IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DMSION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

JEWEL ~OOD STORES, INC. and ALBERTS,~ON,S, INC.,

¯ :,. ~i. :~ ¯
¯ : ~,.
:: :

Defendants.

) COMPLAINT ) JURY TRIAL DE .M~ ~ ~
)

...... ~S ~s.~ ~fion ,dcr Title ~ of~ Ci~l m~ Act of 19~.. ~~ 42 ~S.~[ 2000e ~ ~(?Title VW’), ~d Title I of~e .... ...~ co~ct ~a~ emplo~ent p~cti~s on ~e b~is of sex ~d ~, ~d ~ pin.de ~p~p~

relief to a cI~s of employ~s who were ~ve~ly ~ted ~y s~h .. ~:.. :.
U~ted S~te~ ~ Emplo~em Op~~

~t Defen~is Jewel Fe~d St~s, ~e. ("Jewel’)

~.~?~ ~
("~~"~ ~d a cl~s of fem~e employees by subj~g ~em ~ ~.~t ~. of~ek
sex, ~e C0~ssion Nleges ~t ~ a ~s~t of~¢ sex~ ~smcnt of Power,
i:
of her emplo~nt were rome s~ im~lerable C~ssien~’~S~ ~leges ~t Defen~ ~se~in~
empl~yee~ by~N~t~g ~em m ~sment

~ .: .~ ~ ¯

~RISDI _CT!ON AND VENUE

I. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant ~ Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and 0), and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §I981a.

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

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for th¢ Northern District of

Illinois, Eastera Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity 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 Sections 706(0(1) and (3) of Title

VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(0(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Jewel has continuously been and is now doing

business in the State of Illinois and the City of Orland Park, and has continuously had at least

fifteen (15) employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Albertson’s has continuously beoa and is now

doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Ofland Park, and has continuously had at

least fifteen (15) employees.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant .lewd has continuously beca an employer

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and Ca) of

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000eCo), (g) and Ca).

2

7. At all relevant times, Defendant Albertson’s has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701ca), (g) and Ca) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C..§ 2000eCo), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Powell, Kroner and Thurman filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants Jewel and Albert.son’s. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at~ least 2001, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their store in Orland ParL Illinois, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VIL 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Such unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to: subjecting Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex; subjecting Powell:, Thurman and a class of employees to harassment because of their race, African American; andconsmicdvely discharging Powell. ¯ 10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above has been to deprive Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class of female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 11. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above has been to deprive Powell, Thurman and a class of African American employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) were and are intentional. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above

were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class of employees.
PRAYER.FO, R REI~II~F WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Jewel, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active oncert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or race; B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Albert.son’s, its ofticets, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or race; C. Order Defendant Jewel to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendant Albertson’s to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawftd employment practices; E, Order Defendant Jewel to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportuaities for African Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; F. Order Defendant Albertson’s to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
4

G. Order Defendant Jewel to make whole Powdl by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at triM, and other afftrmative relief necessary to eradicate the ffccts of its unlawful employment practices;
H. Order Defendant Albertson’s to make whole Power by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affmnafive relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its uulav, aSal employment practices;
I. Order Defendant Jewel to make whole Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the un/awful, employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at ixial;
J.. Order Defendant Albertson’s to make whole Powcll, Kroner, Thurman and a class of femal~ employees by providing compensation for past and future pectmiary losses resulting from the!urdawfid employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
: K. . Order Defendant Jewel to make whole Powell, Thurman and a class of African American employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the .~mlawfifl employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
L.! ~:: Order Defendant Albertson’s to make whole Powell, The’man and a cla~ of African~e~ean employees by providing compensation for past and future peeuaiary losses resulting fro~ithe unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined
Mi~’~ ii Order Defendant Jewel to make whole Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class of
~. ,
female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pai~, suffering, inconveNenee, loss of enjoyment of life and h~filiafio~, in amounts

to be determined a~itrial; N. ! 6rd~rDefendant Aibertson’s to make whole Powell, Kroner, Thurman and a class
of female employ~i by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emo~dna! pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be dete~’~ed at trial;
~ ~:’..: ¯ ::: ,.
O. i Ord~ Defendant Jewel to make whole Powell, Thurman and a class of African American employe¢~ by providing compensation for past and furore non-pecuniary losses, including emofii~ ~ain~ suffering, inconvenienc, lO~s of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be det~~ at trial;
P. ~rd~ Defendant Albert.~n’s to make whole Powell, Thurman and a elm of African Ameri~ e~ployees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary
humiliation, in ~m~ount~ to be determined at trial; Q. OrderiDefendan~ Jewel to pay Powell, I~ner, Thurman and a ¢1~
employees punitive ~ages for its malicious and/or reeldess ~ndue~ deserit~l above, in amounts to be dete~ined ~t.tri ;
R. Orde~ Defendant Alber~son~s to pay Powell, I~oner, Th~man and a chss female employ~s p~tive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be deten~ned at trial;
S. .Or.d~i ~efendant Jewel to pay Powell, Thurman and ,, cla~ of Aliic~ ~eric~ employees pun~e ~agesfor its malicious and/or reckless conduct deseriM alive, in amounts to be d~e~ed at trial;

T. Order Defendant Albertson’s to pay Powell, Thurman and a class of African American employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
V. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fa~t raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE
Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

/

Re.~onal Attorney

7

Supervisory Trial Attorney
~ R. D~mp
THal Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7526
8

Civil Cover Shoot

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Cover Sheet 0 4 9
This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil d~cket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or o_th_ef~l~as required
JUDGE by law. This form is authorized for use on_~X in the Northern District oflilinois.

Plaintiff(s): EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
County of Residence:

Defendant(s):JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC. and ALBERTSON’S, INC.,
County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty: Aaron R. DeCamp

Defendant’s Arty: I~OlSI-I~gE KIDGE ScHENKIER

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661

312-353-7582

II. Basis of Jttrisdictio_a_n: 1. U.S. Gov’t Plaintiff

III. Citizenship of Princip_al Partie~ (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

IV. Orig~ :

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action: .

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the

basis of sex and race.

~est_ed in Complaint

Class Action: Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case ~ a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Si~gnature:

r~

http ://www.iind.uscourts: gov/PUBLIC/Forms/auto_j s44.c fm

12/16/2004

vf r.D STATrS DISTRICT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In the Matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")

[~E~ 1 7 ~004

Jewel Food Stores, Inc. aM Albcrtson’s Inc.

0~0 ~~~
Case Number:

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

Plaintiff, EEOC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHENIUER

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 ClTY/$TAI’EfZIP Chicago, IL 60661

EEOC ,, ~.~’r,,~ 500 W. Madison, Sui .~.800~ c~,mz~ Clficago, IL 60661

ra~.o~ ~-oma (312) 353-8551

n~a°~’~ (312) 353-7526

~anc~noNstn~ats~rr~(o.~v~ A.R.D.C. NO. 1187583 ~,~¢r~,c~o~,.,ma~o~ ~ ~.~D~ 06~130

(c)
SIGNA~UKg
Aaron DeCamp EEOC ~.~T,~O~SS 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60661 ~=.0,o~ ~,~ (312) 353-8561 v,n~e~no. ~ ~ r~ ~ o~ ~ A.R.D.C. No. 06282725

~^~
;SIGNATED AS LOCAL

~ X ~o []

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

Case No. 04C 8139

)

)

)

Judge Gottschall

)

Magistrate Judge Schcnkier

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION I. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this action alleging that Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. ("Jewel" or "Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et~. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981a, by subjecting Charging Parties Priscilla Powell, Kathy Thurman and Laura Kroner, and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex. The Complaint further alleges that Defendant violated Title VII by subjecting Powell, Thurman and a class of employees to harassment because of their race, African American. Lastly, the Complaint alleges that as a result of the sexual harassment of Powell, the conditions of her employment were made so intolerable that she was forced to resign her position. 2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by EEOC.

FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of EEOC, Jewel, the class members and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the class members, and the public.
d. This Decree shall not constitute an admission by any party as to the claims and/or defenses of any other party.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION
4. In all matters arising from or relating to employment, Jewel, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns are permanently enjoined from: (a) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex; (b) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race; (c) engaging in or be a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of sexually harassing any female employee or racially harassing any African American employee; (d) creating, facilitating.
2

or tolerating the existence of a work environment that is sexually hostile to female employees or racially hostile to African American employees.
5. Jewel, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. Jewel shall pay monetary damages totaling two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to Priscilla Powell, Kathy Thurman, Laura Kroner and Myrna Davis (collectively, "Class Members"). The division among the Class Members is as follows:

Priscilla Powell Kathy Thurman Laura Kroner Myrna Davis

$60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $20,000

The payments made to the Class Members represent monetary payment for their alleged compensatory damages, and not back and/or front pay. Jewel shall issue to the Class Members an I.R.S. Form 1099 relating to the payments described in this Paragraph 6. The Class Members shall each be responsible for paying any taxes, interest, penalties, or other amounts due on the payment being made to her as set forth above.
7. EEOC will mail a copy of the Release Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to each Class Member. Each Class Member must execute and return a release agreement to

3

EEOC. EEOC will send to Jewel the original executed release agreements it receives from the

Class Members.

8.

Within ten (10) business days after receipt by Defendant ofa signed Release

Agreement, Jewel shall issue and mail by certified mail to each Class Member a cashier's check

in the amount set forth above in Paragraph 6. EEOC shall provide Defendant with the current

address for each Class Member. Defendant will also send a copy of each check to EEOC.

POSTING OF NOTICE

9. Within ten (10) business days following entry of this Decree, Jewel shall post

copies of the Notice (attached hereto as Exhibit 8) to this Decree at Jewel's store located at 9350 W. 159th Street, Orland Park, Illinois (the "Orland Park Store") as well as Jewel's store located at

1202 State Street, Lemont, Illinois (the "Lemont Store"). t Jewel shall post this Notice on the

bulletin boards usually used by Jewel for communicating with its employees. The Notice shall

remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Jewel shall take all

reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other

material. Jewel shall certify to EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the

Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Jewel shall permit a representative of EEOC to

enter Jewel's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time

during normal business hours without prior notice.

I All references in this document to the Orland Park store refer to the store located at 9350 W. 159th Street, Orland Park, Illinois, and only to that store in Orland Park. All references in this document to the Lemont store refer to the store located at 1202 State Street, Lemont, Illinois, and only to that store.
4

RECORD KEEPING 10. During the duration of this Decree, Jewel shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by EEOC records (including names, social security numbers, addresses, and last known telephone numbers) of each employee or applicant who makes a complaint (formal or informal) of sex and/or race harassment at the Orland Park Store. Such records shall include the name of the complainant, the date of the report or complaint, what was alleged, the name(s) of any witnesses, what actions, if any, Jewel took to resolve the complaint, and the resolution of the report or complaint. II. During the duration of this Decree, Jewel shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10 above available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after EEOC so requests. In addition, Jewel shall require personnel within its employ whom EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate with EEOC and to be interviewed.
REPORTING 12. Jewel shall furnish to EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-three (23) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: (a) A summary of the information recorded by Jewel pursuant to Paragraph 10; (b) A certification by Jewel that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 9, remained posted during the entire six (6)-month period (or five (5)-month period for the last report) preceding the report.
5

(c) A certification by Jewel that the training required in paragraphs 13(b) has taken place in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph.
TRAINING 13. (a) During each of the two (2) years covered by this decree, all of Jewel's employees at its Orland Park store shall participate in a training session approved by EEOC regarding race and sex harassment, retaliation, and Jewel's policies regarding such discrimination. The first training shall take place within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree. The training session will be presented either by one of Jewel's Labor Relations Attorneys, or by a member of Jewel's Human Resources department who has been approved by the EEOC. Any Jewel Labor Relations Attorney that presents the training shall have prior experience in employment discrimination law. Prior to approval, Jewel must submit to EEOC the credentials of any proposed non-lawyer trainer and all materials proposed to be used and/or distributed in connection with the proposed training.
(b) In addition to the requirements in Paragraph 13(a), during each of the two (2) years covered by this decree, all current management-level employees who are physically located at2 , and all current management-level human resources and loss prevention employees who are assigned responsibility for, Jewel's Orland Park and/or Lemont stores, shall complete the Courtesy, Dignity and Respect II (CDR II) training program. During the two (2) year period covered by this Decree, all newly hired management level employees who are physically located at, and all newly-hired management-level human resources and loss prevention employees who arc assigned responsibility for, Jewel's Orland Park and/or Lemont stores, shall complete the CDR II training program within thirty (30) days of starting work.
2 A list containing the titles of the management-level employees will be provided to EEOC. 6

14. Jewel shall certify to EEOC in writing, within ten (10) business days after the training referenced in Paragraph 13(a) has occurred, that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance.
15. Jewel shall also provide EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written material(s) provided to the participants of the training session(s).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 16. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days. the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 17. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, any disputes under Paragraph 16 above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
7

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 18. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees and costs. 19. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors of Jewel. 20. Ifany provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect. 21. When this Decree requires the submission by Jewel of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Jewel Title VII Settlement, c/o Aaron DeCamp, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to Jewel, they shall be mailed to: Mary Margaret Moore, Bryan Cave LLP, 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300, Chicago, Illinois, 60601.
8

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 180 I L Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20507

For JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC. Bryan Cave LLP, LLC 161 N. Clark, Suite 4300 Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7582

sl Mary Margaret Moore MARY MARGARET MOORE, ESQ.

sl John C. Hendrickson JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney

sl Diane I. Smason DIANE I. SMASON Supervisory Trial Attorney

sl Aaron R. DeCamp AARON R. DECAMP Trial Attorney

U ited States District Judge 9

EXHIBIT A
10

RELEASE AGREEMENT I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, in consideration for $_ _ _ _ paid to me by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. ("Jewel"), in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139 (N.D. 111.), I waive my right to recover for any claims of sexual harassment and/or racial harassment and/or [constructive discharge for Priscilla Powell] under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U .S.C. § 1981 a, that I had against Jewel Food Stores, Inc. prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139.

Date

Signature

II

EXHIBITB
12

NOTICE TO ALL JEWEL EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Jewel.
In its suit, EEOC alleged that Jewel discriminated against female and African American employees by subjecting them to a sexually and racially hostile work environment and constructively discharging one of them.
To resolve the case, Jewel and EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, that:
I) Jewel will make a monetary payment to the individuals who participated in the case;
2) Jewel is enjoined from discriminating against women on the basis of sex and from subjecting women to sexual harassment;
3) Jewel is enjoined from discriminating against African Americans on the basis of race and from subjecting African Americans to racial harassment;
4) Jewel is enjoined from retaliating against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VI1, filed an Title VI1 charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VI1 proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and
5) Jewel will provide training to employees regarding sexual and racial harassment, retaliation, and Jewel's policies regarding such discrimination.
EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact EEOC at (312) 353-2713. EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Jewel Title VII ttlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.
u ge Joan B. Gottschall United States District Court
13

 
 Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

Case No. 04C 8139

)

)

)

Judge Gottschall

)

Magistrate Judge Schcnkier

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION I. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this action alleging that Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. ("Jewel" or "Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et~. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981a, by subjecting Charging Parties Priscilla Powell, Kathy Thurman and Laura Kroner, and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex. The Complaint further alleges that Defendant violated Title VII by subjecting Powell, Thurman and a class of employees to harassment because of their race, African American. Lastly, the Complaint alleges that as a result of the sexual harassment of Powell, the conditions of her employment were made so intolerable that she was forced to resign her position. 2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by EEOC.

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 13
FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of EEOC, Jewel, the class members and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the class members, and the public.
d. This Decree shall not constitute an admission by any party as to the claims and/or defenses of any other party.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION
4. In all matters arising from or relating to employment, Jewel, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns are permanently enjoined from: (a) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex; (b) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race; (c) engaging in or be a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of sexually harassing any female employee or racially harassing any African American employee; (d) creating, facilitating.
2

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 13

or tolerating the existence of a work environment that is sexually hostile to female employees or racially hostile to African American employees.
5. Jewel, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. Jewel shall pay monetary damages totaling two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to Priscilla Powell, Kathy Thurman, Laura Kroner and Myrna Davis (collectively, "Class Members"). The division among the Class Members is as follows:

Priscilla Powell Kathy Thurman Laura Kroner Myrna Davis

$60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $20,000

The payments made to the Class Members represent monetary payment for their alleged compensatory damages, and not back and/or front pay. Jewel shall issue to the Class Members an I.R.S. Form 1099 relating to the payments described in this Paragraph 6. The Class Members shall each be responsible for paying any taxes, interest, penalties, or other amounts due on the payment being made to her as set forth above.
7. EEOC will mail a copy of the Release Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to each Class Member. Each Class Member must execute and return a release agreement to

3

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 13

EEOC. EEOC will send to Jewel the original executed release agreements it receives from the

Class Members.

8.

Within ten (10) business days after receipt by Defendant ofa signed Release

Agreement, Jewel shall issue and mail by certified mail to each Class Member a cashier's check

in the amount set forth above in Paragraph 6. EEOC shall provide Defendant with the current

address for each Class Member. Defendant will also send a copy of each check to EEOC.

POSTING OF NOTICE

9. Within ten (10) business days following entry of this Decree, Jewel shall post

copies of the Notice (attached hereto as Exhibit 8) to this Decree at Jewel's store located at 9350 W. 159th Street, Orland Park, Illinois (the "Orland Park Store") as well as Jewel's store located at

1202 State Street, Lemont, Illinois (the "Lemont Store"). t Jewel shall post this Notice on the

bulletin boards usually used by Jewel for communicating with its employees. The Notice shall

remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Jewel shall take all

reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other

material. Jewel shall certify to EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the

Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Jewel shall permit a representative of EEOC to

enter Jewel's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time

during normal business hours without prior notice.

I All references in this document to the Orland Park store refer to the store located at 9350 W. 159th Street, Orland Park, Illinois, and only to that store in Orland Park. All references in this document to the Lemont store refer to the store located at 1202 State Street, Lemont, Illinois, and only to that store.
4

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 13
RECORD KEEPING 10. During the duration of this Decree, Jewel shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by EEOC records (including names, social security numbers, addresses, and last known telephone numbers) of each employee or applicant who makes a complaint (formal or informal) of sex and/or race harassment at the Orland Park Store. Such records shall include the name of the complainant, the date of the report or complaint, what was alleged, the name(s) of any witnesses, what actions, if any, Jewel took to resolve the complaint, and the resolution of the report or complaint. II. During the duration of this Decree, Jewel shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10 above available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after EEOC so requests. In addition, Jewel shall require personnel within its employ whom EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate with EEOC and to be interviewed.
REPORTING 12. Jewel shall furnish to EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-three (23) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: (a) A summary of the information recorded by Jewel pursuant to Paragraph 10; (b) A certification by Jewel that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 9, remained posted during the entire six (6)-month period (or five (5)-month period for the last report) preceding the report.
5

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 13
(c) A certification by Jewel that the training required in paragraphs 13(b) has taken place in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph.
TRAINING 13. (a) During each of the two (2) years covered by this decree, all of Jewel's employees at its Orland Park store shall participate in a training session approved by EEOC regarding race and sex harassment, retaliation, and Jewel's policies regarding such discrimination. The first training shall take place within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree. The training session will be presented either by one of Jewel's Labor Relations Attorneys, or by a member of Jewel's Human Resources department who has been approved by the EEOC. Any Jewel Labor Relations Attorney that presents the training shall have prior experience in employment discrimination law. Prior to approval, Jewel must submit to EEOC the credentials of any proposed non-lawyer trainer and all materials proposed to be used and/or distributed in connection with the proposed training.
(b) In addition to the requirements in Paragraph 13(a), during each of the two (2) years covered by this decree, all current management-level employees who are physically located at2 , and all current management-level human resources and loss prevention employees who are assigned responsibility for, Jewel's Orland Park and/or Lemont stores, shall complete the Courtesy, Dignity and Respect II (CDR II) training program. During the two (2) year period covered by this Decree, all newly hired management level employees who are physically located at, and all newly-hired management-level human resources and loss prevention employees who arc assigned responsibility for, Jewel's Orland Park and/or Lemont stores, shall complete the CDR II training program within thirty (30) days of starting work.
2 A list containing the titles of the management-level employees will be provided to EEOC. 6

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 13
14. Jewel shall certify to EEOC in writing, within ten (10) business days after the training referenced in Paragraph 13(a) has occurred, that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance.
15. Jewel shall also provide EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written material(s) provided to the participants of the training session(s).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 16. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days. the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 17. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, any disputes under Paragraph 16 above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
7

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 13
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 18. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees and costs. 19. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors of Jewel. 20. Ifany provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect. 21. When this Decree requires the submission by Jewel of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Jewel Title VII Settlement, c/o Aaron DeCamp, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to Jewel, they shall be mailed to: Mary Margaret Moore, Bryan Cave LLP, 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300, Chicago, Illinois, 60601.
8

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 13

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 180 I L Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20507

For JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC. Bryan Cave LLP, LLC 161 N. Clark, Suite 4300 Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7582

sl Mary Margaret Moore MARY MARGARET MOORE, ESQ.

sl John C. Hendrickson JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney

sl Diane I. Smason DIANE I. SMASON Supervisory Trial Attorney

sl Aaron R. DeCamp AARON R. DECAMP Trial Attorney

U ited States District Judge 9

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT A
10

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 13
RELEASE AGREEMENT I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, in consideration for $_ _ _ _ paid to me by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. ("Jewel"), in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139 (N.D. 111.), I waive my right to recover for any claims of sexual harassment and/or racial harassment and/or [constructive discharge for Priscilla Powell] under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U .S.C. § 1981 a, that I had against Jewel Food Stores, Inc. prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139.

Date

Signature

II

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 13
EXHIBITB
12

Case 1:04-cv-08139 Document 147 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 13
NOTICE TO ALL JEWEL EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 04 C 8139, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Jewel.
In its suit, EEOC alleged that Jewel discriminated against female and African American employees by subjecting them to a sexually and racially hostile work environment and constructively discharging one of them.
To resolve the case, Jewel and EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, that:
I) Jewel will make a monetary payment to the individuals who participated in the case;
2) Jewel is enjoined from discriminating against women on the basis of sex and from subjecting women to sexual harassment;
3) Jewel is enjoined from discriminating against African Americans on the basis of race and from subjecting African Americans to racial harassment;
4) Jewel is enjoined from retaliating against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VI1, filed an Title VI1 charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VI1 proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and
5) Jewel will provide training to employees regarding sexual and racial harassment, retaliation, and Jewel's policies regarding such discrimination.
EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact EEOC at (312) 353-2713. EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Jewel Title VII ttlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.
u ge Joan B. Gottschall United States District Court
13

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343 (2005)

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court,
N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC., Defendant.
No. 04 C 8139. | Sept. 13, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*345 John C. Hendrickson, Aaron R. Decamp, Diane Ilene Smason, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Mary M. Moore, Christy Elenbaas Phanthavong, William J. Wortel, Bryan Cave, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SCHENKIER, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has filed a motion to compel defendant, Jewel Food Stores, Inc., to respond fully to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Numbers 5, 6 and 9 (doc. # 39). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion to compel.
I.
We begin by setting forth the interrogatories in dispute. Interrogatory No. 5 states as follows:
Identify each communication (oral or written) (see Definition No. 5)1 since April 1, 2001, Defendant has had with any person concerning any alleged discrimination or harassment of any employee of Defendant at its Orland Park Store. Fully describe the action (including investigation or disciplinary action), if any, taken by Defendant resulting from the communication, the date(s) of the action, and identify all documents relating thereto.

1

Definition No. 5 provides that “identify” when used in

regard to a communication includes providing the

substance of the communication.

Interrogatory No. 6 states as follows:

Identify each person who may have knowledge or information supporting or relating to any of the allegations, claims or defenses asserted in this case and for each person describe in detail what knowledge or information each person is believed to have.

Interrogatory No. 9 states as follows:

Identify ... each person from whom Defendant has obtained a statement, affidavit or the like, written or otherwise, concerning any act, circumstance or event related to any claims or defenses in this case and for each such statement provide the substance of the statement and identify the custodian thereof.

In responding to these (and other) discovery requests, Jewel has disclosed interviews of persons conducted by Jewel’s Human Resources personnel concerning the allegations of sexual and racial harassment set forth in the EEOC complaint, as well as information obtained in those interviews. However, Jewel has withheld the names of the persons who have been interviewed by Jewel’s counsel (rather than by Human Resources personnel) in connection with the allegations in this case, and has failed to disclose the information that those persons possess concerning *346 the allegations in the case. In its motion to compel, the EEOC asks for an order compelling Jewel “to comply fully with Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, and 9 by identifying the individuals whom it has interviewed and providing the facts it obtained from them” ( EEOC’s Motion at 9).2

2

We view this as the only remaining issue raised by the

EEOC’s motion. Although the motion originally

complained that Jewel had not fully identified a person

described as “Cindy L/N/U” or provided contact

information for her (EEOC’s Motion at 3), Jewel states

that it has since provided that information (Jewel’s

Mem. at 6 n. 5), and the EEOC does not address the

point further in its reply.

1

E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343 (2005)
Although Jewel raises a number of objections to the interrogatories, the core objection by Jewel is that disclosure of that information would invade the work product of Jewel’s counsel. We reject Jewel’s objections to disclosure.
A.
[1] [2] Because we consider the work product issue to be the most significant objection raised by Jewel, we start our discussion by addressing that issue. The attorney work product doctrine provides protection for materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, sheltering “the mental processes of the attorney, [and] providing a privileged area within which [s/]he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). Thus, opinions formed by the attorney as part of the mental process of analyzing a case are protected from disclosure. See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).
[3] [4] However, the work product doctrine, which “provides an exception to the otherwise liberal discovery rules,” Beneficial Franchise Co. v. Bank One, N.A., 205 F.R.D. 212, 215 (N.D.Ill.2001), does not protect factual information that a lawyer obtains when investigating a case:
[i]t is settled law... that the work product concept furnishe[s] no shield against discovery, by interrogatories or by deposition, of the facts that the adverse party’s lawyer has learned, or the persons from whom he has learned such facts, or the existence or nonexistence of documents, even though the documents themselves may not be subject to discovery.
Board of Edu. of Evanston, Twnsp. High Sch. Dist. No. 202 v. Admiral Heating and Ventilating, Inc., et al., 104 F.R.D. 23, 32 (N.D.Ill.1984) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2023, at 194 & n. 16 (1970)). In other words, “a party may properly ‘inquire into the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts,’ ” but “the party may not do so in a fashion that effectively infringes upon the opposing attorney’s preparation of [the] case for trial.” Admiral Heating, 104 F.R.D. at 32.
[5] In this case, the EEOC’s interrogatories fall on the side of seeking permissible factual information, and not

impermissibly seeking mental impressions. Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6 and 9 (albeit in different and somewhat overlapping ways) ask only for factual information: the identities of persons who have information or who have made statements relating to the claims or defenses in the case, the substance of the information they possess, and the statements they have made. The interrogatories do not ask Jewel to disclose what particular questions its attorneys asked during any interviews, or anything about its counsel’s analysis of the witnesses or the factual information they provided (or did not provide). Nor do the interrogatories ask Jewel to categorize what information might be helpful or harmful to the claims or defenses of the parties. They simply ask for information “concerning (Interrogatory No. 5), supporting or relating to” (Interrogatory No. 6) (emphasis added), or “related to” (Interrogatory No. 9) the allegations, claims or defenses. That kind of factual information is routinely sought in discovery, and may not be withheld from production on the basis of work product.
Jewel argues that it should not be required to answer the interrogatories, because it cannot “separate the underlying facts from counsel’s mental processes, impressions and strategies” (Def.’s Mem. at 6). That is a make- *347 weight argument. Competent counsel routinely obtain information through interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents, and are able to provide interrogatory responses that set forth only that factual information without revealing “mental processes, impressions and strategies.” We expect Jewel’s counsel to be able to do so as well.
Jewel further argues that merely disclosing whom its attorneys interviewed will invade the attorneys’ mental processes, by revealing the persons whom Jewel’s attorneys deemed important enough to interview (Jewel’s Mem. at 7). However, we think that the fact that Jewel (or its counsel) has talked to certain persons who are potential witnesses, without more, reveals little or nothing about which witnesses Jewel considers important. We note that a substantial body of case law holds that the work product doctrine does not protect from production documents that attorneys obtain from third parties during their investigation in connection with a lawsuit. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated October 22, 1991 and November 1, 1991, 959 F.2d 1158, 1166 (2d Cir.1992); Bohannon v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 127 F.R.D. 536, 539-41 (D.Kan.1989). The reasoning of these cases is that the mere assembly of documents, without more, does not indicate that the attorney placed special weight on those documents as opposed to documents that were not obtained, and does not reveal which of the assembled documents the attorney deems important. We think that reasoning applies here as well. A witness may not be interviewed for a number of reasons that do not bear on his or her importance. Moreover, a witness who has been interviewed may turn out to be unimportant, while a
2

E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343 (2005)
witness who has yet to be interviewed might be critical.
In addition, Jewel’s argument ignores that the interrogatories themselves do not seek to discover the persons whom Jewel’s attorneys interviewed and what they said. The interrogatories asked only for disclosure of persons with knowledge (and a description of what they know), and of persons whom Jewel communicated with or took statements from in connection with the claims or defenses in this case. The interrogatories did not ask that Jewel distinguish between those persons who were interviewed by counsel, and those who were interviewed by others at Jewel (such as, personnel from the Human Resources Department). It is only because Jewel decided to object to the interrogatories that answering them now might make this distinction clear. If so, then that is a wound that Jewel has inflicted on itself. We will not hold the EEOC’s interrogatories improper simply because of a strategic choice that Jewel elected to make.
In support of its work product objection, Jewel cites Admiral Heating, in which the court held that defendants were not required to answer an interrogatory that asked it to disclose the people whom defendants interviewed concerning the claims in the case, and the circumstances of the interviews. 104 F.R.D. at 32. The court reasoned that answering this request would provide more than factual information, and would give plaintiffs “the potential for significant insights into the defense lawyers’ preparation of their case.” Id. We have considered this analysis, and with respect, part company from it. As the Admiral Heating court recognized, 104 F.R.D. at 32, in response to an interrogatory a defendant must identify those persons with knowledge of discoverable information, and what that information is. Unlike Admiral Heating court, we do not believe that a discovery request that asks who has been interviewed and what they said runs afoul of the work product protection, at least where the request does not ask who conducted the interview. Here, the EEOC’s interrogatories do not cross that line, because the interrogatories do not ask whether it was Jewel’s lawyers or instead someone else at Jewel who had communications with persons (Interrogatory No. 5) or took statements from them (Interrogatory No. 9) concerning the claims or defenses in the case.
In support of its work product objection, the EEOC also cites Stone Container Corp. v. Arkwright Mutual Ins. Co., No. 93 C 6626, 1995 WL 88902 (N.D.Ill.1995), and Stokes v. Renal Treatment Centers-Illinois, Inc., No. 4:97CV2420 CDP, 1998 WL 917523, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022 (E.D.Mo.1998). Neither *348 of those decisions advances the EEOC’s position.
In Stone Container, a party sought documents selected by his adversary’s attorney to help his client (rather than a neutral witness) to prepare for a deposition. The district court found that production of the selected documents

used by the attorney prior to the deposition was protected by the work product doctrine. Relying on Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 315 (3rd Cir.1985), the Stone Container court held that “the selection process itself represents defense counsel’s mental impressions and legal opinions as to how the evidence in the documents relates to the issues and defenses in the litigation.” Stone Container, 1995 WL 88902, at *4. Noting some disagreement with this holding, the district court found that the documents the attorney selected before a deposition to show his client had already been produced. This was a key fact for the Stone Container court because assertion of the work product privilege was not being used to deprive the party who sought the documents of discoverable information. Moreover, the Stone Container court found a substantive distinction between selection of specific documents from a larger group, and production of the documents in a context that did not reveal the selection. 1995 WL 88902, at *4. Thus, the court found that the attorney withholding the documents should not be required to reveal, prior to the deposition, the particular documents selected by the attorney to prepare his client. Id.
In Stokes, the dispute centered on whether the plaintiff’s counsel had to reveal contacts with employees and former employees of the defendant, together with the information she obtained from them. Defendant served plaintiff with an interrogatory requiring her to “state whether you or anyone acting on your behalf is aware of and/or has obtained a statement from defendant or any of its employee(s), agent(s) or representative(s) concerning matters alleged in the complaint.” The plaintiff’s counsel admitted that she had obtained signed statements from five of defendant’s current and former non-managerial employees, but she refused to specifically identify these employees on the grounds that this information was protected from disclosure by the attorney-work product doctrine. Id. at *----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *4-5. However, in response to the other interrogatories, plaintiff identified all persons whom she believed have knowledge of the matters alleged in the complaint and described with particularity all facts supporting her allegations. Id. at *----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *3. In opposing the motion to compel, plaintiff’s counsel also disclosed the job titles of the employees who were interviewed, the person who interviewed them, and the dates upon which the statements were obtained and signed. Id. at *---- - ----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *3-4. The defendant, nonetheless, maintained that plaintiff should be required to specifically identify the five current and former employees that plaintiff’s counsel selected to interview. Id. at *----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *4.
The Stokes court disagreed. Id. at ----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *6. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s counsel had already produced the discoverable information to defendant when she disclosed all persons
3

E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343 (2005)
having knowledge of the matters raised in her complaint and all facts supporting those allegations. Id. at ----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *3. Thus, invocation of the attorney work product doctrine was used to shield plaintiff’s counsel’s selection of certain witnesses to prepare her case, and not to prevent disclosure of basic factual information. Id. at ---- - ----, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21022, at *5-6.
The lesson we draw from Stone Container and Stokes is that where the discoverable information-the underlying principal and material facts related to the allegations-has already been produced in some manner (either through prior document production or through Rule 26 disclosures or by answering interrogatories about persons with knowledge and the substance of that knowledge), then the answering party does not need to disclose the identity of witnesses it has chosen or documents it has selected to review to prepare its case. But, these cases do not hold that work product can shield otherwise discoverable information from production where it has not already been produced (such *349 as the identity of persons who have knowledge or information relevant to plaintiffs claims); nor do these cases stand for the proposition that the underlying principal and material facts related to the allegations in the complaint do not need to be produced.
In addition, these cases are each distinguishable from the situation presented here on other grounds. The Stone Container decision applied the “compilation and selection” doctrine from Sporck, which is a narrow exception to the more general rule that documents obtained by an attorney from third parties are not work product. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 19 and August 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 386 (2d Cir.2003). In this case, Jewel is not being asked to provide some select subset of the interviews conducted or statements obtained, and thus the compilation and selection doctrine does not apply here. And, in Stokes, the plaintiff in fact disclosed the names of persons who were interviewed, which Jewel has declined to provide, as well as identity of the persons conducting the interviews, which goes beyond the information that the EEOC’s interrogatories sought.
For all of these reasons, we are unpersuaded that the interrogatories at issue invade the work product of Jewel’s attorneys. Accordingly, we reject Jewel’s work product objection.
B.
We now turn to the other objections raised by Jewel to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6 and 9. We have considered those objections, and we conclude that those objections are without merit.

First, Jewel argues that the EEOC already has agreed to modify Interrogatory No. 5, and that it has answered the interrogatory as modified (Jewel Mem. at 3-4 and n. 4). The EEOC denies that there was an agreement to modify that interrogatory. The EEOC states that while it had proposed a modification, Jewel rejected the proposal in a letter of July 26, 2005, and then changed course and purported to accept the proposal in a letter dated August 11, 2005-the same day on which the EEOC filed this motion (EEOC Reply at 4-5 and Ex. A). Having reviewed the correspondence, we agree with the EEOC, and reject Jewel’s argument.
[6] Second, Jewel argues that all of the interrogatories are improper because they seek information from the interviews or communications that is not “relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” (Jewel Mem. at 2). That argument is without merit, as each of the interrogatories seeks only information that concerns or relates to the allegations, claims or defenses in the case. It is hard to see what could be more relevant than information about those subjects.
[7] Third, Jewel claims that by seeking information “supporting or relating to ... allegations, claims or defenses,” Interrogatory No. 6 contravenes the mandatory disclosure requirement in FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1), which more narrowly requires a party to disclose only the witnesses and documents that a party “may use to support its claims or defenses” (Jewel Mem. at 4-6). This argument conflates what a party must disclose at the beginning of a case, without being asked, and what a party must disclose in response to a discovery request. The mandatory requirement in Rule 26(a)(1) that a party disclose the information it may use to advance a claim or defense does not exempt a party from the obligation to disclose, in response to a discovery request, other information that may hurt its case. There is no “bad information” exception to the obligation to respond to discovery requests.
[8] Fourth, Jewel argues that providing information in response to these interrogatories “could constitute an admission of relevance” of the information provided (Jewel Mem. at 6). This is another make-weight argument; indeed, we are not aware of Jewel raising this argument in connection with other information it has provided in discovery. In any event, the EEOC disavows, as it must, any intent to argue that the production of information concedes relevance (EEOC Reply Mem. at 5). Since the concept of relevance is different for purposes of discovery than for admissibility at trial, production of information in discovery “is not a concession or determination of relevance for purposes *350 of trial.” Abel Investment Co. v. United States, 53 F.R.D. 485, 488 (D.Neb.1971) (quoting Advisory Committee’s Explanatory Statement Concerning Amendments of the Discovery Rules, 48
4

E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343 (2005)

F.R.D. 487, 498 (1970)).
[9] [10] Fifth, Jewel argues that Interrogatory No. 6 is overly broad and unduly burdensome, because “it asks Jewel to provide-in response to one interrogatory-a detailed narrative of each fact that the EEOC may want to use to prove its case” (Def.’s Mem. at 7).3 We think this objection overstates the scope of the interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 6 does not seek a description of every fact or document relating to the claims in the case; it seeks to discover who has knowledge relating to the case, and to learn what it is that they know. In that respect, Interrogatory No. 6 is distinguishable from the discovery requests at issue in the cases cited by Jewel, which involved requests for all facts, witnesses and documents supporting a particular allegation in the case, Hiskett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 403 (D.Kan.1998), or all claims in the case. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 188 (D.Kan.1997).

3

In a letter (EEOC’s Motion, Ex. A), Jewel asserted that

providing facts obtained in its investigation of this case

“requires a narrative answer more appropriate for

deposition testimony.” This argument has not been

included in defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion,

and for good reason. “Interrogatories are not improper

simply because the same information can be obtained

by use of a different discovery procedure.” In re

Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 83 F.R.D. 256, 259

(N.D.Ill.1979); Alden v. Wilson Jones Co., No. 86 C

3884, 1987 WL 18339 (N.D.Ill.1987) (citing 8 Wright

& Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE , §

2169).

The kind of information sought in Interrogatory No. 6 is commonly sought through interrogatories. And, providing this kind of information through interrogatories can have the salutary effect of streamlining discovery, by providing the requesting party with information that will allow that party to decide which people with knowledge are necessary to depose. The use of interrogatories to limit or narrow the use of more costly deposition discovery is in line with the goal of “secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of lawsuits. FED. R. CIV. P. 1.
The line that separates an interrogatory that seeks enough

information to serve this useful purpose, and one that seeks so much information as to be unduly burdensome, is not always crystal clear. Here, Interrogatory No. 6 is framed broadly, using terms such as “each person” and “any of the allegations, claims or defenses asserted in this case.” However, any concerns that we otherwise might have with the framing of that interrogatory are dispelled when we read that interrogatory together with Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 9, and in light of what the EEOC seeks in its motion to compel with respect to all three interrogatories: responses “identifying the individuals whom [Jewel] has interviewed and providing the facts it obtained from them” (EEOC Motion at 9). That kind of information is discoverable, see, e.g., Stokes v. Renal Treatment Centers-Ill., Inc., No. 97CV2420, 1998 WL 917523, ----, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 21022, *6 (E.D.Mo.1998) (defendant entitled to discover identity of employees with knowledge or who gave statements to plaintiff); In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litig., 83 F.R.D. 256, 259 (N.D.Ill.1979) (interrogatories seeking substance of communications related to plaintiff’s claims held proper), and must be produced by Jewel here.

CONCLUSION
The plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. # 39) is granted. Jewel is ordered to supplement its responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, and 9 by identifying the individuals whom it has interviewed and providing the facts it obtained from them. Jewel is ordered to provide these supplemental responses by the close of business on September 30, 2005.4

4

The EEOC has indicated that it will provide the same

information to Jewel, and in fact, has already provided

that information for one person it has interviewed (at

the Court’s direction) in order to facilitate efforts by the

parties to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the

motion (see Jewel Mem., Ex. 3). Our order today also

requires the EEOC to provide this information for all

persons it interviewed by September 30, 2005.

	  

5

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

CASREF, PROTO, SCHENKIER, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-08139

EEOC v. Jewel Food Stores, et al Assigned to: Honorable Joan B. Gottschall Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 12/16/2004 Date Terminated: 06/25/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron R. DeCamp Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-7582 Email: aaron.decamp@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diane Ilene Smason United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: diane.smason@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

V. Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc.
Defendant Albertson's Inc TERMINATED: 02/16/2005

represented by Mary Margaret Moore Bryan Cave LLP 161 North Clark Street Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 602-5090 Email: mimi.moore@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy Elenbaas Phanthavong Bryan Cave LLP 161 North Clark #4300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 602-5000 Fax: (312) 602-5050 Email: christy.phanthavong@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Wortel Bryan Cave 161 North Clark #4300 Chicago, IL 60601-3206 (312) 602-5105 Email: bill.wortel@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Margaret Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy Elenbaas Phanthavong (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Wortel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

Date Filed 12/16/2004
12/23/2004 12/28/2004
12/28/2004 02/16/2005
02/18/2005 03/02/2005 03/02/2005 03/16/2005 03/23/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005
04/14/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Aaron R. DeCamp, Diane Ilene Smason, John C. Hendrickson as attorney(s) for plaintiff (No summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1-1 through 1-3). (mjc) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Mary M. Moore, William J. Wortel, Christy Elenbaas Phanthavong. (air) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 12/28/04 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing set to 9:30 2/16/05. Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendants of the status hearing forthwith. Parties are directed to discuss settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge and a proposed discovery plan. See Judge Gottschall's civil case management packet for important information about pretrial case management procedures. This information is also located on the court's website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (rj) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
3 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendants sent on 12/20/04. (air) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
4 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held and continued to 5/4/05 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff's oral motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice Alberton's Inc. as a party defendant is granted. Written discovery is ordered closed 4/18/05. Plaintiff's motion for disclosure of Jewel employee list is due by 3/2/05. Defendant's response is due by 3/16/05. Ruling by mail. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
5 ANSWER by defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and affirmative/additional defenses to plaintiff's Complaint 1 . (lcw, Lakisha) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
6 MOTION by Plaintiff to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores to disclose employee lists; Notice. (air, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
7 Duplicate of document #6. (air, ) Modified on 7/28/2006 (ef, ). (Entered: 03/08/2005)
8 RESPONSE by defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to the EEOC's motion to compel it to disclose employee lists 6 . (mjc, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
9 REPLY by plaintiff in Support of its motion to compel defendant to disclose employee lists 7 and its motion to compel defendant to disclose employee lists, instanter 6 ; Notice. (air, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
10 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to quash subpoena (gma, ) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
11 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to quash subpoena 10 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 4/14/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
12 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Motion to quash 10 is granted. Motion hearing held on 4/14/2005 regarding motion to quash[10.] Discovery extended and ordered closed by 11/30/2005. Status hearing set for 5/4/2005 is

3 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

05/03/2005 05/03/2005 05/11/2005 05/12/2005 05/17/2005 05/19/2005 05/20/2005 05/26/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005 06/01/2005
06/06/2005

stricken and reset for 12/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
13 MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for entry of a protective order (rbf, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
14 NOTICE of Motion by Christy Elenbaas Phanthavong for presentment of motion for entry of protective order 13 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 5/12/2005 at 09:30 AM. (rbf, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
15 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to defendant's motion for entry of protective order 13 ; Notice of filing (eav, ) Modified on 5/13/2005 (eav, ). (Entered: 05/13/2005)
16 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Defendant's motion for entry of protective order 13 is referred to Magistrate Judge Schenkier for hearing and ruling as well as discovery supervision and settlement conference. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
17 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier for discovery supervision, settlement conference and to hear and enter appropriate order on defendant's motion for entry of protective order 13 . Signed by Executive Committee on 5/17/05. (cem) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
19 REPLY by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. in Support of its motion for protective order 13 . (air, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
18 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Defendant's motion for entry of protective order 13 is set for hearing on 5/24/2005 at 08:30 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
20 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Defendant's motion for entry of protective order 13 is granted, as revised by the court in open court. The parties are to submit a conforming protective order for signature. The defendant is to produce any confidential discovery material subject to the protective order. Status hearing set for 7/19/05 is reset by the court to 7/20/2005 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Pursuant to the order of 5/26/05, the court enters the attached protective order. Enter Protective Order. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
22 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by Judge Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/31/2005.Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
23 SURREPLY by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of its motion to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores to disclose employee lists and motion to file its surreply in support of its motion to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores to disclose employee lists, instanter; Notice. (cdy, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Plaintiff's motion to file its surreply in support of its motion to compel defendant to disclose employee lists is denied for the reasons stated on the record. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)

4 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

06/06/2005
06/17/2005 06/21/2005 07/14/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005 07/21/2005
07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005

25 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff E.E.O.C.'s Motion to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores to disclose employee lists for the time period of 04/01/01-03/31/05 6 is granted. The defendant is to update the previously produced lists, including the race and gender of the employees, by 6/20/2005. The defendant is to produce any employees lists not previously produced, including the race and gender of the employees, by 6/27/2005. The Court directs the defendant to also produce the Social Security numbers for any person on this list who is not a current employee of Jewel Food Stores, and to update the addresses of employees, where necessary, for the employee lists previously produced. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
26 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff EEOC to Magistrate Judge's entry of protective order (Exhibits); Notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
27 RESPONSE by Defendant to plaintiff EEOC's objections to Magistrate Judge's entry of protective order 26 ; Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
28 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 04/14/05 before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall (ar, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
30 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (gma, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
31 NOTICE of Motion by Diane Ilene Smason for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order 30 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/21/2005 at 08:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
29 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Pursuant to the parties' request, the status hearing set for 7/20/05 is reset to 7/21/05 at 8:30 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
35 RESPONSE by Defendant to plaintiff EEOC's motion for protective order by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held and continued to 9/6/05 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion for protective order 30 is granted in part and denied in part consistent with the courts ruling on the record. The court directs the plaintiff to identify the class members by 8/29/05. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
33 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (gma, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
34 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order 33 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/28/2005 at 08:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
37 MOTION by Plaintiff to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to respond fully to EEOC Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 5. (air, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2005 (air, ). (Entered: 08/02/2005)
38 SEALED DOCUMENT by EEOC. (RESTRICTED) (air, ) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

5 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

07/28/2005
08/11/2005 08/11/2005
08/16/2005
08/19/2005 08/26/2005 09/06/2005 09/13/2005
09/13/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005

36 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for protective order 33 is denied for the reasons stated in open court. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to respond fully to EEOC interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 is granted 7 . By 8/4/05, the defendant is to supplement either interrogatory No. 4 or 5 by adding and identifying the communication in dispute. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
39 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to respond fully to EEOC interrogatory numbers 5,6 and 9 (gma, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
40 NOTICE of Motion by Diane Ilene Smason for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to respond fully to EEOC interrogatory numbers 5,6 and 9 39 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2005 at 08:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
41 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion hearing held on 8/16/2005. Plaintiff's motion to compel 39 defendant to respond to interrogatories 5,6, and 9 is taken under advisement. Response is due by 8/19/2005. Reply is due by 8/26/2005. Court will rule by mail. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
42 RESPONSE by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to respond fully to EEOC Interrogatory Nos. 5,6 and 9 39 . (air, ) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
43 REPLY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Support of its motion to compel defendant Jewel Food Stores, inc. to respond fully to EEOC Interogatory Nos. 5,6 & 9 39 ; Notice. (air, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
44 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 9/6/2005. Status hearing set continued to 10/20/2005 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice, advised in open court. (tlp, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
45 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to respond fully to plaintiff's interrogatories nos. 5,6 and 9 39 is granted. Defendant shall supplement is interrogatory responses in line with this ruling by 9/30/05. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
46 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/13/2005.Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
47 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take deposition of More Than Ten Individuals (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
48 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to take deposition 47 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2005 at 08:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
49 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered:

6 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

10/19/2005 10/21/2005 10/27/2005
11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/15/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005

10/19/2005)
50 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion for protective order 49 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2005 at 08:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
51 RESPONSE Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC'S Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
52 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion/status hearing held. EEOC's motion for protective order (doc. #49) is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. EEOC's motion to take depositions of more than ten individuals is granted. The deposition of Rose Siegel is to be limited to 4 hours; the depositions of the other individuals identified in open court are to be limited to 2 hours each. Settlement conference is set for 11/15/2005 at 10:00 a.m., in chambers 1756. The settlement conference will be conducted in accordance with the Court's Standing Order on Instructions for settlement conference, which can be accessed from the Court's website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/SCHEINKER/sispage.htm. The schedule for exchange of demand and offer set forth in the standing order is as follows: plaintiff's counsel shall serve on defense counsel a written settlement demand by 11/2/05. Defendant's counsel shall serve on plaintiff's counsel a written settlement offer by noon on 11/10/05. The parties shall deliver copies of these letters to chambers by mid-afternoon on 11/10/05. Parties with ultimate settlement authority must attend the conference. Mailed noitce (gcy, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
53 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for reconsideration regarding order on motion to take deposition, order on motion for protective order, set/reset hearings,,,,,,,,,,,, 52 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
54 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion for reconsideration, motion for relief,,,,,, 53 before Honorable Edward J. Schwartz on 11/16/2005 at 08:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
55 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Settlement conference held. By noon on 11/18/05, each side is to separately send a facsimile to chambers (312/554-8677) stating whether that side accepts the Court's recommendation on economic terms of settlement. The matter is set for a telephone status conference on 11/18/05 at 1:00 p.m. Hearing on the EEOC's motion for reconsideration (doc. # 53) is RESET from 11/16/05 to 11/22/05 at 9:00 a.m. (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
56 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Telephone status conference held. Settlement cannot be reached at this time. The hearing on the EEOC's motion for reconsideration set for 11/22/05 at 8:30 a.m. is RESET to 11/22/05 at 9:15 a.m. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
57 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time to add class members (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 11/21/2005)

7 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

11/21/2005 11/22/2005
11/22/2005 11/29/2005
11/30/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/29/2005 12/29/2005

58 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion for extension of time 57 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2005 at 08:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
59 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status/motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 53 is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. The Court orders that during the deposition hearings, any testimony given regarding witness' sexual history will be made subject to the confidentiality provisions of the protective order. The Court orders discovery to close by 1/31/06. A hearing on plaintiff's motion for extension of time to add class member is set for 11/30/05 at 9:30 a.m. If defendants want to respond to the motion in writing, they are to file their response by noon on 11/29/05. A Status hearing is set for 2/7/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings Status hearing set for 2/7/2006 at 09:00 AM. (gcy, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
60 RESPONSE by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time to add class members 57 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Response# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Response# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Response# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Response# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Response# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Response# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Response# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Response# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Response)(Moore, Mary) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to add class members 57 is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
62 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to set aside The Magistrate Judge's November 28, 2005 Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
63 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
64 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to set aside The Magistrate Judge's December 2, 2005 Order (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)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
65 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
66 RESPONSE by Defendant Albertson's Inc to motion to set aside, 64 Magistrate Judge Schenkier's December 2, 2005 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11)(Moore, Mary) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
67 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to quash Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/29/2005)

8 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

12/29/2005 01/04/2006
01/06/2006 01/18/2006
02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/15/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/23/2006 02/23/2006 03/09/2006

68 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to quash 67 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2006 at 08:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
69 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena 67 is granted in part. The Court will allow defendant's subpoena to Bob Watson Chevrolet to be answered insofar as it seeks documents in categories 4 and 8; in all other respects, the subpoena is quashed. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
70 RESPONSE by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
71 Plaintiff EEOC's Supplement to its Objections to the Magistrate Judge's November 28, 2005 Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Protective Order, Notice of Filing and Certificate of Service by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Transcript of Clifton Thurman)(Smason, Diane) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
72 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held continued to 2/15/2006 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
73 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier held on 11/22/05, 11/30/05 (Volumes II). (gcy, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
74 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held and continued to 2/23/2006 at 09:00 AM. Plaintiff's oral motion to take the depositions of Betty London, and Thomas Ryan is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
75 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Response, 66 (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# 9 Exhibit I)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
76 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to strike, motion for relief 75 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/23/2006 at 09:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
77 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held. All matters relating to the referral of this matter having been resolved, the referral is hereby terminated. (mmm, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
78 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Briefing schedule as to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Response is as follows 75 : Responses due by 3/9/2006. Replies due by 3/16/2006. Ruling by mail. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2006)
79 RESPONSE by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to motion to strike, motion for relief 75 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Document 36# 2 Exhibit Excerpt Document 64# 3 Exhibit Excerpt Document 47# 4 Exhibit Howard Deposition Testimony# 5 Exhibit Stec Deposition Testimony# 6 Exhibit Howard Declaration# 7 Exhibit Stec Declaration)(Moore, Mary) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

9 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/21/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/17/2006
05/04/2006
05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/24/2006
06/15/2006

80 REPLY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Response, 66 75 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
81 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re reply to response to motion 80 (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
82 Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's November 28, 2005 Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Protective Order by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
83 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to other, 82 (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
84 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re Response 83 (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
85 NOTICE by Mary Margaret Moore of Change of Address. (gcy, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
86 NOTICE by William J. Wortel of Change of Address (gcy, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
87 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : EEOC's Objections to Magistrate Judge Schenkier's December 2, 2005 Ruling 64 are taken under advisement. EEOC's motion to strike 75 is denied. The court directs additional briefing as detailed below. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
88 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 11/28/05 Order 62 are denied as moot. EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 12/2/05 Order 64 are also denied as moot. Status is set in this case for Wednesday, 5/24/06 at 9:30 A.M. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
89 MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
90 NOTICE of Motion by Mary Margaret Moore for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 89 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 5/24/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
91 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file up to a one hundred forty-paragraph Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of material facts and up to a twenty-page Local Rule 56.1(a)(2) memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment 89 is granted. Status hearing held on 5/24/2006 and continued to 6/28/2006 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
92 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : To clarify the docket in this case, EEOC's objections to Magistrate Judge Schenkiere's entry of a protective order 26 are denied as moot because discovery in this case is now closed. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

10 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

06/28/2006 06/29/2006 07/05/2006 07/06/2006
08/03/2006 08/09/2006
08/14/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006

93 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held on 6/28/2006 and continued to 8/9/2006 at 09:30 AM. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Schenkier for additional settlement conference. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
95 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras on 6/29/06. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
94 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing set for 7/6/2006 at 09:30 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
96 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held. Settlement conference is set for 8/3/06 at 10:00 a.m., in chambers 1756. The settlement conference will be conducted in accordance with the Court's Standing Order on Instructions for Settlement Conference, which can be accessed from the Court's Website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/SCHENKIER/sispage.htm. By noon on 7/24/06, the parties are to submit to the Court their draft settlement consent decree, that identifies any issues of objections. The Court directs that all clients must appear at the settlement conference. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
97 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Settlement conference held. Settlement cannot be reached at this time. All matters subject to the referral having been concluded, the referral is hereby terminated. (mmm, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
98 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held on 8/9/2006. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 11/7/2006. Responses due by 12/7/2006. Replies due by 12/28/2006. Status hearing will be set with ruling by mail. Mailed notice (rj, ) Modified on 8/9/2006 (rj, ). (Entered: 08/09/2006)
99 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : The court's amends it August 9, 2006 as follows: Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 12/28/2006. Responses due in 30 days; Replies due 14 days thereafter. Ruling by mail. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
100 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiff and Defendant for extension of briefing schedule relating to pleadings in response to, and in reply in support of, Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
101 NOTICE of Motion by William J. Wortel for presentment of joint motion for extension of briefing schedule relating to pleadings in response to, and in reply in support of, defendant's motion for summary judgment 100 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 1/18/07 at 9:30 a.m. (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
102 MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for summary judgment. (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
103 MEMORANDUM by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. in support of its motion for summary judgment 102 ; (Exhibits). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)

11 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/29/2006 01/18/2007
01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/25/2007
01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007

104 RULE 56.1(a)(3) Statement of undisputed material facts by Jewel Food Stores, Inc. 102 (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
105 INDEX supporting Defendant's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed material facts 104 Volume I(a); (Exhibits). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
106 INDEX supporting Defendants Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed material facts 104 105 ; Volume I(b);(Exhibits). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
107 INDEX supporting Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed material facts 104 , 105 , 106 ; (RESTRICTED). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
108 INDEX supporting Defendant's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed material facts 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ; (RESTRICTED). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
109 INDEX supporting Defendant's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed material facts Volume III 104 (Redacted); (Exhibits). (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
110 RE- NOTICE of Motion by Gioconda V. Iannicelli for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 100 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 1/18/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Iannicelli, Gioconda) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
111 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall :Motion for extension of time to file response/reply regarding MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for summary judgment 102 100 is granted. Briefing schedule as to motion for summary judgment 102 is set as follows:Responses due by 1/30/2007; Replies due by 2/20/2007.Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
112 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for leave to file excess pages (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
113 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 112 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 1/25/2007 at 09:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
114 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Plaintiff's motion for leave to file up to one hundred forty additional facts and up to twenty-five pages in its memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment 112 is granted. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
115 MEMORANDMUM of law by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment 102 ; (Exhibits); Notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
116 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 (a)(3) statement of facts 104 . (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
117 LOCAL RULE 56(b)(3)(B) Statement of additional facts by plaintiff. (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
118 LOCAL RULE 56.1(b)(1) Compendium of Exhibits by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of its response to Jewel's motion

12 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

01/31/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/08/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/15/2007
03/06/2007 03/06/2007 03/06/2007

for summary judgment 115 . (Document Not Scanned). (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
119 EXHIBIT Nos. 23, 24 and 25 by Plaintiff in support of its response to Jewel's motion for summary judgment 115 (RESTRICTED). (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
120 MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion for summary judgment 102 and file a brief up to 25 pages long (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (January 24, 2007 email)# 2 Exhibit 2 (February 1, 2007 email))(Moore, Mary) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
121 Defendant's NOTICE of Motion by Mary Margaret Moore for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief,, 120 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/8/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
122 Defendant's Re- NOTICE of Motion by Mary Margaret Moore for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief,, 120 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/15/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
123 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to supplement its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Errata 1)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
124 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to supplement 123 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/15/2007 at 09:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
125 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall :Motion hearing held. Defendant's motion for extension of time to 3/6/2007 to file a reply to its motion for summary judgment and for leave to file a brief up to 25 pages long 120 is granted. Plaintiff's motion to supplement its memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment 123 is granted.Mailed notice (clw, ) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
126 REPLY by Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc to MOTION by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. for summary judgment 102 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
127 RESPONSE by Defendants Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc to Rule 56 statement 117 (Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
128 APPENDIX Response 127 by Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc Index Supporting Defendant's Response to the EEOC's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) Statement of Additional Facts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4a# 5 Exhibit 4b# 6 Exhibit 4c# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 5# 9 Exhibit 6# 10 Exhibit 6b# 11 Exhibit 7# 12 Exhibit 8# 13 Exhibit 9# 14 Exhibit 10a# 15 Exhibit 10b# 16 Exhibit 10c# 17 Exhibit 11# 18 Exhibit 12# 19 Exhibit 13# 20 Exhibit 14# 21 Exhibit 15# 22 Exhibit 16# 23 Exhibit 17# 24 Exhibit 18# 25 Exhibit 19# 26 Exhibit 20# 27 Exhibit 21# 28 Exhibit 22# 29 Exhibit 23# 30 Exhibit 24# 31 Exhibit 25# 32 Exhibit 26# 33 Exhibit 27# 34 Exhibit 28# 35 Exhibit 29)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

13 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/15/2007
03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 04/02/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/05/2007
04/10/2007

129 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Declaration of Thomas Miller (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
130 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to strike 129 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 3/15/2007 at 09:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
131 DECLARATION of Sandra J. Zubik regarding appendix,,, 128 by Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc Corrected (Wortel, William) (Incorrect document linked). (Entered: 03/12/2007)
132 DECLARATION of Thomas Miller regarding appendix,,, 128 by Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc Corrected (Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
135 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Motion hearing held on 3/15/2007. Motion to strike 129 is denied as moot. EEOC to file surreply by 3/29/2007. Jewel Food Stores to file response to surreply by 4/5/2007. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
133 NOTICE of Correction regarding declaration 131 (Incorrect document Linked). (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
134 DECLARATION of Sandra J. Zubik regarding appendix,,, 128 by Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc Corrected (Wortel, William) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
136 SUR-REPLY by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reply to response to motion 126 (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
137 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re sur-reply 136 (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
138 MOTION by Defendants Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Albertson's Inc to withdraw DECLARATION OF THOMAS RYAN CITED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 44 OF PLAINTIFFS LOCAL RULE 56.1(b)(3) STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
139 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Mary Margaret Moore for presentment of motion to withdraw, 138 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 4/12/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
140 Re- NOTICE of Motion by Mary Margaret Moore for presentment of motion to withdraw, 138 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 4/12/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Mary) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
141 RESPONSE by Defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. to sur-reply 136 in oppositon to defendant's motion for summary judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Wortel, William) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
142 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Defendant's agreed motion to withdraw the declaration of Thomas Ryan cited by Defendant in support of its response to paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's LR 56.1(b)(3) statement of additional facts 138 is granted. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

14 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?273783420846433-L_9...

06/05/2007
06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/25/2007

143 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : The parties recently informed the court that this case has settled, but no stipulation of dismissal has been filed. The court orders the parties to appear for a status conference on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. If the parties file a stipulation of dismissal before that date, no appearance is required. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
144 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
145 NOTICE of Motion by Aaron R. DeCamp for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 144 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 6/21/2007 at 09:30 AM. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
146 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Joint motion for entry of consent decree 144 is granted. Enter Consent Decree. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
147 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge Joan B. Gottschall on 6/20/07. (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
148 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Minute order entered 6/20/07 is amended to include the following: Status hearing set for 6/27/07 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken.Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/14/2008 15:30:58

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:04-cv-08139

Billable Pages: 10

Cost:

0.80

15 of 15

4/14/2008 3:31 PM