the other); it appears that witnesses are located in Cincinnati, Naperville and elsewhere, and the availability of compulsory process as to GM’s Illinois employees is not a concern since GM can be expected to make its own employees available to testify at trial; the parties’ relative financial status weighs in favor of keeping this case in Ohio; Plaintiff is an Ohio resident and GM allegedly committed unlawful employment practices in Cincinnati, so that Ohio has an interest in the resolution of this dispute; and Plaintiff’s choice of this district as the forum for his lawsuit is entitled to considerable weight. Thus, Defendants have not carried their burden to show that the balance of convenience weighs strongly in favor of a transfer.
V. Conclusion
*7 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 1 of 7
CLOSED,JURY,PROTO
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00631−SSB −TSB

Washington v. General Motors Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Sandra S Beckwith Referred to: Judge Timothy S. Black Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/22/2006 Date Terminated: 09/19/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Al Washington

represented by Michael Lawrence Cioffi Blank Rome LLP 1700 PNC Center 201 E Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−362−8701 Email: cioffi@blankrome.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathaniel R Jones Blank Rome LLP 1700 PNC Center 201 East 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Email: jones−n@blankrome.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas H Stewart Blank Rome LLP 1700 PNC 201 East fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−362−8700 Email: stewart@blankrome.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Madison Huse Blank Rome LLP 201 East Fifth Street 1700 PNC Center Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−362−8706 Fax: 513−362−8773 Email: huse@blankrome.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant General Motors Corporation

represented by Michael Samuel Glassman Dinsmore &Shohl − 1 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−977−8200 Fax: 513−977−8255 Email: michael.glassman@dinslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 2 of 7

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelley I. Ericsson 2345 Grand Blvd Suite 2800 Kansas City, MO 64108 816/292−2000 Fax: 816/292−2001 Email: sericsson@lathropgage.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David C. Vogel Lathrop &Gage 2345 Grand Blvd Suite 2800 Kansas City, MO 64108 816.460.5611 Fax: 816.292.2001 Email: dvogel@lathropgage.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Larry Speicher

represented by Michael Samuel Glassman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelley I. Ericsson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David C. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Roy Pikus

represented by Michael Samuel Glassman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelley I. Ericsson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David C. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/22/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT With Jury Demand filed by Plaintiff Al Washington, against Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, and Roy Pikus. (Filing fee $ 350.) (48BG) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Receipt)(sfe1, ) Modified on 9/27/2006 − To edit docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 09/22/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 3 of 7

09/22/2006 09/22/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/28/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/17/2006
11/07/2006
11/07/2006 11/07/2006
11/08/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006 11/22/2006
11/28/2006
12/11/2006 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 02/27/2007 03/15/2007
03/16/2007

2 Summons Issued as to General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (sfe1, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
Filing fee: $ 350, receipt number 431859 (sfe1, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
Notice of Correction re: 2 Summons Issued TO General Motor Corp. mistakenly kept by clerk. Counsel returned to reissue summons. (eh1, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
3 Summons Issued as to General Motors Corporation. (eh1, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
4 GENERAL ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black signed by Chief Judge Sandra S. Beckwith. (sfe1, ) Modified on 9/28/2006 − To enhance text. (sfe1, ). (Entered: 09/28/2006)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed General Motors Corporation served on 9/30/2006, answer due 10/20/2006. (Huse, William) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed Larry Speicher served on 9/30/2006, answer due 10/20/2006. (Huse, William) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
7 STIPULATION Extending Time Until 11/7/2006 To Answer, Move, or Otherwise Plead To Plaintiff's Complaint by Defendants (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 10/18/2006 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 10/17/2006)
8 MOTION to Change Venue to the USDC for the Northern District of Illinois by Defendants (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 11/7/2006 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 11/07/2006)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendants; No Jury Demand (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 11/7/2006 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 11/07/2006)
10 RESPONSE/Memorandum in Support of 8 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Defendants (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 11/7/2006 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 11/07/2006)
11 NOTICE by Defendant General Motors Corporation Motion For Admission Pro Hac Vice (Glassman, Michael) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
12 Certificate of Good Standing Supporting in re 11 Notice (Other) by Defendant General Motors Corporation. (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 11/24/2006 − To edit text. (sfe1, ). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
Filing fee: $ 50.00, receipt number 432427 (sfe1, ) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
13 ORDER granting motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of atty. Vogel as co−counsel for deft. GMC. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 11/22/06. (mb, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
14 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Plaintiff (Stewart, Thomas) Modified on 11/30/2006 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
15 RESPONSE in Support re 8 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Defendant General Motors Corporation. (Glassman, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
16 ORDER denying 8 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 1/30/07. (mb, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
17 NOTICE of Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 3/15/2007. (jl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by William Madison Huse Plaintiff Al Washington (Huse, William) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
19 RULE 26(f) REPORT filed jointly by Plaintiff Al Washington, Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Huse, William) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 6/15/2007. Discovery due by 11/2/2007. Motions due by 11/30/2007. Final pretrial 5/08 and trial 6/08 before Judge Beckwith. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 3/16/07. (jl1, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 4 of 7

03/20/2007 05/31/2007
06/01/2007 06/01/2007 08/31/2007 10/05/2007 10/10/2007
10/10/2007 02/05/2008 02/13/2008 02/27/2008 02/28/2008
02/28/2008 03/11/2008 03/19/2008 04/04/2008 04/25/2008

03/16/2007)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER: DDL: 11/2/07; Motions due: 11/30/07; Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/6/2008 at 09:00 AM; Trial set for 6/16/2008 at 01:00 PM. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 3/20/07. (mb, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
22 STIPULATION (Joint) For Protective Order by the parties. (Glassman, Michael) Modified on 6/1/2007 − Clerk removed pdf. This document is a proposed stipulated order and should be submitted to chambers via e mail only (tt1, ). (Entered: 05/31/2007)
Notice of Correction re: 22 Stipulation. Clerk removed pdf. This document is a proposed stipulated order and should be submitted to chambers via e mail only. (tt1, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
23 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 6/1/07. (jl1, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
24 NOTICE to take Deposition of Plaintiff on September 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus (Vogel, David) Modified docket text on 9/4/2007 (eh1, ). (Entered: 08/31/2007)
25 Joint MOTION to Continue Calendar Order (doc. 20) by Plaintiff Al Washington, Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Stewart, Thomas) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
26 ORDER granting 25 Motion to Continue Dates as follows: Deadline to amend pleadings and/or add parties: 6/15/07; DDL: 1/31/08; Dispositive Motions due: 3/17/08; Mediation, with Mr. Kaiser, to be scheduled by April 2008. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 10/10/07. (mb) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
27 SCHEDULING ORDER: DDL: 1/31/08; Motions due: 3/17/08; Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 8/8/2008 at 02:00 PM; Trial RESET for 8/25/2008 at 01:00 PM. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 10/10/07. (mb) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
28 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Stewart, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
NOTICE by clerk: A conference on plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order (Doc. 28) is scheduled for Feb. 27, 2008 at 2:00 PM before CJ Beckwith in Room 810. Clients must also be present. (mb) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
Minute Entry: Conference on plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order held before Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith. (Court Reporter MA Ranz (Official).) (mb) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
29 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Continue Dates as follows: DDL: 4/30/08; Pltf's expert reports due: 2/29/08, deft's due: 3/31/08; Motions due: 6/16/08; FPTC: 11/24/08 at 2:00 PM; Trial set for 12/8/08 at 1:00 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 2/28/08. (mb) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
30 NOTICE by clerk confirming new dates set. (mb) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
31 Notice of Mediation Conference: Conference to be held in Room 331, 100 E. Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio on 3/25/2008 at 10:00 AM. (rsk, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
32 NOTICE OF DESIGNATION FOR SETTLEMENT WEEK OF APRIL 28, 2008. Parties to reply by March 31, 2008. Signed by Michael R. Barrett. (mr1, ) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
NOTICE: This case is RELEASED from participation in the April 2008 Settlement Week. (jl1, ) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
33 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Shelley I. Ericsson (Filing fee $ 200) by Defendant General Motors Corporation. (Glassman, Michael) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/13/2008: # 1 Filing Fee Receipt) (mtw1, ). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 5 of 7

05/13/2008 05/13/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/16/2008 05/23/2008
06/03/2008 06/05/2008
06/10/2008 06/11/2008 06/16/2008 06/20/2008

34 NOTICE of Filing Certificate of Good Standing re 33 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Shelley I. Ericsson by Defendant General Motors Corporation ) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (Glassman, Michael) Modified docket text on 5/14/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
Filing fee of $ 200.00, receipt number CIN001899 received re: Doc 33 − Motion for Admission of Shelley I. Ericsson. (mtw1) Modified docket text on 5/14/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
35 ORDER granting 33 Motion for Leave for atty. Shelley Ericsson to Appear Pro Hac Vice as co−counsel for defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 5/15/08. (mb) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
36 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Request for Expedited Hearing, Memorandum In Support and Local Rule 37.2 Certification of Counsel by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Huse, William) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
37 MOTION to Strike 36 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Request for Expedited Hearing, Memorandum In Support and Local Rule 37.2 Certification of Counsel by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. Responses due by 6/5/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Vogel, David) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 37 MOTION to Strike 36 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Request for Expedited Hearing, Memorandum In Support and Local Rule 37.2 Certification of Counsel MOTION to Strike 36 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Request for Expedited Hearing, Memorandum In Support and Local Rule 37.2 Certification of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Huse, William) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
39 Reply to RESPONSE to Motion re 37 MOTION to Strike 36 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7) (Vogel, David) Modified docket text on 6/4/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
40 RESPONSE to Motion re 36 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Request for Expedited Hearing, Memorandum In Support and Local Rule 37.2 Certification of Counsel (Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery) filed by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Vogel, David) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
41 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of of Dispositive Motion Deadline by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. New date requested 6/24/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Vogel, David) Modified docket text on 6/11/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 06/10/2008)
NOTATION ORDER granting 41 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time until 6/24/08 to file dispositive motion. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 6/11/08. (mb) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
42 NOTICE of Hearing: Discovery Hearing set for 6/20/2008 01:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black on all pending discovery motions. Counsel to call 513−564−7260 and remain on the line until the Court joins the conference. (jl1, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black: Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black initiated a hearing by telephone on June 20, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. to address Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (doc. 36) and all responsive memoranda (docs. 37, 38, 39, &40). However, as a result of ongoing settlement discussions between the parties, counsel moved jointly to continue the dispositive motion deadline and the hearing on the discovery disputes until July 2, 2008, which extensions the Court granted. The short extension of the dispositive motion deadline does not impact the date for the final pretrial conference nor the trial date. The hearing on the discovery disputes is hereby continued to July 2, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. Counsel shall timely call 513.564.7260 to participate. (Court Reporter

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 6 of 7

06/23/2008 07/01/2008 07/02/2008 07/03/2008 07/22/2008 07/26/2008 07/29/2008 08/04/2008
08/05/2008

Jodi Perkins.) (jl1, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 7/2/2008. (jl1, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
43 MOTION for Sanctions and Adverse Inference Instructions by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Huse, William) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
44 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. Responses due by 7/28/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Vogel, David) Modified on 7/31/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 07/02/2008)
45 ORDER Denying as moot plaintiff's 36 Motion to Compel; and also denying defendantss 37 Motion to Strike plaintiff's motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black on 7/3/2008. (art, ) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re 43 MOTION for Sanctions and Adverse Inference Instructions filed by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations of O.J. Adkins, Larry Speicher and Roy Pikus) (Vogel, David) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
47 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment New date requested 8/4/2008. by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Stewart, Thomas) (Entered: 07/26/2008)
NOTATION ORDER granting 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time until 8/4/08 to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 7/29/08. (mb) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
48 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Washington Deposition, # 2 Exhibit B − Washington Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit C − GM Salary Policy, # 4 Exhibit D− GM Salary Document, # 5 Exhibit E− Washington Compensation Report, # 6 Exhibit F− Washington 1999 PMP, # 7 Exhibit G − Washington 2000 PMP, # 8 Exhibit H − Washington 2001 PMP, # 9 Exhibit I − Washington 2002 PMP, # 10 Exhibit J − GM 2002 Sales Document, # 11 Exhibit K − Pikus Deposition, # 12 Exhibit L − Achiever's Bonus, # 13 Exhibit M − Customer Praise, # 14 Exhibit N − Speicher Deposition, # 15 Exhibit O − June 2005 Sales Data, # 16 Exhibit P − August 2005 Sales Data, # 17 Exhibit Q − October 13, 2005 Memo, # 18 Exhibit R − Hearn Deposition, # 19 Exhibit S − Expense Reporting Policy, # 20 Exhibit T − November 2005 Sales Data, # 21 Exhibit December 7, 2005 Memorandum, # 22 Exhibit V − Key Elements of FAEs, # 23 Exhibit W − Key Elements of CSM, # 24 Exhibit X − Defendant's Responses to 2nd Interrogatories, # 25 Exhibit Y − GM PMP Policy, # 26 Exhibit Z − Defendants' Response to 1st Interrogatories, # 27 Supplement Unpublished Cited Cases) (Huse, William) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
49 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Al Washington. Responses due by 8/29/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Washington Deposition, # 2 Exhibit B − Washington Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit C − GM Salary Policy, # 4 Exhibit D − GM Salary Document, # 5 Exhibit E − Washington Compensation Report, # 6 Exhibit F − Washington 1999 PMP, # 7 Exhibit G − Washington 2000 PMP, # 8 Exhibit H − Washington 2001 PMP, # 9 Exhibit I − Washington 2002 PMP, # 10 Exhibit J − GM 2002 Sales Document, # 11 Exhibit K − Pikus Deposition, # 12 Exhibit L − Achiever's Bonus, # 13 Exhibit M − Customer Praise, # 14 Exhibit N − Speicher Deposition, # 15 Exhibit O − June 2005 Sales Data, # 16 Exhibit P − August 2005 Sales Data, # 17 Exhibit Q − October 13, 2005 Memo, # 18 Exhibit R − Hearn Deposition, # 19 Exhibit S − Expense Reporting Policy, # 20 Exhibit T − November 2005 Sales Data, # 21 Exhibit U − December 7, 2005 Memorandum, # 22 Exhibit V − Key Elements of FAEs, # 23 Exhibit W − Key Elements of CSMs, # 24 Exhibit X − Defendants' Responses to 2nd Interrogatories, # 25 Exhibit Y − GM PMP Policy, # 26 Exhibit Z − Defendants' Response to 1st Interrogatories, #

Case: 1:06-cv-631 As of: 01/18/2011 02:55 PM EST 7 of 7

08/05/2008
08/05/2008 08/13/2008 08/14/2008 08/28/2008 09/02/2008 09/19/2008

27 Supplement Unpublished Cited Cases) (Cioffi, Michael) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
50 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION for Sanctions and Adverse Inference Instructions filed by Plaintiff Al Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − GM PMP policy, # 2 Errata B − Pikus deposition, # 3 Exhibit C − Speicher deposition, # 4 Exhibit D − Cryer deposition, # 5 Exhibit E − GM Record Retention Schedule, # 6 Exhibit F − Worldwide Basketball unreported opinion, # 7 Exhibit G − Sauer unreported opinion, # 8 Exhibit H − Permasteelisa unreported opinion) (Cioffi, Michael) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
Notice of Correction re: 48 Response in Opposition to Motion included a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk contacted counsel and advised that the document should be filed an additional time as a Motion. Counsel refiled as 49 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (eh1, ) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
51 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment New date requested 8/28/2008. by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. (Vogel, David) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
NOTATION ORDER granting 51 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time until 8/28/08 to File Reply in Support of Motion for S.J. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 8/14/08. (mb) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
52 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of 44 Motion for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to 49 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants General Motors Corporation, Larry Speicher, Roy Pikus. New date requested 09/11/2008. (Vogel, David) Modified docket text on 8/29/2008 (eh1, ). (Entered: 08/28/2008)
NOTATION ORDER granting 52 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time until 9/11/08 to file their reply in support of S.J. and to file their response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for S.J. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 9/2/08. (mb) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
53 ORDER DISMISSING CASE − Case reported settled. Signed by Chief Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 9/19/08. (mb) (Entered: 09/19/2008)