UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION)

)

)

Defendant.

)

/

03-71238
Civil Action No.
Honorable
P/\"TRICI< J. DUGGAN
~co~M"""p,-",IM=A~~~·'\t~" TRATE ,1\ \lV~~ cr;PtSON
.JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of tlle Civil Rights Act of 1964 , Title I of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, to correct unlawful emp1~~ent ~actices on

<''''0 '-'

the basis ofsex and to provide appropriate reliefto Tone Holland, who was ad\@J5§jaffG:ied Gnuch ,

ktY . p,-'

=0 _

'

practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 7, tile Equal En~iV)l('l"'~) enN@pp rtunity ,

-f(':;~ l> I

•

.. Commission alleges that Defendant terminated Holland because she was pregii'afit. ".,."

0·,

-~; x "" .&:'

.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

.c:

1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343,

and 1345. This action is autllOrized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII

oftlle Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Section 102 of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

l

Division. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Electronic Data Systems, Inc., ("EDS"), has continuously been doing business in the State of Michigan, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, EDS has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Holland filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by EDS. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit respecting EDS have been fulfilled. 7. Since June, 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(2) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. These practices include, but are not limited to, selecting Holland for termination as part of a rcduction in force because she was pregnant. 8. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Holland of equal employment opportunities and otherwise affect her status as an employee because
2

of her sex. 9. The unlawful employment practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 above were
intentional. 10. The unlawful employment practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 above were done
with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Holland. II. The effect of the unlawful employment practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 above
caused Holland to experience emotional distress. PRA YER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating against individuals based upon sex and pregnancy. B. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole Holland, by providing appropriate back pay and other affirmative relief to eradicate the effect of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstating Holland to the position of Project Analyst-Advanced at Defendant Employer, restoring her seniority and fringe benefits accordingly, and providing compensation for pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to provide training to its management employees regarding Title Vll's prohibitions against discrimination. D. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole Holland, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of
3

life, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious and/or
reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. GRANT such further relief as the court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest. G. AWARD the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests ajury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
NICHOLAS INZEO Acti ng Deputy General Counsel

Dated: March 28, 2003

Regional Attorney
ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney
TRINA R. MENGESHA (P59458) Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Fcderal Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-4620

4

United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan
Summons in a Civil Action and Return ofService Form

Plalntlff(s) Nama
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Case Number and Judge Aaslgnmenl (to be supplied by the Court) Oefendant(s) Name
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
VS.

Plaintiffs attomey. address and lelephone:
Trina R. Mengesha (P59458) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 865 Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-4620
To the defendant

Name and address of defendant being served:
Electronic Data Systems Corporation
clo The Prentice-Hall Corporation Systems, Inc.
60 I Abbott Road East Lansing, M1 48823

This summons is notification that YOU ARE BEING SUED by the above named plaintiff(s).

I. You are required to serve upon the plaintiffs attorney, name and address above, an answer to the complaint within 20 days after receiving this summons, or take other actions that are permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. You must file the original and one copy of your answer within the time limits specified above with the Clerk of Court.

3.

Failure to answer or take other action permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result

in the issuance of a judgment by default against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

David J. Weaver
Clerk of the Court

By:
Deputy Clerk
INT·0131·MIE·REV. 12/9306/99

Date of issuance
PAGE 1 OF2

RETURN OF SERVICE

A copy ofthe summons and complaint has been served upon the defendant in the manner indicated below: Name ofDcfendant served: Date ofservice:
Method of Service CI Personally served at this address:
CI Left copies at the defendant's usual place ofabode with (name ofperson): At this address:
CI Other (please specifY):

Service fees: Travel $ _ _ _ _ Service $ _ _ _ _ Total $ _ _ __

I declare under the penalty ofperjury that the information contained in this Return ofService is true.

Dille

Signature of server Server's printed flome Server's address

PAGE20F2

 
 <-.

! -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

, '

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 03-71238 I-ION. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
--------------------------~/
OPINION

-:-:-'

'~

,r " I C'"J

,,~
: .. "

t,)

'0

"

~ ..)

i

.I -,

--"

"

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brings this

pregnancy discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Tone Holland, a fonner employee of

Defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS"). Currently before the Court is

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The EEOC has also filed a Motion to Strike

Exhibits 1 and 2 of Defendant's Reply Brief. A hearing was held on November 20, 2003.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff's motion to strike is also denied.

Background

Holland's employment with EDS began in May 1999. In January 2001, herjob code

,..
was Project Analyst-Advanced. This position was the second (after entry level) of seven progressive job code levels within the project management job code family.l From June to November 2001, Holland was part of the Dow Legacy Project Management Team and worked for Andrew Dills. In November 2001, EDS underwent a reorganization and individuals who were part of the Dow Legacy team under Dills were transferred to Lana Rudolph's team, under the umbrella ofBruce Barreras's network engineering organization.
Defendant characterizes Rudolph's team as a "virtual team," meaning that project managers were located throughout the country and team members, including Holland, worked from home.2 Rudolph used monthly status reports, monthly one-on-one calls, and monthly team meetings to communicate with her team members. Holland was never informed of any problems relating to her job performance under either Dills or Rudolph.
'1 (Holland Aff. at 5). Under Rudolph, Holland received a merit salary increase effcctive
April 16, 2002. On April 30, 2002, Holland informed Rudolph that she was pregnant. In early June 2002, EDS announccd its intention to undergo a broad reduction in force
("RIF"). Barreras's network engineering organization was targeted for the RIF. To this end, Barreras provided Rudolph with a Ranking Tool Template that was designed to identify thc employees who would be selected for separation. The Ranking Template included criteria
1 Throughout her employment with EDS, I-rolland performed project management functions which include communicating with clients to determine client needs and coordinating technical resources to complete the project.
2 Holland began working from home in January 2002.
2

, .
such as technical skills, eustomer/industry knowledge, and fiscal responsibility; each criteria was seored from I to 4. It is undisputed that Barreras directed Rudolph to target those employees who laeked technical skills. (See Rudolph Dep. 89-90). Rudolph completed thc template on June 7, 2002, and Holland received a score of"2" on cvery criteria, translating into a rank of second from the last out of28 project managers. The individuals who wcre chosen for reduction were those in the statistical project management role. Rudolph testified during her deposition that Holland, who had a project management role, was not chosen for reduction at this point. Although it appears that the EEOC disputes Defendant's assertion that Holland was not chosen for reduction initially, they have offered no evidence disputing Rudolph's deposition testimony. (See PI.'s Resp. at 21).
Prior to the reduction though and pursuant to another reorganization, in June 2002, Rudolph learned that her team was being transferred to the Implementation Services Group ("IS Group") under Janice Hernandez. Although Hernandez initially thought that her IS Group would not be affected by the RIF, she later learned that she would have to terminate employees from her group. On June 28 or 29,2002, Hernandez directed Rudolph to submit the names ofthe individuals chosen for termination on July 1,2002. In making her decision, Rudolph relied solely on the Ranking Template she completed while her team was still under Barreras's organization. Rudolph informed Holland on July 2, 2002, that she was one oftive selected for termination.3 According to Defendant, Holland was chosen for the reduction
3 Members of the statistical project management group were not targeted for the reduction once transferred to Hernandez's organization. According to Defendant those
3

,..,
"because her position was one that could be eliminated with the least amount of impact to the customer and organization." (Def.'s Br. at 10).
Standard of Review Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the entry of summary judgment when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, togcther with the affidavits, ifany, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." There is no genuine issue of material fact for trial unless, by viewing the evidence in favor of the
nonmoving party, a reasonablejury could return a verdict for that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986).
The non-moving party must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts. Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796,800 (6th Cir.
1994). The nonmoving party must present significant probative evidence in support of its
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Moore v. Phillip Morris Co., Inc., 8 FJd
335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and come forward with specific facts to show that there is a
genuine issue for trial. FED. R. CIY. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324,
106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53 (1986).
individuals "were now valuable assets to Hernandez's project management organization." (Def.' s Br. at 9).
4

"
"
Discussion Defendant believes it is entitled to summary judgment because the EEOC cannot establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination. In the alternative, Defendant asserts that the EEOC cannot prove that its legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Holland's discharge is pretext for pregnancy discrimination. A. Whether PlaintiflHas Established a Prima Facie Case o(Pregnancv Discrimination A prima facie case ofpregnancy discrimination requires a showing by the EEOC that Holland was: 1) pregnant; 2) qualified for her job; and 3) subjected to an adverse employment decision. Cline v. Catholic Diocese o/Toledo, 206 F.3d 651, 658 (6th Cir. 2000). The fourth prong of the prima facie case in a pregnancy discrimination action is a showing of a "nexus between her pregnancy and the adverse employment decision." !d. at 658. One way to establish a nexus between pregnancy and the adverse employment action is to show that other similarly situated non-protected employees were treated better. See Hensley v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., 221 F.3d 1334,2000 WL 799781 (6th Cir. 2000). A plaintiff in a reduction in force case is required, in addition to satisfying the prima/acie case, to produce "additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintifffor discharge for impermissible reasons." Barnes v. Gencorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir. 1990). Defcndant does not dispute that Holland was pregnant, qualified for her job, and subject to an adverse employment action. It is also undisputed that Rudolph was aware of
5

Holland's pregnaney at the time she was chosen for termination. The EEOC has also presented evidence that Holland's performance was rated higher on "EDS Performance Assessments" in 2001 than at least one similarly-situated non-protected employee, Kenneth Jodway, who was not selected for reduction.4
Other circumstantial evidence pointed to by the EEOC is that there were three pregnant women on Rudolph's team at the time of the reduction. There is evidence in the record suggesting that one of the women, Laurie Kischnick, had indicated that she would work a reduced load from home instead of taking maternity leave. (Pl.'s Resp. Ex. F). Kischnick was not chosen for reduction, whereas Holland and the other pregnant woman, Michelle Overton, were chosen for reduction. The prima facie case poses a burden "easily met." Cline, 206 F.3d at 660. The Court is satisfied that viewing the record in a light most favorable to the EEOC, it has established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.
B. Whether PlaintiffHas Demonstrated Pretext
I-laving established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, the burden now shifts to the Defendant to "articulate a 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason' for its actions." Cline, 206 F.3d at 658. Defendant maintains that Holland was included in the workforce reduction because Holland's position "could be eliminated with the least amount of impact to her organization and the customer she served." (Defo's Br. at 1). As stated previously,
4 Whereas Holland was characterized as a "valued contributor" in the 2001 assessment, Jodway's 2001 assessment characterized his performance level as "major development required." (PIo's Br. Ex. E). Being a valued contributor meant that Holland was performing at the same level as 50% of her peers. (Defo's Br. at 3).
6

Rudolph stated at deposition that the only thing she relied on in identifying the individuals
for the reduction in force was the Ranking Template.
At this stage, the EEOC may establish pretext by showing either: 1) that the
proffered reason had no basis in/act; 2) that the proffered reason did not actually motivate
the decision; or 3) that they were insufficient to motivate discharge. Manzer v. Diamond
Shamrock Chemicals Co., 29 F. 3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original). The
EEOC asserts that "[t]he basis for Holland's low template scores are not worthy of belief
and, thus, are pretextual." (PI.'s Resp. at 21). Similarly, although Defendant maintains that
the reduction decisions were not based on performance, the EEOC points out that Rudolph
must have relied, at least to some extent, on employees' past perfonnance in completing the Ranking Template.s In this Court's opinion, this is not an unreasonable conclusion. Based
on Holland's performance, which Rudolph was aware of, the EEOC argues that she "ranked
Holland totally contrary to her recognized performance criteria, which is evidence of
pretext." (PI.'s Resp. at 22).
Holland received a merit salary increase effective April 16, 2002. Holland also stated
~ The Ranking Template includes criteria such as quality of work, productivity, and "contributes to team's success." (See Def.'s Ex. A- Ranking Template). Similarly, the performanee assessment includes criteria such as problem solving, client focus, decision making, and teamwork. In spite of the fact that the criteria appear to overlap, or in some cases, are identical (teamwork), Defendant maintains that "Rudolph did not review or consider prior performance assessment (inasmuch as the ranking template criteria were not criteria utilized in the annual performance assessment process), but rather used her personal observation and involvement with each employee to assess to what extent that employee possessed the identified skills and to what extent that employee was in a position that would meet the identified future needs of the organization." (Def.'s Br. at 5-6).
7

"
'.
during deposition that she had a one-on-one discussion with Rudolph about performance objectives in June 2002. When asked what Rudolph specifically said about the performance objectives, Holland responded, "Well, she said I was hitting my objectives as far as I can recall. It was a very positive assessment, she told me I was doing a great job and to keep it up." (Holland Dep. at 119). As noted in footnote 4 supra, Holland's performance assessment ranking placed her at the same level as 50% ofher pecrs. In spite ofthis positive feedback from Rudolph, Holland was ranked second to last on the Ranking Template in June 2002.
The Ranking Template included 9 criteria: quality of work, productivity, job knowledge, problem resolution, fiscal responsibility, technical skills, customer/industry knowledge, customer focus, and "contributes to team's success." (Def. 's Br. Ex. A). Defendant offers explanations as to why Holland scored a "2" in the following criteria: customer skills, job knowledge and technical skills, and quality of work and fiscal responsibility. First, with respect to customer skills, Defendant asserts that "Rudolph was involved in an escalation initiated by the Dow customer that reached very high management levels within both EDS and Dow and was based on Holland's poor judgment in contacting a vendor of the Dow customer." (Def. 's Br. at 6).6 Second, Holland only received a "2" for job knowledge and technical skills because she was not a former Dow employee, did not have years of experience on the Dow account, and did not possess some of the "more
6 "Escalation" is Defendant's preferred term for "conflict."
8

· .
technical experience that many ofthe others on her team possessed." (/d. at 7). Third, with
regard to quality of work and fiscal responsibility, Holland received a "2" based on
"Rudolph's assessment that Holland did not complete an accurate and tidy spreadsheet in her
role as Asset Coordinator, did not stay within budget constraints when purchasing a printer
for her home office, and did not properly submit her travel authorizations." (/d. at 7).
The EEOC argues that Rudolph's Ranking Template scores had no basis in fact, and
thus were pretextual. In support of this argument, the EEOC points to the deposition
testimony ofI-Iolland wherein she discusses Defendant's rationales:
A: Okay. It says that I was ranked a 2 in the customer skills category because I had gone over budget to buy a printer; and taking a business trip without proper approval; and had been harsh in my communications with customers. And as a result of the harsh tone, Rudolph received complaints from customers about Holland's communication style.
I did not go over budget to buy a printer; I did not take a business trip without obtaining proper approval; and I was notI did not have any harsh communications with customers. Lana Rudolph never spoke to me about any problems- any complaints from customers, any problems with my communication skills. Ms. Rudolph only had good things to say about me and my performance.
Q: You never got any feedback from anybody, from peers or anyone, with regard to your communications with customers?
A: No, not that I recall. I cannot recall anybody ever complaining about my communications with customers.
(Holland Dep. at 241). The fact that Rudolph believed that the escalation warranted a score
of"2" yet never confronted Holland about it, at least raises a question offact as to Holland's
9

.' .
score in that criteria. With respect to customer skills and job knowledge, Holland notcd during deposition
that another team member, Mark Camden, who was "brand new" to the Dow account and whom Holland had assisted by answering questions about the Dow account, received a scorc of"3" in this criteria. (Holland Dep. at 168). With respect to unauthorized travel, Rudolph admitted during deposition that she did not know ifshe even knew ofthe unauthorized travel prior to filling out the template:
Q: When did you find out that she had taken these trips without authorization?
A: I don't recall. Q: Was it before you completed the ranking template? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you know what date she took these trips? A: No, not today, no. (Rudolph Dep. at 150-151). The EEOC also submitted evidence suggesting that Holland should havc received a score greater than "2" for the "contributes to team's success" critcria. Holland submitted ideas to Rudolph meant to improve productivity and efficiency (PI. 's Resp. Ex. D), and Holland assumed dual roles within her team, taking on the position ofasset coordinator. (Holland Dep. at 177). The Court is satisfied that viewing the record in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, there are genuine issues offact with respect to the Ranking Template score, the sole tool used
10

.. •
by Rudolph to identify individuals selected for reduction.7 The fact that Holland was ranked via a performance assessment in 2001 to be pcrforming as well as 50% of her peers, raises some questions with respect to Rudolph's ranking of Holland near last among her team membcrs. Also, as discussed above, there is sufficient evidence in the record to create an issue of fact with respect to the validity of Holland's template scores.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court concludes as a matter oflaw, that the jury could resolve the disputed issues offact in favor ofPlaintiff. Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment must be denied. C. EEOC's Motion to Strike
The EEOC filed a motion to strike exhibits 1 and 2 ofDefendant's reply brief. These exhibits consist of two charts wherein thc Defendant attempts to point out discrepancies between Plaintiff's assertions and the evidence contained in the record. The EEOC argues that these charts violate local rules with rcspect to font size, and that these charts are "additional arguments distinguishing facts in the record, and attempts to make clarifications and distinctions bctween the EEOC's arguments and recorded testimony." (PI. 's Mot. to Strike at 2). Defendant opposes the motion arguing that the charts "do not contain 'additional' argument, but rather, merely compare the EEOC's unfounded assertions and
7 Defendant disagrees that Rudolph relied solely on the template because Rudolph stated at deposition that she also contacted customers "in order to determine whether the potential employees to be separated would cause an adverse impact on the customer, and the customer could veto the selection." (Defo's Rcply Ex. I at 1). Although the ultimate dccision may have been impaetcd by customcr input, it remains undisputed that in identifying the individuals to be chosen for termination initially, Rudolph relied on the template.
II

-. •
misrepresentations with the actual and complete record evidence." (Def.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. to Stike at 2). I-laving reviewed the motion to strike and the response to it, the Court denies EEOC's motion to strike because the Court does not pereeive exhibits 1 and 2 to be additional arguments.
Conclusion Forthe reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The EEOC's motion to strike is also denied. An order consistent with opinion shall issue.
:d? . / Q/)l~11i:M ~ ~ J.1bGGAN HaN. PATlU , K
UNITED STATES DISTlUCT JUDGE
Copies to: Adele Rapport Trina R. Mengesha Martin T. Wymer Brooke Miller I-lice
12

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

CLOSED, JURY_TRIAL, TAC
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-71238-PJD

EEOC v. Elec Data Sys Corp Assigned to: Judge Patrick J Duggan Demand: $0 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Date Filed: 03/28/2003 Date Terminated: 05/04/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Dale R. Price, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-7808 Email: dale.price@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trina R. Mengesha Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-4600 Fax: 313-226-2778 Email: trina.mengesha@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Martin T. Wymer Baker & Hostetler 3200 National City Center 1900 East 9th Street Cleveland, OH 44114-3485 216-621-0200 Email: mwymer@bakerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

Date Filed 03/28/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 05/13/2003 05/20/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003
06/10/2003
07/31/2003
2 of 7

Brooke M. Hice Duvin, Cahn, 1301 E. Ninth Street 20th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 216-696-7600 Fax: 216-696-7600 TERMINATED: 01/26/2004
Sue M. Douglas Duvin, Cahn, 1301 E. Ninth Street 20th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 216-696-7600 Fax: 216-696-7600 TERMINATED: 01/26/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT with jury demand - Receipt # usa (dh) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
2 STATEMENT of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp (lh) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
3 ANSWER by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp to complaint [1-1] with proof of service (lh) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
3 AFFIRMATIVE defenses by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp with proof of service (lh) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
4 NOTICE from the chambers of Judge Duggan setting civil status conference for 2:00 5/28/03 with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
5 AMENDED NOTICE of setting civil status conference for 2:30 6/3/03 with proof of service (kb) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
STATUS conference held - Judge Patrick J. Duggan (mo) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
6 PRETRIAL scheduling order by Judge Patrick J. Duggan - setting deadline for witness list for 7/31/03 , setting deadline for discovery for 8/31/03 , setting deadline for filing motions for 9/15/03 , setting final pretrial conference for 3:15 11/12/03 , setting trailing trial docket for Nov/Dec/03 with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
7 NOTICE of appearance for defendant Elec Data Sys Corp of attorney Martin T Wymer, Susan Marie Douglas and Brooke Miller Hice with proof of service (lh) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
8 WITNESS list by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 07/31/2003)

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

07/31/2003 08/12/2003 09/15/2003 10/02/2003 10/14/2003 10/16/2003
10/22/2003 10/27/2003 10/29/2003 11/04/2003 11/17/2003 11/20/2003
12/29/2003
12/29/2003

9 WITNESS list by plaintiff EEOC with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
10 SUPPLEMENTAL witness list by defendant, with proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
11 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment with brief, attachments, and proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
12 ORDER by Judge Patrick J. Duggan, setting trailing trial docket for November/December 2003 [EOD Date 10/3/03] (ew) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
13 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] with attachments A-G, dep's of Rudolph, Holland, Dills, Hernandez, affidavit of Holland, proof of service (dh) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
14 NOTICE by plaintiff EEOC granting the EEOC a seven page extension for its brief in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment , setting deadline for response to motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] for 10/14/03 with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
15 NOTICE by Judge Duggan's chambers of setting hearing on motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] for 2:00 11/20/03 with proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
16 LETTER by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp, confirming the extension of plaintiff's reply to response to motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] for 10/29/03 (RH) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
17 REPLY by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp to response to motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] with exhibits 1,2 and proof of service. (RH) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
18 MOTION by plaintiff to strike exhibits 1 and 2 of defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment with brief, attachments and proof of service (ew) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
19 BRIEF in opposition by defendant Elec Data Sys Corp to motion to strike exhibits 1 and 2 of defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment by EEOC [18-1] with proof of service (dh) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
MOTION hearing held on motion to strike exhibits 1 and 2 of defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment by EEOC [18-1], motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] - disposition: taken under advisement - Judge Patrick J. Duggan - Court Reporter: Marie Metcalf (mo) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
20 MEMORANDUM opinion and order by Judge Patrick J. Duggan denying motion to strike exhibits 1 and 2 of defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment by EEOC [18-1], denying motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] [EOD Date: 12/30/03], with proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
21 ORDER by Judge Patrick J. Duggan denying motion to strike exhibits 1 and 2 of defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment by EEOC

3 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

01/05/2004 01/15/2004 02/02/2004 03/08/2004 03/08/2004 03/11/2004 03/12/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/17/2004 03/17/2004 03/18/2004 03/18/2004

[18-1], denying motion for summary judgment by Elec Data Sys Corp [11-1] [EOD Date 12/30/03], with proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
22 NOTICE by Judge Duggan's chambers of resetting final pretrial conference for 2:45 1/20/04 with proof of service. (PP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
23 STIPULATION AND ORDER Final Pretrial Conference reset for 3/23/2004 02:00 PM, trial reset for March/April trailing docket before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Signed by Judge Patrick J Duggan. (PPaul, ) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
24 NOTICE by Brooke Miller Hice counsel for Electronic Data Systems Corporation of withdrawal (LSel, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
25 MOTION in Limine regarding the order of presentation of witnesses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
28 EMERGENCY MOTION to take de bene esse deposition by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
29 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Scheer: 28 MOTION Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Patrick J Duggan. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
ORAL MOTION to Take De Bene Esse Deposition by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (VSim, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
Minute Entry -Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2004 re ORAL MOTION to Take De Bene Esse Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: GRANTED (VSim, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
ORAL ORDER granting ORAL Motion to Take De Bene Esse Deposition . Entered by Judge Donald A Scheer. (VSim, ) Modified on 3/23/2004 (VSim, ). (Entered: 03/23/2004)
30 REPLY BRIEF in Support of 28 EMERGENCY MOTION to take Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
31 ORDER granting 28 EMERGENCY MOTION to take deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
32 RESPONSE to 28 EMERGENCY Motion to take deposition filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (NHoll, ) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
33 MOTION to exclude witness or, alternatively, in limine by Electronic Data Systems Corporation ; with exhibits A-D. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(DPer, ) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
34 UNOPPOSED emergency motion to continue trial date until on or after April 5, 2004 based on the physical incapacity of a key witness by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

4 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/25/2004 03/26/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004

35 MOTION in limine regarding Tone Holland's physical ailments by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibit A.(DPer, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
36 MOTION in limine to exclude plaintiff's unopposed and subjective opinion testimony by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibits A-D. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
37 MOTION in limine to exclude the EEOC from offering or using an inadmissable position statement at trial by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibits A-B. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
38 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of withdrawal of 25 Motion in limine regarding the order of presentation of witnesses. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
39 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Patrick J Duggan. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
27 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Jury Trial set for 4/26/2004 09:00 AM before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Voir Dire set for 4/23/2004 09:00AM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MOre, ) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
40 RESPONSE to 33 Motion to exclude witness or, alternatively, in limine filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; with exhibits A-B. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
41 RESPONSE to 37 Motion in liminie to exclude the Commission from offering or using an inadmissable position statement at trial filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; with exhibits. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(DPer, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
42 RESPONSE to 36 Motion in limine to exclude plaintiff's unfounded and subjective opinion testimony filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
43 MOTION in limine to exclude EDS from offering evidence regarding pregnancy and maternity leave by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
44 RESPONSE to 35 Motion in limine regarding Tone Holland's physical ailments filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
45 REPLY to response to 35 Motion in liminie filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
46 REPLY to response to 37 Motion in liminie filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibit A. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
47 REPLY to response to 33 Motion to exclude witness, or alternatively, in limine filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibit A. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
48 REPLY to response to 36 Motion in liminie filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)

5 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

04/09/2004
04/15/2004 04/16/2004
04/19/2004 04/20/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/26/2004
04/27/2004
04/28/2004 04/28/2004
04/29/2004
05/04/2004 05/04/2004 05/04/2004

49 MOTION in limine to exclude defendant from offering inadmissable testimony at trial by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
50 RESPONSE to 49 Motion in limine filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
51 RESPONSE to 43 Motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding pregnancy and maternity leaves filed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation; with exhibit A. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
52 REPLY to response to 43 Motion in liminie filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
53 REPLY to response to 49 Motion in limine filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
Minute Entry -Voir Dire begun on 4/23/2004 before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (Tape #Marie Metcalf) (VSim, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
Minute Entry -Voir Dire concluded on 4/23/2004 before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (VSim, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
54 CONSENT by the parties to allow Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer to preside over jury selection. (DPer, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
Minute Entry -Jury Impaneled before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
Minute Entry -Jury Trial begun on 4/26/2004, Jury Trial held on 4/26/2004 before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Disposition: & continued to 4/27/04@9:00(Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
Minute Entry -Jury Trial held on 4/27/2004 before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Disposition: & continued to 4/28/04@9:00(Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
55 JURY VERDICT FORM.(DPer, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
Minute Entry -Jury Trial held on 4/28/2004 before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Disposition: & continued to 4/29/04@9:00(Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
Minute Entry -Jury Deliberation Held, Jury Trial completed on 4/29/2004, Jury Trial held on 4/29/2004, JURY VERDICT of No Cause before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (Court Reporter Marie Metcalf) (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
56 JUDGMENT in favor of defendant against plaintiff. (CGre, ) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
57 NOTICE Regarding Filing of Deposition of Juanita Hernandez (JGilb, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
58 DEPOSITION of Juanita Hernandez taken on April 1, 2004. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation # 2 Document Continuation)(JGilb, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

6 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?841896095055392-L_3...

05/04/2004 05/04/2004 06/07/2004 06/22/2004

59 NOTICE Regarding Filing of Deposition of Tena Bracy (JGilb, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
60 DEPOSITION of Tena Bracy taken on March 18, 2004. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(JGilb, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
61 BILL OF COSTS by Electronic Data Systems Corporation. (DPer, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
62 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 3,704.05 against plaintiff. (LBeh, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/07/2007 10:23:35

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:03-cv-71238-PJD

Billable Pages:

4

Cost: 0.32

7 of 7

6/7/2007 9:21 AM