_ _ r.· ......... ~ .•

. ~- .. ~ .. - .• -..J

1

MAY 21t 200.

2

BY WESTCELRENRk~~AT;- SrEwATcTtr.e COURT

WASHINGTON

DEPuTY
3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRlCT OF WASHINGTON

5

AT SEATTLE

6

7 KHALIL NOURI, et ai.,

No. C99-1227L

8

Plaintiffs,

v.

9

THE BOEING COMPANY,

10

Defendant.

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

12
13
14
\0 15
\0 16
~ 17
\.. 18
\.\19
~20
~21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations." Defendant argues that plaintiffs' disparate impact claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies, that plaintiffs' claims of intentional racial discrimination occurring prior to March 4, 1999, are barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiffs' claims of class-wide discrimination occurring prior to March 4, 1999, are also barred by the statute oflimitations.l
All three issues are governed by the same legal principles. A Title VII plaintiff is required to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") before he or she is permitted to seek judicial relief. Ong v. Cleland, 642 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir. 1981). The scope of the Title VII action is limited to the claims asserted in the EEOC charge. Nevertheless, the remedial nature of Title VII and the fact that lay persons often

24 1 Although the Court has denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, there is room to argue
2) that anoth'\;-r ""la.;,:,;,:" differently defined, may be appropriate in thi3 litiga.tion. The Court hao therefore
considered the applicability of the statute of limitations to the class claims. 26
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 initiate an EEOC complaint requires that the ,Court construe the EEOC charges liberally when

2 determining whether the administrative remedies have been exhausted as to a particular

3 complaint. Fielden. UAL Corp., 218 F.3d 973,989 (9th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed.

4 March 7,2001. The Ninth Circuit has approved the exercise of jurisdiction over the specific

5 claims asserted in the EEOC charge and any charges of discrimination that "are like or

6 reasonably related to the allegations contained in the EEOC charge." Green v. Los Angeles

7 County Superintendent of Schools, 883 F.2d 1472, 1475-76 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A

8 particular claim is "reasonably related" to the EEOC charge if the EEOC investigation

9 encompassed or would reasonably be expected to encompass the additional charge. See. e.g.,

10 Fielder, 218 F.3d at 989; Deppe v, United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262,1267 (9th Cir. 2000).

11

Having considered the pleadings, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the

12 parties, the Court finds as follows:

13

(I) None ofthe EEOC charges filed by the named plaintiffs includes a claim of disparate

14 impact or a recitation of facts which could reasonably be expected to have led to an investigation

15 of defendant's policies or practices. Defendant's reliance on its policies or practices as a defense

16 to the claim of disparate treatment does not suggest that those polices and practices are defective

17 or raise an expectation that the EEOC would initiate an investigation into their overall effect on

18 the workforce. To the extent plaintiffs mentioned Boeing's policies and practices, it appears that

19 they were complaining that the appropriate policies/practices were not followed in their cases,

20 resulting in harm to plaintiffs. See Plaintiffs' Opposition, Ex. 2 at 7; Ex. 8 at 2. Such references

21 in no way constitute or suggest a challenge to the policies and practices themselves.

22

(2) The charges tiled by plaintiffs Nouri and Golchin with the EEOC could reasonably be

23 expected to lead to an investigation of plaintiffs' racial discrimination claim. In the context of

24 this case, and as acknowledged by defendant, race is "a factor sometimes related to national

25 origin." See Plaintiffs Opposition, Ex. 13 at 3. Both Nouri and Golchin alleged discrimination

26
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2-

1 against themselves and a number of other racial minorities. See Plaintiff's Opposition, Ex. 2 at

2 8; Ex. 9A; Ex. 10 at 3-4. An investigation of Nouri's claims of intentional discrimination on the

3 basis ofnational origin, in conjunction with his assertion that the same organizational units and

4 managers had "other racial discrimination issues with minorities," could reasonably be expected

5 to give rise to an investigation regarding intentional racial discrimination at Boeing. Thus,

6 Nouri's claim of intentional racial discrimination may include events occurring after March 18,

7 1998.2 In the absence of a certified class, the other named plaintiffs may litigate racial

8 discrimination claims arising no more than 300 days before they filed their individual EEOC

9 charges.

10

(3) The Nouri and Golchin charges filed with the EEOC do not include claims of class

11 discrimination and would not reasonably be expected to give rise to an investigation of such

12 claims. Prior to the time when Rizvi and Taing filed their charges, the EEOC and defendant

13 would have had no reason to suspect that the individual claimants were representative of a class.

14 Nouri, in fact, expressly disavows that anyone else was subjected to the type of treatment he

15 suffered. See Plaintiffs' Opposition, Ex. 2 at 5. Golchin likewise complains about intentional

16 discrimination on the part of two particular managers, circumstances from which the EEOC

17 would have no reason to assume that there were more than a few affected individuals. If a class

18 is eventually certified in this case, its claims will be limited to events occurring after March 4,

19 1999.

20
2 The date on which Nouri filed his charge with the EEOC is not clear from the record. 21 Defendant argues that the charge was filed on December 28, 1998 (see Defendant's Memorandum at 2), 22 while plaintiffs initially asserted that it was filed on December 14,1998 (see Plaintiffs' Opposition at 1).
The charge itself was not dated by Nouri, but has a partially legible "received by" stamp which appears 23 to reflect that the EEOC received the charge on December 14, 1998. The Intake Questionnaire 24 submitted by Nouri was apparently received by the EEOC on December 9, 1998. Because both
plaintiffs and defendant at some point rely on the December 28, 1998, date (see Defendant's 25 Memorandum at 2 and Plaintiffs' Opposition at 19), the Court has calculated the limitations period from
that point.
26
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT -3-

I

2

For all ofthe foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment

3 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims are dismissed for

4 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiffs may, however, seek recovery for

5 intentional racial discrimination occurring no more than 300 days prior to the filing oftheir

6 individual EEOC charges, and may, if certified, proceed with class-related claims arising after

7 March 4,1999.

8 9

ray 'i DATED this 2-

of May 200I.

10

11

Robert S. Lasmk

12

United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT -4-

 
 2

WEsCl~·

AT
u.s.

SEATTLE OISllIlCT

COURT

BY

DlS1'Rfcr OF W'ASHfNGTON

DUurv

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

ATSEATILE

6

7 KHALIL NOURI, et al.,

No. C99-1227L

8

Plaintiffs,

v.

9

THE BOEING COMPANY,

10

Defendant.

II

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . \
Q'\J 20 21

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of "all current and former Asian American employees who have been employed at Boeing's facilities in the State of Washington as salaried employees below the level offrrst level manager at any time from July 29, 1996 through the present" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiffs have asserted race and national origin discrimination claims against Boeing under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.' In particular, plaintiffs allege that the delegation of hiring, promotion, and layoff decisions to first level managers, the use ofprimarily subjective criteria in making those decisions, and the use of "totem" groups to evaluate and rank employees has created statistically significant disparities between the salaries and promotion rates ofpotential class members and the rest ofthe Boeing

\j ~2
A,t 23
~ 24
25
26

, Although plaintiffs acknowledge that any Title VII claim which arose prior to September 10,

1997, is time barred, they are seeking certification of a class period that coincides with their 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981 claims. As discussed in this Court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Strike Certain

Claims Under 42 U.s.C. § 1981, of even date, section 1981 claims arising prior to October 12, 1996, are

barred.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

IS

--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------

I work force.2

2

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of employees covering four groups or "paycodes:"

3 engineers who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (paycode 4), technical

4 employees who are covered by the FLSA (paycode 2T), general salaried employees who are

5 covered by the FLSA (paycode 2), and general salaried employees who are exempt from the

6 FLSA (paycode 6). The engineers and technicians are represented by the Seattle Professional

7 Engineering Employees' Association ("SPEEA") and are subject to collective bargaining

8 agreements. Employees in paycodes 2 and 6, on the other hand, are unrepresented. The specific

9 employees plaintiffs seek to represent within those four paycodes are "Asian Americans"

10 employed in this state during a specific time period. For purposes of this motion, plaintiffs

II defme "Asian American" to include any individual born in or who claims national origin from a

12 country on the continent of Asia, with the exception of Russia and Turkey.3 The named

13 plaintiffs are all members of SPEEA, have worked predominately in the Puget Sound area, were

14 employed for significant portions of the class period, and have identified themselves as Iranian,

15 Indian, Cambodian, and Afghani.4

16

17

2 The status of plaintiffs' discrimination claims regarding the assignment of retention ratings and

18 their impact on layoffs is not clear. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the statistical evidence may not support

such a claim. Plaintiffs' Reply at 10 n.l5.

19

3 The following 48 countries or political units may be represented in the class: Afghanistan,

20 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Georgia, Hong

21 Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macao, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mongolia, Myamnar, Nepal, Oman,

22 Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan,

Thailand, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen. All individuals 23 from Russia and Turkey have been excluded from the class definition because those two countries

24 extend across both Asia and Europe, making it difficult to identify an individual as "European" or "Asian,"

25 4 See Plaintiffs' Memorandum at 4-10.
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-2-

I

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Pursuant to Rule 23(a),

2 members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties if:

3

(I) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there

are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the

4

representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the

5

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

6 Title VII contains no special authorization for class-wide relief for private parties. Class actions

7 brought under Title VII, "like any other class action, may only be certified if the trial court is 8 satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites ofRule 23(a) have been satisfied."

9 General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). Each of the rule's prerequisites is

10 considered below.

11

(1) Numerosity

12

Plaintiffs allege, and defendants do not contest, that there are thousands of

13 individuals who fall within the proposed class. Joinder of that many parties is practically

14 impossible. Numerosity is established.

IS

(2) Commonality

16

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), there must be questions oflaw and/or fact

17 common to the proposed class in order to justifY certification. Not all of the triable questions

18 need be common, however. As long as there are some substantial questions which, if tried

19 separately, would have to be answered as to each potential class member, this element is

20 satisfied. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S.

21 1003 (1999). As the class was initially posited, there are common questions of both law and fact

22 in this matter, such as:

23

a) Whether the hiring, promotion, and retention rating/layoff processes are so

24

subjective that they show intentional discrimination under the disparate

25

treatment analysis. See. e.g., Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-3-

I

Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).

2

b) Whether the hiring, promotion, and retention rating/layoff processes are so

3

subjective that they "have effects that are indistinguishable from

4

intentionally discriminatory conduct" under the disparate impact analysis.

5

See, e.g., Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 990 (1988).

6

c) Whether there are statistically significant disparities between Boeing's treatment

7

of class members and non-class members in hiring, promotions, and/or

8

retention ratings/layoffs.

9

d) The effect of the various statutes oflimitation.

10

(3) Typicality

II

Although typicality is often viewed as a restatement of the commonality

12 requirement (see, e.g., Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n.l3), in the context of this case, the Court is

13 concerned that the claims of the representative parties are not typical ofthe claims of the class.5

14 Plaintiffs have presented statistics which purport to show significant disparities based on a

15 comparison of "Asians" with non-"Asians." As noted above, the term "Asians" is defined very

16 broadly to include all individuals born in or otherwise originating from any of the 48 countries

17 that comprise the continent ofAsia. The named plaintiffs, however, hail from or otherwise

18 identify themselves with only four of those countries, namely Iran, India, Cambodia, and

19 Afghan.

20

The extraordinary variety ofpersons included in the proposed class raises concerns

21 that the named plaintiffs' claims may be susceptible to attacks, or in the alternative may be

22 successful, on grounds that are not applicable to others in the proposed class. Statistical analyses

23

24

5 Contrary to defendant's argument, the fact that the named plaintiffs have asserted individual

claims during their EEOC proceedings or in this litigation does not preclude class certification. ~

25 ~,Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 780 F.2d 776,780 (9th Cir.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(c)(4», cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1170 (1986). 26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-4-

1 tied to individual nationalities may reveal disparities which do not fit the overall contours of

2 plaintiffs' class. For example, there is no reason to assume, and plaintiffs have offered no

3 evidence to suggest, that a particular nationality, such as the Israelis, the Taiwanese, or the

4 Uzbeks, has been adversely affected by the policies and practices ofwhich they complain. With

5 regard to anyone or more nationalities, Boeing may be able to rebut whatever presumption of

6 discrimination arises out ofplaintiffs' continent-wide statistical showing. In light ofthis very 7 real possibility, the typicality of the named plaintiffs' claims remains in doubt.6 Plaintiffs have

8 not met their burden of showing that their claims are typical of the diverse class they seek to

9 represent.

10

(4) Adequate Representation

11

One of the main goals of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is to "focus court attention on whether

12 a proposed class has sufficient unity so that absent members can fairly be bound by decisions of

13 class representatives." Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S, 591,621 (1997). A class

14 defined by the contours of a geographic continent, rather than by any identifiable characteristics,

15 cultural similarities, or sense of class identity, raises serious doubts regarding the unity of the

16 class. In conjunction with some of the statements made by the proposed class representatives,

17 the Court finds that the named plaintiffs would not be adequate representatives for the large and

18 diverse group of individuals on whose behalfthey want to pursue this litigation.

19

The lack of representatives from the vast majority of the national origins and races

20 the named plaintiffs hope to represent is of grave concern. While courts have been willing to

21 certifY classes that include different races and/or national origins, in those cases the named

22 plaintiffs generally reflect the diversity ofthe class being represented (see, e. g., Domingo v.

23

24

6 While the typicality requirement does not mean that the representatives' claims must be identical to the rest of the putative class (see Hanlon v. Chrysler Corn., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (1JIh Cir.

25 1998», where the named plaintiffs' claims may succeed or fail on grounds which may not apply to the
rest of the class, the claims are not typical. 26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-5-

1 New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1984) (Filipinos and Native Alaskans served as

2 class representatives and represented the only minority groups employed by defendant)), the

3 class' commonality rests to a large extent on some characteristic other than race/national origin

4 (see Doe v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (class was

5 unified by limited proficiency in English)), or the context ofthe case assures the court that the

6 absent class members will be adequately represented. Such is not the case here. As noted

7 above, only a few ofthe nationalities and races included within the proposed class are

8 represented by the named plaintiffs. The theoretical concerns raised by that bare fact are

9 heightened by the depositions of the named plaintiffs, which reflect no obvious sense of class

10 consciousness, cohesiveness, or identity that transcends the various ethnic and cultural divisions

11 apparent throughout Asia. In some instances, it is clear that the named plaintiffs do not know or

12 care about the plight of other racial or ethnic groups at Boeing or may actually be antagonistic

13 toward some of the very races or nationalities they are now asking to represent. See Golchin

14 Dep. at 31:5 - 32:8 and 250:2-24; Lavi Dep. at 158:10 - 180:25; Namini Dep. at 21:20 - 25:2;

15 Nouri Dep. at 211 :22 - 212:14; Rizvi Dep. at 208:5 - 212:21; Taing Dep. at 68:3-25 and 84:19-

16 85:8.

17

In addition, although the named plaintiffs have defined a class of persons with

18 whom they share some generalized employment-related characteristics, their ability to represent

19 otherwise distinct groups from locations with which they are not familiar is doubtful. See

20 Golchin Dep. at 266:1 - 267:2; Lavi Dep. at 371:1 - 372:1; Nouri Dep. at 238:15-23; Rizvi Dep.

21 at 214:5-15; Taing Dep. at 158:10-17. The named plaintiffs have not adequately explained, for

22 example, how they, as unionized employees subject to the terms of a collective bargaining

23 agreement, can accurately and fully litigate the work environment and hiring/promotion/layoff

24 practices to which non-represented class members were subjected. See. e.g., Falcon, 457 U.S. at

25 156-58 (representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-6-

1 members). Based on the record before it, the Court cannot conclude that the named plaintiffs

2 will adequately represent the interests ofthe absent class members.

3

4

In light of the foregoing, the Court need not determine whether plaintiffs would be

5 able to maintain a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). Because plaintiffs have failed

6 to establish typicality and adequate representation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), their motion for

7 class certification is hereby DENIED. The class allegations in the Consolidated Amended

8 Complaint are hereby STRICKEN.

9

10

~4 DATED this t;ay of May 2001.

11

12 13

RObert!I!!L~~

United States District Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

-7-

 
 I

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

2

3

4
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

5

11111111111111111111111111111111111

6

99-CV-01227 -Cl\1P

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10

AT SEATTLE

11

12
13 KHALIL NOURI, et aI.,
14 Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
17 corporation,
18 Defendant.
19

)

)

No. C99-1227L

)

)

)

FIFTH AMENDED

)

CONSOLIDATED CLASS

)

ACTION COMPLAlNT

)

)

)

)

)

20

21

22

I. INTRODUCTION

23

1. The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge employment policies and practices

24 which have the effect and have been undertaken by Boeing with the purpose of denying equal 25 compensation and equal retention ratings to qualified Asian American employees in violation of 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - I

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 70 1 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

..- - - - - - . - ~.-.-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l

1 Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e, the Civil Rights Act of
2 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended.
3 Plaintiffs Lear Lavi, Ahmad Golchin, Syed Rizvi, Mike Taing, Khalil Nouri, Raul Aballe and
4 Bao Trinh sue on behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated Asian American
5 employees of Boeing. The Plaintiffs challenge the use of excessively SUbjective decisionmaking
6
7 by Boeing in making compensation and retention decisions which have operated to deny
8 retention and equal compensation to qualified Asian American employees. These discriminatory
9 practices have been undertaken with the intention, and have had the effect, of denying retention
10 and equal compensation to qualified Asian American employees. 11
II. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 12
2. Plaintiffs' claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 13 14 §§ 2000e et seq, and 42 U.S.C. §1981. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

15 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4).

16

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c). Boeing's

17 principal place of business is located in the Western District of Washington and a substantial part
18 of the unlawful acts set forth below occurred in this district.
19 4. Plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.c.
20
§2000e5(f)(3). 21

22

III. PARTIES

23

5. Plaintiff Lear Lavi, an Asian-American ofIranian descent, is currently a resident

24 of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Lavi began working for Boeing in 1991. Until 1999, Mr. Lavi 25
was employed by Boeing at its Renton facility, Single Aisle Division located in Renton, 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ~ 2

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 Washington.

2

6. Plaintiff Ahmad Go1chin, an Asian-American ofIranian descent, is a resident of

3 Marysville, Washington. Mr. Golchin began working for Boeing in 1997. Until January 1999,
4 Mr. Go1chin was employed by Boeing at its facility located in Everett, Washington.
5
7. Plaintiff Syed Rizvi, an Asian-American of Indian and Pakistani descent, is a 6

7 resident of Mill Creek, Washington. Mr. Rizvi began working for Boeing in 1992. Until 1999,

8 Mr. Rizvi was employed by Boeing at its facility located in Everett, Washington.

9

8. Plaintiff Mike Taing, an Asian-American of Cambodian descent, is a resident of

10 Everett, Washington. Mr. Taing began working for Boeing in 1996. At all times relevant to this
11 action, Mr. Taing has been employed by Boeing at its facility located in Everett, Washington.
12 9. Plaintiff Khalil Nouri, an Asian-American of Afghani descent, is a resident of
13
14 Everett, Washington. Mr. Nouri began working for Boeing in 1992. Until 1999, Mr. Nouri was

IS employed by Boeing at its facility located in Auburn, Washington and at its facility located in

16 Everett, Washington.

17

10. Plaintiff Raul Aballe, an Asian-American of Filipino descent, is a resident of the

18 state of Washington. Mr. Aballe began working for Boeing in 1996 with the Boeing Commercial
19 Airplane Group in Auburn, Washington. Mr. Aballe was laid off from Boeing in 1999.
20
11. PlaintiffBao Trinh, an Asian-American of Vietnamese descent, is a resident of 21

22 Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Trinh began working for Boeing in 1997, in the company's

23 Manufacturing Engineer Planning Group in Everett, Washington.

24

12. Boeing is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located in

25 Seattle, Washington. Boeing owns and/or operates numerous facilities in the State of

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 Washington and other locations throughout the United States of America. Boeing is an employer

2 within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(b) and does business in the Western District of

3 Washington. Boeing wholly owns and exclusively operates all the facilities at which the
4 unlawful practices alleged herein occurred.
5
IV. PRACTICES CHALLENGED 6

7

13. Boeing's policies and procedures governing retention ratings and compensation

8 provide for decisions that are excessively subjective, permitting managers, who are

9 predominantly white, to make decisions that improperly exclude qualified Asian American
10 employees from equal compensation and retention ratings. 11
14. Boeing engages in discrimination with respect to compensation and retention 12
primarily through a process of group decisionmaking in which predominantly white managers 13 14 make decisions affecting the compensation and retention rating for large numbers of employees,
15 about many of whom they have no first hand knowledge. As a result, Boeing compensates Asian

16 American employees less than similarly situated white employees who are performing similar

17 work.
18 15. Boeing employs a process for assigning retention ratings and selecting employees
19 for downsizing or layoff which permits managers to manipulate the system to retain favored
20 employees, and layoff disfavored employees. The predominantly white managers exercise this
21
22 excessive discretion to protect white employees from layoffs, and select Asian American

23 employees for layoffs.

24

25

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAlNT - 4

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1

16. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a class consisting of the following:

2 All current and fonner employees whose national origin or ethnic background is Cambodia,

3 Vietnam, the Phillippines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran, who have been employed at
4 Boeing's facilities in the state of Washington as salaried employees in Paycodes 2T or 4, below
5
the level of first level manager at any time from October 12, 1996 through the present. 6

7

17. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) because the

8 requirements of this Rule are met.

9

18. The class members are sufficiently numerous to make joinder of all members

10 impracticable. Upon infonnation and belief, Boeing employs more than a thousand Asian

II American technical and engineering employees in Washington state below the level of first level
12
manager. 13

14

19. The claims alleged on behalf of the Plaintiffs raise questions oflaw or fact

15 common to the class. These common questions include:

16

a. whether Boeing pennits managers excessive SUbjectivity in making

17

compensation decisions;

18 b. whether Boeing pennits managers excessive subjectivity in making
19 retention rating and downsizing decisions;
20
c. whether this excessive subjectivity has a disparate impact on Asian 21

22

American employees in violation of Title VII; and

23

d. whether this excessive subjectivity represents a deliberate action by

24

Boeing to block promotion of Asian American employees, compensate

25

Asian American employees less than similarly situated white employees,

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 o

1

and expose Asian American employees to a greater risk of layoff or

2

downsizing, in violation of Title VIr.

3 20. The claims alleged on behalf ofthe Plaintiffs are typical of those ofthe class. All
4 of the claims arise from Boeing's policies and practices permitting excessively subjective
5
decision making with respect to compensation and retention. 6

7

21. The class representatives and counsel will adequately and fairly protect the

8 interest of the class.

9

22. This class action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

10 23(b)(2) because the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally

11 applicable to the class thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
12
declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 13

14

23. The class action is also properly maintainable pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) because

15 the questions oflaw and fact common to members of the class predominate over questions

16 affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for

17 the fair and efficient resolution of this controversy.

18 VI. ALLEGATIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS

19 Lear Lavi
20

21

24. PlaintiffLavi is an Asian American ofIranian descent. He received a Bachelor of

22 Science degree in Industrial Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1990. He then

23 worked for General Dynamics as an engineer prior to being hired by Boeing.

24

25. Mr. Lavi was hired by Boeing in April 1991 into the I&R Tool Engineering

25 Group. Mr. Lavi was classified on the technical paycode series at grade level 33. Mr. Lavi was
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
r')lIh'l ,,?1_()()5Ul

1 not promoted to grade 35 until 1994.

2

26. Mr. Lavi was paid less than similarly situated white employees and got raises that

3 were smaller than similarly situated white employees.
4 27. Mr. Lavi was transferred to Material Handling where he worked from December
5

1993 to February 1995, and then to DCAC where he worked from February 1995 to June 1996. 6

7

28. In June 1996 Mr. Lavi transferred to the 757-300 Program Tool Engineering

8 group. In September 1997 Mr. Lavi was transferred to the I&R Outplant Tool Engineering

9 group. In January 1998 a position became available at the Lead level (grade 38) in an I&R

10 Group. Mr. Lavi expressed an interest in the position, and was selected as the I&R Chairman,
11 while he continued to perform his prior position in Outplant Tool Engineering. Mr. Lavi was not
12 paid as much as similarly situated whites even for this extraordinary effort in covering two
13
14 positions.

15

29. In April 1998, Mr. Lavi was reclassified to the professional engineer paycode

16 series, at the grade 12 level, skill code MAl, job number W12. However, Mr. Lavi was not paid

17 as much as similarly situated white employees, even in this new position.
18 30. In approximately January or February 1999, Mr. Lavi attended a joint meeting of
19 two groups, and Rick Roppel, the first level manager for another group said to one of the Asian
20 employees present, "I can't tell if you are asleep or awake, maybe you need toothpicks to prop
21
22 your eyes open." Mr. Lavi and other Asian American employees were offended by this apparent

23 reference to the "oriental" eyes of the employee whom Roppel addressed. In May 1999 Mr. Lavi

24 reported this incident to Boeing's internal EEO office. He had also observed that Mr. Roppel 25 picked on his Asian American employees. During the same time frame another manager told 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 Mr. Lavi that he felt bad for Asians because Boeing took advantage of the Asian American
2 employees, because management believed that Asian American workers were passive and would
3 not complain.
4 31. In May 1999, Mr. Lavi learned that a new group was fonning that would not be at
5 risk for layoffs. He applied for this new tool engineering position, and was one of the first to
6
7 express any interest. However, Mr. Lavi was not selected for this position. Similarly situated

8 white employees were given access to this group.

9

32. In August 1999, Mr. Lavi received notice that he would be laid off. Many white

10 employees with less experience and skill than Mr. Lavi were not laid off.

11 33. On or about December 29, 1999 Mr. Lavi executed a charge for the EEOC, which
12
was acknowledged received by the EEOC on or about January 19, 2000. 13

14

Ahmad Golchin

15

34. Plaintiff Golchin was born in Iran and has lived in the United States since 1974.

16 He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Utah in

17 June, 1993. From 1993 to 1997, Mr. Golchin was employed by the State of Utah Department of
18 Environmental Quality as an Environmental Specialist.
19 35. In February, 1997 Mr. Golchin was hired by Boeing as a Manufacturing Engineer
20 (skill code MM6) with a salary of$37,000 per year. Mr. Golchin was given a retention rating of
21
22 RJ, which meant that he would be among the first persons to be laid off. White employees with

23 lesser work experience than Mr. Golchin were paid several thousand dollars more per year than

24 Mr. Golchin.

25

36. In October 1997, Mr. Golchin's retention rating was increased to R2, in

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860

Seattle, WA 98104-7097

.c" f,,\AL\

1 (H'.On

1 recognition of his past engineering experience and his good perfonnance at Boeing.

2

37. In July 1998, Mr. Golchin's team was disbanded. There were several white

3 employees who management wanted to protect from layoffs, and they were moved to positions
4 which would minimize their exposure to layoffs. However, Mr. Golchin and two other non-
5
white employees (including one Filipino Asian American and one Ethiopian American 6

7 employee), as well as two white employees were moved to the Section 441747 group under

8 supervisor Gary Rubino.

9

38. In or about October 1998, Mr. Golchin's retention rating was dropped from R2 to

10 R3, as were the ratings ofthe other two non-white employees. This exposed Mr. Golchin and the
11 others to greater risk of downsizing. A white employee who was similarly situated, with even
12 less work experience, was given more favorable treatment, however, and had his retention rating
13
14 increased from R3 to R2.

15

39. On or about November 5, 1998, Mr. Golchin was moved to another group at the

16 same location, Section 46, under the supervision of Larry Pirone. The other non-white

17 employees were also transferred at the same time, but the white employees were able to stay in

18 the Section 44 group.
19 40. On November 25,1998, Mr. Golchin and the two other non-white employees
20
received their notices concerning layoff, and on January 29, 1999, Mr. Golchin was laid off. 21

22

41. The white employees who were supervised by Mr. Rubino were treated better and

23 protected from layoffs. Mr. Rubino was more willing to talk and chat with white employees.

24

42. On or about February 9, 1999 Mr. Golchin filed a timely charge with the EEOC.

25 On August 31,1999 he received a notice of his right to sue.
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
f'lf'lt:\ <;:'"') 1 f'lAQ{\

1

Syed Rizvi

2

43. PlaintiffRizvi was born in India, subsequently moved to Pakistan, and has lived

3 in the United States since 1963. Mr. Rizvi received his Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
4 Engineering from Western States College in Los Angeles, CA in 1967. Mr. Rizvi has worked as
5

an engineer since 1967 at corporations such as Xerox, Hughes Aircraft, Magnovox, Ford 6

7 Aerospace, Rockwell International, and Douglas Aircraft Co.

8

44. Mr. Rizvi was hired by Boeing in 1992 as a Tool Engineering Specialist with job

9 classification MWJW, grade 35.

10

45. Mr. Rizvi was ultimately given credit for his work with Rockwell and Douglas

11 between 1984 and 1991, because both companies were taken over by Boeing. However, even
12
with this acknowledgment of the additional years of service credited with Boeing, Mr. Rizvi 13

14 continued to be paid less than similarly situated white employees.

15

46. Mr. Rizvi received good performance reviews, but never received a raise that was

16 consistent with his good performance. Similarly situated white employees did receive higher

17 pay.
18 47. Mr. Rizvi's first assignment was in Organization U-3863, where he remained
19 from 1992 until 1998. During that time he had four different supervisors, all of whom were
20
21 white. William Cooper was his supervisor for the longest period of time, from 1992-1997. Mr.
22 Rizvi observed that Mr. Cooper talked primarily to white employees who he was friendly with.

23

48. In 1998 Boeing reduced the number of people who were assigned to tool design,

24 and several people were transferred from Mr. Rizvi's group. Mr. Rizvi was the only one 25 assigned to the 747 program Fuselage Assembly Integration Testing (FAIT); the other employees 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -10

COllEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 who were transferred were assigned to the 767 or Flightline divisions. This transfer placed Mr.

2 Rizvi in Organization T-B365 under the supervision of Richard G. Billieu.
3 49. Mr. Rizvi had a retention rating ofR2, so that should have been in the second
4 group laid off, not the first. However, he was one ofthe newer employees to that particular
5 group. In March, 1999, Mr. Rizvi was laid off. Similarly situated white employees who had less
6
7 experience as engineers and fewer years seniority with Boeing were not laid off, but Mr. Rizvi

8 was.

9

50. Even after Mr. Rizvi received his notice that he would be laid off, there were new

10 employees brought into his work group who were white. These employees were still with the
11 group after Mr. Rizvi was laid off.
12
51. On or about December 16, 1999 Mr. Rizvi executed a charge of discrimination 13

14 which was acknowledged received by the EEOC on or about January 4,2000.

15

Mike Taing

16

52. Plaintiff Taing was born in Cambodia and has lived in the United States since

17 1981. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering in 1993 from the

18 University of Washington. From 1993 to 1996, Mr. Taing was employed as an industrial
19 engineer at Federated Logistics.
20

21

53. In or about September 1996, Mr. Taing was hired by Boeing as a manufacturing

22 engineer with job classification NHJS. Mr. Taing was assigned to grade level 33. He was paid

23 less than similarly situated employees.

24

54. Mr. Taing has a retention rating ofR3, which means that he will be among the

25 first persons to be laid off. Less qualified employees who are white have better retention ratings 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ~ II

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
/1{\"::'1 C'l1 ('IIlOr.

1 than Mr. Taing. For example, Larry Milzarek who does not have an engineering degree and who

2 consistently asks Mr. Taing for assistance in answering questions, has a retention rating ofR2.

3 55.
4 good work.
5
56. 6

Mr. Taing has received Certificates of Achievement from Boeing recognizing his In or about December 18, 1999, Mr. Taing filed a timely charge with the EEOC.

7

Khalil Nouri

8

57. PlaintiffNouri was born in Afghanistan and has lived in the United States since

9 1974. Mr. Nouri completed 117 credits in mechanical drafting and related fields at Pasadena
10 City College in 1990, the equivalent of an associate's degree. In 1999, Mr. Nouri received his 11
Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Henry Cogswell College. 12
58. Mr. Nouri worked in tool design and related fields beginning in 1979. In 1992 he 13 14 was hired by Boeing as a Tool Design Engineer, in the technical paycode series, grade 33. He
15 was employed in the Fabrication Division in Auburn, WA. In December 1992, Mr. Nouri was

16 promoted to grade level 35, in recognition ofMr. Nouri's extensive prior experience and his

17 knowledge oftool engineering.
18 59. In December 1995, Mr. Nouri was transferred to the 777 Tool Engineering
19 Division in Everett, WA with job classification MWJW35.
20
60. Mr. Nouri's retention rating when he was first hired was R3, designating him in 21
22 the first group to be laid off if Boeing went through a reduction in force. In August 1996, Mr.

23 Nouri's retention rating was increased to R2. The following year, in June 1997, Boeing reduced

24 Mr. Nouri's retention rating to R3; he appealed this decision and in July 1997 his R2 rating was 25 restored. However, in November 1998 Boeing once again downgraded Mr. Nouri to R3, placing 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 him at risk oflayoff. Indeed, he was laid off in March 1999.

2

61. Throughout Mr. Nouri's employment, he had greater skills, knowledge, work

3 experience and seniority than similarly sitnated white employees who were given higher

4
retention ratings of R2 and even R 1. 5

6

62. Mr. Nouri received letters of commendation recognizing his good work

7 performance.

8

63. Mr. Nouri was consistently compensated less than similarly situated white

9 employees.

10

64. From December 1995 through June 1997, while Mr. Nouri worked in the 777

11 Tool Engineering Division, he was repeatedly exposed to derogatory comments based upon his
12
race or national origin by co-worker Dan Lucky and lead Mike Dennis. These comments 13

14 included calling Mr. Nouri "towel head" and making statements such as "Middle Easterners

15 don't brush their teeth." Mr. Nouri reported these comments to his first level manager, Pamela

16 Brooks, and then to the internal EEO office for Boeing. A few months later, his supervisor, Ms.

17 Brooks, made a formal apology to Mr. Nouri. Mr. Nouri is unaware of any disciplinary action

18 being taken against either Lucky or Dennis.
19 65. Mr. Nouri then requested and received a transfer to another group, the 767-400ER
20
Body Structures Tool Engineering Group, in or about July 1997. 21

22

66. Mr. Nouri did not receive any performance evaluation in the two years prior to his

23 layoff, including during the time when his retention rating was dropped from R2 to R3. Thus,

24 Mr. Nouri was never informed, whether through the performance evaluation or otherwise, of any 25 concerns that Boeing might have about his work performance which would justify changing his 26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 13

COHEN, M1LSTE1N, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
/'l"t::\ .c'l1 {\I'l.Q{\

1 retention rating.

2

67. In Mr. Nouri's new group he was again exposed to derogatory comments about

3 his national origin, including comments about the fact that he was not born in the United States.

4
Someone began leaving pictures of a camel on his desk, and he was referred to as "hey, Arab." 5

6

68. Mr. Nouri reported these incidents to his manager, Paul Anderson. However, Mr.

7 Anderson responded to Mr. Nouri's complaint by stating words to the effect that "it is surplus

8 time, the company is cutting back heads, laying off time is going on, so don't make any waves."

9 Following Mr. Nouri's complaint, Mr. Anderson moved Mr. Nouri to another location, leaving
10 the perpetrator of the harassment in place.
11 69. In the 767-400 Tool Engineering Body Structures group that Mr. Nouri was
12 assigned to, there were eight employees in the technical paycode series. Of these, three were
13
14 Asian, 1 was African American, and 4 were white. Ofthe three Asian employees, two were laid

15 offin March 1999, and the third voluntarily accepted layoff due to her pregnancy. However,

16 none of the white employees in the same positions were affected by the March 1999 layoff.

17

70. On July 7, 1998, Mr. Nouri filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the

18 EEOC and received his Notice of Right to Sue letter on or about May 13, 1999.

19 Raul Aballe
20

21

71. Plaintiff Raul Aballe was born in the Philippines and has lived in the United

22 States since 1974.

23

72. Mr. Aballe received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the

24 Cebu Institute of Technology in the Philippines in 1972. Plaintiff Aballe completed numerous
25 additional technical training programs in computer programming, AutoCAD, and related areas.
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1 He has also completed more than 1100 hours of personnel, management and business operations

2 training while employed with Boeing.
3 73. Mr. Aballe worked as an engineer with other employers from 1977 to 1989. In
4 November 1996, he was hired by Boeing into a Paycode 2T position and began working as an
5 AssemblerlMechanic with BCAG in Auburn, Washington. In April 1998, Mr. Aballe became a
6
7 Quality Assurance Material Receiving Inspection Planner, another Paycode 2T position.

8

74. Throughout his employment with Boeing, Mr. Aballe's retention rating was kept

9 at the lowest level, R3, although similarly skilled white employees had retention ratings ofR2 or
10 higher.
11 75. The only time Mr. Aballe received a salary increase during his two and a half
12 years of employment with Boeing was in 1998 during a time period when he had an African
13
14 American supervisor. At all other times, when he was supervised by Caucasian managers, he
15 received no pay increases. Even with the pay increase, Mr. Aballe, upon information and belief,

16 was paid less than similarly qualified white employees.

17

76. While employed by Boeing, Mr. Aballe was subjected to derogatory remarks

18 about his ethnic origin. In the summer of 1998, Steve Dixon, a white co-worker, called Mr.
19 Aballe a "FLIP." This is a derogatory term directed at Filipinos which stands for "fucking little
20
island people." Mr. Aballe complained to his supervisor, Donald Smith, who simply told him to 21

22 try to avoid Mr. Dixon. While Mr. Aballe tried to do so, Mr. Dixon continued his hostile

23 treatment of Mr. Aballe. In addition to cursing at him, and playing music at a volume which

24 disturbed Mr. Aballe, Mr. Dixon would dump his work on Mr. Aballe's desk, and expect Mr.
25 Aballe to finish it.
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 15

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
f"l '\ "",)

1

77. Mr. Aballe was told he exceeded his managers expectations, and he received

2 letters of appreciation and awards for his performance. Nevertheless, he was never compensated

3 or given retention ratings comparable to his white, American-born peers.
4 Bao Trinh
5
78. PlaintiffBao Trinh was born in Vietnam and has lived in the United States since 6

7 November 1991. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from

8 Saint Martin College in 1997, and attended graduate courses at New Mexico State University in

9 1998. Mr. Trinh also attended three months of classes for systems engineers while employed

10 with Boeing.
11 79. Mr. Trinh was hired at Boeing in September of 1997, and assigned to the
12 Manufacturing Engineer Planning group in Everett, Washington.
13

14

80. In his planning group, Mr. Trinh works with a number of white, American-born

15 co-workers with substantially less education than Mr. Trinh, yet who are compensated at higher

16 levels.

17

81. Since managers know in advance what skill codes will be targeted in upcoming

18 layoffs, they can assign different skill codes to favored employees if they want to protect them.
19 Correspondingly, managers can assign less favored employees to the targeted skill code if they
20
21 want to get rid of them. These skill code changes can be accomplished by transferring the

22 employee to a different group, by assigning the employee different work and then changing the

23 skill code to match, or simply by "re-evaluating" the skill code assignment and deciding that

24 another skill code is a better match for the work that an employee is actually performing.
25 82. Managers will often transfer an Asian employee out of the group to one that is
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -16

COHEN, M1LSTE1N, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 70 I Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
{" ..... C\ C'\, f\f\O{\

1 being reduced, while at the same time bringing a white American-born employee into the group

2 in order to protect that employee from being laid off. The managers often claim that these
3 transfers occur so that the Asian employee can gain more experience with different groups. In
4 truth, it is always an Asian employee, such as Steven Ung or Connie Tran, who is laid off while
5 white employees are spared by being transferred to a "safe" group (for example, Kevin
6
7 Westcott).

8

83. When Mr. Trinh began working for Boeing in 1997, he started with a retention

9 rating ofR3, and a year later, in 1998, was moved up to R2. In March 2000, however, Mr. Trinh
10 was moved back down to R3. Similarly, Mr. Trinh's pay level has not increased as those of 11
similarly situated white employees has. 12
84. Mr. Trinh was told by Frank Williston, one of his supervisors, that Trinh was in 13 14 the top 10 percent of all Boeing employees in terms of work ethic. Trinh regularly completes 5-8
15 work orders each day, whereas white American- born employees in my group, such as Vicki

16 Rosas, only complete 1 or 2 projects per day. Indeed, Mr. Trinh is often given particularly

17 difficult assignments because his Leads know that he can complete them competently and on
18 time.
19 85. Mr. Trinh is the most productive in his group, one ofthe most proficient members
20 of his group's Problem Resolution Team. Regularly, and has received thank you letters from
21
22 customers. Despite this, Mr. Trinh has never been compensated or given retention aratings

23 comparable to his white American-born peers.

24

25

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 17

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
,.,f\£\ ';:")1 1\1"\0(\

1

VII. COUNTS

2

COUNT I

3

Violation of Title VII - Disparate Impact

4

86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

5

87. Boeing has maintained a system for making compensation and retention decisions

6 that is excessively subjective and which has a disparate impact on Asian American employees.
7 88. The defendant's discriminatory practices described above have denied Asian
8 American employees compensation and retention ratings to which they are entitled, which has
9
10 resulted in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits.

11

89. These employment practices violated § 703 of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of

12 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2.

l3

COUNT II

14

Violation of Title VII - Disparate Treatment

15

90. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

16

91. Boeing has maintained a system for making retention and compensation decisions

17 that is excessively subjective and through which Boeing discriminates against Asian American

18 employees by denying them the same opportunities for compensation and retention afforded to

19
similarly situated white employees. 20

21

92. The defendant's discriminatory practices described above have denied Asian

22 American employees compensation and retention ratings to which they are entitled, which has

23 resulted in emotional distress and other harm for which they are entitled to compensation.

24

93. Defendant has undertaken these discriminatory practices willfully or with reckless

25 disregard for the Plaintiffs' rights protected under Title VII.
26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 18

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

,.

1

94. These employment practices violate § 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

2 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-2.

3 COUNT III

4

Violation of 42 u.S.C §1981 - Disparate Treatment

5

95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

6

96. Boeing has maintained a system for making retention and compensation decisions

7 that is excessively subjective and through which Boeing discriminates against Asian American

8
employees by denying them the same compensation and retention ratings afforded to similarly 9

10 situated white employees.

11

97. The defendant's discriminatory practices described above have denied Asian

12 American employees compensation and retention ratings to which they are entitled, which has

13 resulted in emotional distress and other harm for which they are entitled to compensation.

14 98. Defendant has undertaken these discriminatory practices willfully or with reckless
15 disregard for the Plaintiffs' rights protected under 42 U.S.C. §1981.
16 99. These employment practices violate 42 U.S.C. §1981.
17

18

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to:

20

1. Declare that the practices described in this complaint exist at Boeing and that they

21

are unlawful;

22
2. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant, its officers, agents,
23
employees and successors, from engaging in the discriminatory employment practices 24

25

complained of herein;

26

3. Issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring that Defendant adopt

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 19

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1

employment practices in conformity with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights

2

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq and 42 U.S.C. §1981;

3 4. Award back pay and other job benefits sufficient to make the Plaintiffs whole;

4
5. Award compensatory and punitive damages appropriate to the proof at trial; 5

6

6. Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert fees, pursuant to 42

7

U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

8

7. Order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10 The Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

Respectfully submitted,

Steven 1. Toll, WSBA #27786 Murray T.S. Lewis, WSBA #13307 Matthew J. Ide, WSBA #26002
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.c. 999 Third Ave., Suite 3600 Seattle, Washington 98104-4001 (206) 521-0080
Joseph M. Sellers Christine E. Webber
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.c. 1100 New York Ave., N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 408-4600
Harish Bharti 5516 - 17th Ave. NW Seattle, Washington 98107

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 20

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

1

(206)282-5630

2

Counsel for Plaintiffs

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 21

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C 70 I Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104-7097

 
 11111111111111111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111111

2

11111111 III l1li11111111 0111111111 II 1111

3

99-<:V-OJ227-8CST

4

5

UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT

6

WESTERN DlSTRTCT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

14

In this class action, plaintiffs have asserted race and national origin discrimination

15 claims against defendant The Boeing Company under Title VII and 42 U.S.c. ~ 1981. In

16 particular, plaintiffs al1ege tllat Boeing's compensation process, which 'involves the delegation of

17 compensation decisions to first level managers, the usc of primarily subjective criteria in making

18 those decisions, and the use of ,"totem" groups to evaluate and rank employees, has created

19 statistically signifIcant disparities between the salaries of class members and white, non-class

20 members in the Boeing work force. Between May 17,2004, and May 28,2004, plaintiffs'

21 Section 1981 and disparate treatment claims were tried to a jury and the disparate impact claim

22 was tried to the Court. On Jnne 2, 2004, the jury rendered a verdict for defendant on both the

23 Section 1981 and the disparate treatment claims. The Court then heard closing arguments on the

24 remaining disparate impact claim.

25

Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim is based on the allegation tl,.t Boeing violated

26
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON UlSPARATE IMPACT CLAIM

1 Title Vll ofthc Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 20000, et seq., by usir,g a facially neutral

2 employment practice that has had a s'ignificant disparate impact on a protected class or group.

3 Because this claim docs not depend on defendant's intent to discriminate, the jury's verdict in

4 favor of Boeing on both the disparate treatment and Section 1981 claims does not control the

5 Court', analysis hcre.

6

Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim extends back to September 14, 2000 (300 days

7 prior to the filing ofMf. Taing's Equal Employment Opportunity charge on July 11,2001) and

8 continues to March 1,2001, for technical workers and to the present for engineers. This COUl1

9 has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1331.

10

Throughout this litigation, plaintiffs have argued that Boeing's compensation

11 processes, taken as a whole, caused a disparate impact on the salaries of class members when

12 compared to those of white, non-class members, During closing arguments, and in light of the

J3 statistical eVidence provided by defendant's statistician, plaintiffs identified two specific

14 employment practices as the cause of the alleged compensation disparity: salary differentials

15 associated with year-of-hire and the assignment of Salaried Job Classification ("SJC") levels.

16 The Court has considered the evidel1ce presented at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the

17 arguments of counsel and, bcing fully advised, finds as follows:

18

19

To make a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VU, plaintiffs must

20 "(1) show a significant disparate impact on a protected cl.ss Or group; (2) identify the specific

21 employment practices or selection criteria. at issue; and (3) show a causa) relationship between

22 the challenged practices or criteria and the disparate impact." Hemmings v, Tid)111an's Inc., 285

23 F.3d 1174, 1190 (9th CiL 2002). In order to show that the dass has suffered a disparate impact

24 in compensation, plaintiffs offered the testimony of Dr. Bernard Siskin regarding various

25 stati,tic.l analyses he perfonned. Using a ,tatistical model that is based on that used by Boeing

26

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ON DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM

-2-

1 when it conducted its own compensation analyses, Dr. Siskin concluded that class members

2 experienced statistically significant differences in pay throughout the relevant time period. Trial

3 Ex•. 391 and 416.

4

The Court, however, finds the analysis presented by Dr. Michael Ward more

S persuasIve. Dr. Ward added a number of variables to Dr. Siskin's statistical model, most of

6 which had very little impact on the estimated salary differences between class members and

7 white employees. The two variables that make the biggest difference in the analyses arc "year of

8 hire;" which takes into account the strength of the Jabor market when the employee was hired,

9 and "SJC lcvel/' which takes into account the level of work performed by the employees. Dr.

10 Ward's model included "year of hire" for both technical and engineering employees. Because

11 Dr. Siskin's model already took into consideration the sophistication of the work perfonned by

12 technical workers through a grade system, the S]C level was added only to the model applied to

13 engineers. The Court. finds that both of these variables arc appropriate considerations when

14 dctennining whether membership in a protected class is having an adverse impact on salary.

15

Plaintiffs strenuously argue that SJC level is simply a proxy for salary and that

16 including SJC level in the regression analysis for engineers leads to the circular finding that

17 differences jn salaries can be expl£lincd because salaries are different. Thro\.lgh the testimony of

IS Todd Zarfos, Jeffrey landers, and others, Boeing showed that, while there is a correlation

19 between s.lary and SJC level, both are strongly correlated to the sophistication of the work being

20 performed. This correlation waS mandated by the governing collective bal~gaining agreement,

21 which also provided avenues of appeal ifan employee disagreed with the level to which he or

22 she was assigned. An employee unhappy with his or her assignment could request a

23 management review or take the issue through the union grievance process. Although

24 approxirn.:'ltcly 40% of the initial assignments were changed during the transition, the class

25 representatives were apparently satisfied with the levels to which they were assigned and djd not

26
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DISPARATE iMPACT CLAIM

1 challenge their assignments. The Court finds that SJC levels are related to the level of work

2 performed and were established through a fair process. Given those findings, a statistica1

3 analysis that incorporates SJC level in order to compJ:lTe employees who arc performing simi1ar

4 work is perfectly reasonable and provides a much better picture of what is driving perceived

5 salary differences than the analysis presented by Dr. Siskin.

6

Using Dr. Siskin's model as a starting point and adding other variables deemed

7 relevant, including "year of hire," Dr. Ward concluded that, for the period between September

8 2000 and March 2001, there is no statistically significant difference between lhe salaries of

9 technical workers who are class members and those who are whites. Trial El<.. 1173. As Dr.
an 10 Ward testified, once the regression analysis accounts for of the identified reJevant factors, any

11 differences belween saJaries arc well within the re,um of chance. The picture is slightly more

12 complicated when one compares the salaries of engineers between September 2000 and

13 September 2002 (the last date for which statistics were analyzed). After adjusting Dr. Siskin's

14 model by adding ~'ycar ofhire/' '~SJC level/' and other factors) the disparity between the salaries

15 ofengincers who arc c1ass members and those who are white was well below the level of

16 statistical significance during 2000 and 200 I. In 2002, Dr. Ward calculated the disparity in pay

17 among engineers at 2.22 standard deviations in favor of plaintiffs. Trial Ex. 1142. Although

18 one could conclude that a salary difference represented by 2.22 stJmdard deviations is not due to

19 chance atone, this difference favors plaintiffs and can hardly be characterized as an actionable

20 impact. When engineers performing the same level of work are compared to each other, any

21 unidentified factor that is driving the contpensation process has resulted in higher compensation

22 paid to engineers who are members of the class.

23

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing by a preponderance ofth.

24 evidence that they have suffered a significant disparate impact in compensation. Their belated

25 attempt to identify Boeing's payment of different starting salaries in different years and/or the

26

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ON O15PARATE IMI'ACTCl.AIM

-4·

payment of higher salarics for more sophisticated work as the practices that caused the disparate

2 impact must fail. The Court has found that Hyear of hire" and "SJC level" are relevant and

3 appropriate variables to include in the regression analysis. Once those variables are included,

4 there is no disparate impact and plaintiffs' have not met their burden of proof. In addition,

5 plaintiffs' attempt to pull out these variables as the "cause" of the disparate impact is illogica\.

6 The point of the analysis is to identify and control for factors that properly impact salary and to

7 detenninc whether there are any unexplained disparities that may be associated with improper

8 considerations of race and national origin. Everyone acknowledges that there are certain 110n-

9 discriminatory, job-related factors which properly impact salary, such as "BS equivalent" and

10 "yeaTS in current job." Having found that "year of hire" and "SJC level" ....: also valid. non-

11 circular; non-discriminatory factors that should be considered in the analysi:i, plaintiffs' attempt

12 to blame those factors for the alleged disparities makes no more sense than an attempt to identify

13 the use of'»cars in currcntjobU as the culprit.

14

15

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes iliat plaintiffs did not

16 suffer a disparate impact in compensation during the relevant time period. The Clerk or Court is 17 directed to enter judgment in t~\Vor of defendant Boeing and against plaintif:rs.

18

19

.fi!: DATED this

day of June, 2004.

20

21

f/Uts~

22

RObert S. Lasmli:

'--

United States District Judge

23

24

25

26

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ON DISPARATE IMPACT ClAIM

-5-

 
 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

13

AT SEATTLE

14

15 KHALIL NOURI et al.,

16

NO. C99-1227L

17

Plaintiffs,

18

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL

19

v.

20

MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS

21 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware

22 23

corporation,

NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR: April 9, 2004

24

25

Defendant.

26

27

28

CONTENTS

29

30 I.
31

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

32 II. FACTS...........................................................................................................................1
33

34 35

III.

ARGUMENT/AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................3

36

37

A. THE COURT MAY DECERTIFY THE CLASS AT ANY TIME...................3

38

39

B. THE LACK OF A STATISTICAL PATTERN AMONG

40

PLAINTIFFS' SEVEN ETHNICITIES DEFEATS CLASS

41

CERTIFICATION. ............................................................................................4

42

43 IV. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................7
44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - i
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3

4

Defendant The Boeing Company ("Boeing") asks the Court decertify the plaintiff

5
6 class. This supplemental motion is based on statistical analyses performed recently by

7

8 plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Bernard Siskin, for each of the seven ethnicities/nationalities

9

10 comprising the class. Dr. Siskin testified in his deposition on December 2, 2003, that he had

11

12 not performed such a "disaggregated" analyses. Boeing and its expert, Dr. Michael Ward,

13

14 assumed that was the case. However, in carefully reviewing all the back-up data and log

15

16 files that Dr. Siskin supplied in connection with his trial report, dated October 24, 2003, Dr.

17

18 Ward discovered on March 23, 2004 that Dr. Siskin had, in fact, conducted precisely such a

19
20 disaggregated study. Dr. Siskin did not include the study in his report, and, when one

21
22 examines the results, it is abundantly clear why: the study definitively demonstrates that no

23

24 pattern of adverse treatment exists across the seven individual protected groups comprising

25
26 the plaintiff class. Indeed, it shows some groups consistently advantaged and others never

27

28 statistically significantly disadvantaged. No case law supports continuing certification of

29

30 the class in the face of statistics such as these. In light of Dr. Siskin's study, the class cannot

31

32 stand as a matter of law.

33

34

II. FACTS

35

36

As the Court is well aware, plaintiffs are Boeing engineers and technical workers of

37

38 seven ethnicities: Cambodian, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistani and Filipino, Iranian, and

39

40 Afghan. Plaintiffs claim to have experienced race and national origin discrimination in the

41

42 Company's annual salary adjustment processes. They sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights

43

44 Act of 1964 as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 1
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

Both parties have engaged statistical experts to analyze Company data as it pertains

2
3 to this lawsuit. In March, 2003 the Court ordered the parties to conduct a comprehensive

4
5 national origin survey to try to determine the specific ethnicities of potential classmembers.

6
7 Order Regarding Contents of Survey, March 7, 2003 (Dkt #257). After the national origin

8
9 survey was conducted, the parties' experts defined the class population using the information

10
11 gleaned from the survey, supplemented with information from Boeing's personnel databases.

12
13 Declaration of Rima Hartman ("RH") ¶ 2. They then conducted statistical analyses, with

14
15 competing models, for potential use at trial.

16

17

Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Siskin, produced his report for trial on October 24, 2003

18
19 ("Siskin's 2003 Report"). Id. ¶ 3. This report included only aggregated statistical data

20
21 relating to the class. Id. The report did not include any analysis ethnicity by ethnicity. Id.

22
23 Boeing then issued a request for Dr. Siskin's back-up data relating to his 2003 statistical

24
25 analyses. Id. ¶ 4. Dr. Siskin provided that backup documentation to Dr. Ward at various

26
27 points thereafter. Declaration of Michael Ward ("MW") ¶ 3. Boeing deposed Dr. Siskin

28
29 regarding his 2003 Report on December 2, 2003. RH ¶ 5. In that deposition, Dr. Siskin

30
31 testified as follows:

32

33

A: . . [T]here was a table 3 in the earlier report which dealt with

34

the results by specific country of origin, which we no longer did—ran.

35

36

Q.: Why did you drop those studies?

37

38

A.: I believe—this was not for class certification. This was post

39 40 41

class certification. So we were told the class were certified [sic], this is what the class is, study the class.

42 43

Deposition of Bernard Siskin at 34:17-25 (RH 6).

44 45

Defendant's expert, Dr. Ward, produced his expert report in this case on December 5,

46 47

2003. RH ¶ 6. Dr. Siskin produced a rebuttal report on February 5, 2004 ("Rebuttal

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 2
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1 Report"). Id. ¶ 7. Again, Dr. Siskin's Rebuttal Report omitted any disaggregated analysis of

2
3 plaintiffs' class by country of origin. Id.

4

5

When Dr. Ward received the back-up data to Dr. Siskin's 2003 Report, he did not

6
7 look for any disaggregated studies in the backup data provided by Dr. Siskin—believing

8
9 Dr. Siskin's testimony that none had been run. MW ¶ 5. However, on March 23, 2004,

10
11 Dr. Ward discovered that Dr. Siskin did perform a disaggregated, by-country analysis, but

12
13 left out the results of those studies in his 2003 Report and his 2004 Rebuttal Report. Id.¶ 3

14

15

At the request of counsel for Boeing, Dr. Ward printed out Dr. Siskin's log files

16
17 displaying the country-by-country analyses. Id. ¶ 3 and pp. 40-58. Dr. Ward also performed

18
19 the mathematical calculation necessary to display Dr. Siskin's results in terms of standard

20
21 deviation. Id. ¶ 4. He further conducted a statistical run of his own (using Dr. Siskin's

22
23 regression model) to confirm the results obtained from Dr. Siskin's log files. Id. ¶ 4 and

24
25 pp. 40-58. As set forth in more detail below, the results of Dr. Siskin's analysis are

26
27 straightforward and inescapable: no pattern of statistically significant disadvantage exists

28
29 across the composite class of ethnicities plaintiffs represent.

30

31

III. ARGUMENT/AUTHORITIES

32

33 A. THE COURT MAY DECERTIFY THE CLASS AT ANY TIME.

34

35

Plaintiffs have repeatedly argued that because this Court certified a class and because

36

37 the Ninth Circuit refused Boeing's interlocutory appeal, the class certification decision is

38

39 somehow set in stone. See, e.g., Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary

40

41 Judgment on Class Claims (Dkt # 310) at 2; Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Boeing

42

43 from Revisiting Class Definition During Trial (Dkt. #326), at 2-3. Plaintiffs' assertion lacks

44

45 any basis in the law.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 3
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

Rule 23 itself provides that a court may alter or amend certification of a class at any

2
3 time prior to a decision on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1). Indeed, the Supreme Court

4
5 has ruled that a court's order respecting class status is not final or irrevocable, but rather, is

6
7 "inherently tentative." General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,

8
9 160 (1982) (emphasis added) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469

10
11 n.11 (1978)). See also Paton v. New Mexico Highlands University, 275 F.3d 1274, 1278

12
13 (10th Cir.2002) (trial court granted defendant's motion for decertification after the close of

14
15 trial but before the matter was submitted to the jury); Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872

16 17

(9th Cir. 2001) ("district court may redefine the class, may excise portions of a plaintiffs'

18
19 class allegations, and may even decertify the class" at any time before final judgment);

20
21 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied,

22
23 459 U.S. 1217 (1983) (district court has broad discretion to amend, alter or even decertify

24
25 the class at any time prior to a decision on the merits); O'Brien v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 670 F.2d

26
27 864, 869 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Atonio v. Ward's Cove Packing Co.,

28
29 Inc., 810 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir.1987) (affirming district court's decertification of class

30
31 following the plaintiffs' failure to produce sufficient evidence of classwide discrimination).

32
33 B. THE LACK OF A STATISTICAL PATTERN AMONG PLAINTIFFS'

34

SEVEN ETHNICITIES DEFEATS CLASS CERTIFICATION.

35

36

Dr. Siskin's statistical evidence definitively demonstrates that the requirements of

37

38 commonality and typicality are not met as to the present class. Indeed, the facts are

39

40 precisely the opposite: that there is no common adverse experience among plaintiffs' seven-

41

42 country "Asians." The Court anticipated this precise issue when denying plaintiffs' first

43

44 motion for class certification:

45

46

Statistical analyses tied to individual nationalities may reveal

47

disparities which do not fit the overall contours of the plaintiffs' class.

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 4
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

For example, there is no reason to assume, and plaintiffs have offered

2

no evidence to suggest, that a particular nationality . . . has been

3

adversely affected by the policies and practices of which they

4

complain. With regard to any one or more nationalities, Boeing may

5 6

be able to rebut whatever presumption of discrimination arises out of

7

plaintiffs' [overall] statistical showing. In light of this very real

8

possibility, the typicality of the named plaintiffs' claims remains in

9

doubt.

10

11 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, May 24, 2001 (Dkt. # 152) at 4-5.

12

13

As it turns out, Boeing need not undertake studies to demonstrate that there is not a

14

15 statistically significant pattern of adverse effect against the individual nationalities

16

17 comprising the class—Dr. Siskin has already done it. As the tables appended to Dr. Ward's

18

19 declaration demonstrate, no pattern of disparity exists across the class. MW ¶ 4 and pp. 40-

20

21 58. To the contrary, Indian engineers, for example, received more pay than would be

22
23 predicted, to a statistically significant degree in almost every year. Id.1 The results for

24

25 Pakistani engineers were likewise positive in most years, though not statistically

26

27 significantly. Id. Iranian engineers and technical workers had no statistically significant

28

29 results in any year. Id. Filipino engineers had statistically significant negative results in

30

31 only one year; the same was true for Filipino engineers. Id. Of all the technical workers,

32

33 only two ethnicities showed any statistically significant adverse results in any year: Indians

34

35

36

37

1 As Dr. Ward's declaration indicates, the standard deviations derived for Dr. Siskin's analysis are set

38 forth in Column B of Exhibit C to the declaration. MW 40-58. Dr. Ward ran a "check" on these figures by

39 replicating Dr. Siskin's actual statistical model and running it with Dr. Siskin's data, comparing each ethnicity

40 against the data for white employees. Id. ¶ 4. This produces very slight variation, as reflected in Column D.

41 Id. 40-58. Either set of standard deviations confirms the same result—lack of a common statistical pattern

42 across the class.

43

44

The Court should note, of course, that all these analyses are from Dr. Siskin or replicate his model.

45 Boeing does not agree that this model is appropriate, but accepts it for purposes of this motion only. Dr.

46 Ward's model, which Boeing believes is a better reflection of the compensation results, is provided for

47 comparison. MW ¶ 6 and pp. 59-73.

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 5
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1 in 1997 and 1998, and Vietnamese in 1998, and the degree of statistical significance seen

2
3 there is miniscule, ranging from 2.01 to 2.13. Id. Overall, the vast majority of Dr. Siskin's

4
5 outcomes were not statistically significant in either direction in any year.2 Id.

6

7

While the Supreme Court has declined to hold that "precise calculations of statistical

8
9 significance are necessary in employing statistical proof," Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United

10
11 States, 433 U.S. 299, 311-12 n.17 (1977); Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S.

12
13 977, 995 n.3 (1988), the Court has stated "'if the difference between the expected value and

14
15 the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations,'" then the hypothesis

16
17 [that no discrimination occurred] would be suspect." Hazelwood, 433 U.S. at 309 n.14

18
19 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

20

21

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted that guidance to mean that while a social scientist

22
23 may be suspicious of standard deviations just above two or three, a different—even higher—

24
25 standard applies in court, adding that "courts should be 'extremely cautious' of drawing any

26
27 inferences from standard deviations in the range of 1 to 3." Gay v. Waiters' & Dairy

28 29

Lunchmen's Union Local No. 30, 694 F.2d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). In

30
31 Gay, the Ninth Circuit cautioned:

32

33

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based

34

solely on statistical evidence, the plaintiff must produce statistics

35

showing "a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race."

36

"But such cases are rare." Absent a "stark" pattern, "impact alone is

37 38 39

not determinative, and the [c]ourt must look to other evidence." It is vitally important, therefore, to remember that "statistically

40

41

42

43

2 To understand the time frame in Dr. Siskin's compensation studies, it is important to note that, at

44 Boeing, the new salaries for engineers and technical workers take effect on March 2. Dr. Siskin's snapshots of

45 salaries taken on March 1 therefore generally reflect the salary in place for the previous year. Thus, his studies

46 of March 1, 1996 salaries actually reflect salaries set in 1995, his studies of March 1, 1997 salaries actually

47 reflect salaries set in 1996, and so forth. Siskin Dep. at 82:12-83-11, 84:1-20. RH 7-8.

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 6
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

significant" results are not necessarily "legally significant" results. As

2

the district court recognized, "the probability of random occurrence of

3

a value is not the obverse of the probability that is the result of

4

deliberate action." Simply put, statistics demonstrating that chance is

5 6

not the more likely explanation are not by themselves sufficient to

7

demonstrate that race is the more likely explanation for an employer's

8

conduct.

9
10 Gay, 694 F.2d at 552-53 (emphasis added; citations and footnotes omitted).

11

12

As the Court acknowledged when it granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment

13
14 as to the claims of technical workers after March 1 of 2001, disparities such as those found

15
16 in Dr. Siskin's disaggregated analysis simply cannot support plaintiffs' case. Order Granting

17
18 in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Class Claims, March 25, 2004 (Dkt

19
20 #348), at 3. The Court wrote: "the differences between class members' expected salaries

21
22 and their actual salaries are so small that they are more likely the result of random chance

23
24 than the employee's race or national origin." Id. Given the known differences among the

25
26 plaintiffs' class and the indisputable fact that there are no statistically significant results for

27
28 most of the ethnicities in most of the years at issue, there is plainly no longer any basis for

29
30 class treatment. To hold otherwise would leave open the completely unjustified possibility

31
32 that Boeing could be found liable for discrimination against ethnic groups for whom there is

33
34 only statistical evidence of favorable treatment. Nothing in the letter or spirit of Rule 23,

35
36 Title VII or Section 1981 permits such a result.

37

38

IV. CONCLUSION

39

40

On the basis of the foregoing, Boeing respectfully requests that the Court decertify

41

42 the class

43

44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 7
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

DATED: March 25, 2004.

2

3

4

s/ Rima Hartman

5

State Bar Number: 25714

6

John F. Aslin, WSBA #1583

7

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853

8 9 10

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

11

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

12

Telephone: (206) 359-8435

13

Fax: (206) 359-9435

14

E-mail: RHartman@perkinscoie.com

15

Attorneys for The Boeing Company

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 8
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

3

On March 25, 2004, I caused to be served upon counsel of record, at the address

4
5 stated below, via the method of service indicated, a true and correct copy of the following

6
7 documents:

8

9

Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Decertify Class

10

11 12

Steven J. Toll

13 Joseph M. Sellers

14 Christine E. Webber

15 Jenny R. Yang

16 Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC

17 1100 New York Avenue, NW

18 19 20

West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005

___ Via hand delivery ___ Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class, Postage
Prepaid ___ Via Overnight Delivery ___ Via Facsimile _X_ Via E-filing

21

22 23 24 25

Harish Bharti

___

Law Offices of Harish Bharti & Associates, LLC ___

5516 17th Avenue NW

Via hand delivery Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class, Postage Prepaid

26 Seattle, WA 98107

___ Via Overnight Delivery

27

___ Via Facsimile

28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
29

_X_ Via E-filing

30 31

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the

32 foregoing is true and correct.

33 34

DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 25th day of March, 2004.

35

36

37

s/ Rima Hartman

38

State Bar Number: 25714

39

Attorneys for Defendant

40

Perkins Coie LLP

41 42 43

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099

44

Telephone: 206-359-8435

45

Fax: 206-359-9435

46

E-mail: RHartman@perkinscoie.com

47

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 9
[/SL040850203.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

 
 I

___ FILED --._ENTERED

2

---LODCm __ .,~r:C£IVW

3

I~ji.,< ;. J 200~

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8

9 KHALIL NOURl, et al.,

No. C99-1227L

10

Plaintiffs,

v.

11

THE BOEING COMPANY,

12

Defendant.

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLASS CLAIMS

14
This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant's Motion [or Summary
15 Judgment on Class Claims," Defendant argues that (I) plaintiffs have failed to raise an
16
inference of discrimination based on any particular '''race'' or "national origin" under either Title
17
VII or 42 U.S.c. § 1981; (2) plaintiffs' claims regarding retention ratings fail .s a matler oflaw 18
because the assignment of such ratings is not an actionable event; (3) plaintiffs' disparate impact
19
claim fails because they cannot identifY the specific employment practice th.t resulted in the 20
alleged impact; (4) plaintiffs should be precluded from presenting evidence of events that
21
occurred outside the limitations period; and (5) there is no statistical support for plaintiffs' 22
claims of discrimination against technical workers. 23

24

25
26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Sl!MMARY JlJDGMENT ON CLASS CLAIMS

/111111 IEII IEII .EII 111/1 111/1 11111 1111 liE
/1111111111111111111111111111111111
99'(Y'H227-c'JA

Having considered tile pleadings, declarations, and exhibits I submitted by the 2 parties, the Court finds as follows:

3

(1) During the class cettilieation stage of this litigation, plaintiffs alleged and provided

4 statistical evidence to show that the various members ofthe proposed class had been similarly

5 injured by Boeing's employment practices. Plaintiffs have now abandoned ilIeir nation-by-
6 nation analysis in favor of statistics which aggregate the injuries of al1 class members into one

7 undifferentiated number. Defendant argues that plaintiffs will not be able to prove

8 discrimination against any particular race or national origin based on such aggregated statistics, 9 Although plaintiffs' choice of statistical analysis will undoubtedly make it more difficult for the 10 jury to determine whether Boeing discriminated against Afghans, Filipinos, or Asians,' plaintiffs
11 will be pcnnitted to present their case in the manner they sec fit. Plaintiffs must, however, 12 realize ilIat they have (he burden of proving by a preponderance oftbe evidence that Boeing
13 discriminated on the basis of race or national origin.

14

(2) The mere assignment ofa retention rating, without more, is not an actionable event

15 under Title VII because it does not impact the employee's "compensation, tenns, conditions, or

16 pri vilegos of employment." 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I). Plaintiffs do not contest this fact. SQ£

17 Opposition at 10. Nevertheless, plaintiffs seek to go forward with their retention rating claim

18 because some members of the class may have been lald off as a result of the ratings they were

L9 assigned. EVen if the Court assumes that, at the damages stage, some individual class members

20

21

I The Court has not considered "Plaintiffs' SurrepJy to Defendant's Motion for Summary

Judgment on Class Claims," All of the issues discussed in that unallthorized and untimely memorandum

22 were, or should have been, raised in opposition.

23

2 References to "Asians" d.uring trial should be limHed to circumstances in which counselor a

24 witness is referring to a protected grDup and/or the race to which many class members belong. The tenn
"Asian" shoUld not be used as a short hand reference to class members because it does not accurately

25 describe the entire class,

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ON CLASS CLAIMS

-2-

will be able to prove that they suffered an adverse employment action because of their retention

2 rating, the fact that such individuals may have a valid Title VII claim does not give ri.se to a

3 class-wide claim based on an earlier non-actionable event. There is no class-wide claim related

4 to layoffs and plaintiffs have conceded that retention ratings, standing alone, are not an

5 actionable event. Plaintiff.,>;' retention rating claim fails as a matter of law.

6

(3) An employer's decisionmaking process may be analyzed as" single employment

7 practice if the various elements of the process are not capable of separation for analysis.

8 42 U.S.C. ~ 2000c-2(k)(1 )(B)(I). Boeing's subjective salary-review process does not involve

9 separate segments that could be evaluated independently to see whieh one, if any, adversely

10 impacted the plaintiff class. In these circumstances, plaintiffs have adequately identified the

11 employment practice they believe has caused a disparate impact on the basis of race and/or

12 national origin.

13

(4) Statistics and anecdotal evidence regarding events that occurred outside the

14 limitations periods are relevant to both intent and punitive damages. Although plaintiffs will not

15 be permitted to recover damages related to pre-statute oflimitations events, evidence of sueh

16 events is admissible for other purposes.

17

(5) Plaintiffs' statistical evidence regarding salary differences among union technical

18 workers raises an inference of discrim.ination between March 2, 1996 and March 1,2001 when

19 the difference in units of standard deviation ranged from 2.37 to 2.93 (with an average of 2.68).

20 Deel, of Bemard R. Siskin (dated 10/24/03), Table ST I. For the period aftcr March 1,2001,

21 however, the differences between class members' expected salaries and their actual salaries are

22 so small that they are more likely the result of random chance than the employees' race and/or

23 national origin. Even when combined with the testimony of plaintiffs' experts and the anecdotal

24 evidence offered by individual class members, this evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine

25 issue of facl regarding the possibility of discrimination after March 1, 2001 ,

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ON CLASS Cl,AIMS

-3-

I

For all of the foregoing reasonsl defendant's motion for summary judgment

2 regarding class claims is GRJ\NTED in part and DENIED in part. Although the Court has

3 concerns regarding plaintiffs~ ability to estabHsh discrimination against any particUlar race or

4 national origin, plaintiffs will be permitted to present their agb7J'egated statistical analysis to the

5 jl,.lry. Plajntiffs) retention rating claim fails as a matter of law, however, as does the technical

6 workers' compensation claim for the period after March 1, 2001,

7 8

~ay i2!{ DATED this

of March, 2004.

9

10

Robert S. Lasmk

11

United States District Judge

12

13 14
15

16 17 18

19
20

21
22 23 24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOnON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ON CLASS CLAIMS

-4-

 
 I

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

2

11111111111111111111111111111111111

3

99-CV-1I1227-CLM

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

8 KHALIL NOURI, et al.,
9

10

v.

PlaintitlS,

No. C99-1227L ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL

11 THE BOEING COMPANY,

12 ~...- - - -
13

Defendant.

14

This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiffs' Motion to Bitlm::ate Trial." The

15 parties generally agree that a jury trial regarding class-wide liability issues should precede the
16 determination afindividual damages in the above-captioned matter. Motion at p.2, n. 8-9;

17 Opposition at pA, 11, 17-21. HaYing considered the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits

18 submitted by the parties. the Court finds as follows:

19

20

(I) Boeing's liability to the class and the compensatory damages of the named plaintiffs

21 will be detennined in ajury trial starting at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 26, 2004. The same jury

22 will also determine the amount, if any. of punitive damages to be awarded.

23

(2) Ifliability is found, the Court will award back pay and determine whether injunctive

24 andlor dcclaratory relief is appropriate. This process may require additional briefing from the

25 parties.

26

(3) Plaintiffs shall send notice to the absent class members regarding the outcome of the

ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL

1 liability phase and their right to claim compensatory damages.

2

(4) If the parties cannot agree on an alternative means to determine compensatory

3 damages for the absent class members I the Court will schedule damage tria1s as necessary and

4 appropriate to make such determinations.

5

(5) If, after all compensatory damage claims have been decided, the punitive damage

6 award appears constitutionally defective, the Court may entertain a petition for remittitur or a

7 motion for new trial on that issue. if, however, the punitive damage award ,is reasonably related

8 to the hann that was caused by defendant's conduct or was likely to result [rom that conduct, the

9 lump sum awarded by the first jury will be allocated to class members who were able to prove

10 injury_

II

12

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

13

14

.,..

15

2.1/ DATED this

day of March, 2004.

16 17

RObcrt~

18

United Stales District Judge

19
20

21 22 2.1

24

25
26

ORDFR BIFURCATING TRIAL

-2-

 
 _ _ FILED

ENTERED

_ _ LODGED'---_RECEIVED

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

2

3

AUG 1 3 2003 KN

1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 11111 11111111

4

AI til:.Al I '-I;.

5

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

111111111111111111 11111111111 II 1111

6

BY

DEPUTY

7

99-CV-01227-ANS

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12

AT SEATTLE

13

14 15

KHALIL NOURI, et aI,

16

17

Plaintiffs,

18

NO. c99-1227L DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER

19

v.

TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED

20
21 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware 22 corporation,
23

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

24 25

Defendant.

26

27

28

29

The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), by and through its attorneys, submits its Answer to

30
31 Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended

32
33 CAC"), answering Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC as follows:

34

35

I. ANSWER

36

37

I. Answering paragraph I of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

38

39 plaintiffs purport to bring this action as stated in paragraph I, and except as so admitted,

40

41 Boeing denies the allegations contained therein.

42

43

2. Answering paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

44

45 plaintitfs purport to bring claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

46

47 42 US.c. §§ 2000e, et seq., and 42 US.c. § 1981. Boeing denies that this Court has

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 1
[03002-D683!SL032230.162]

ARIGINAL Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenne, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 subject matter jurisdiction over all of plaintiffs' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et

2 3

~, and denies the remainder of this paragraph because it constitutes a legal conclusion

4 5

which requires no answer. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in

6
7 paragraph 2.

8 9

3. Answering paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, the first sentence of

10 11

this paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer, and therefore Boeing

12 13

denies the same. Boeing admits that its principal place of business is in Washington, but

14 15

denies that any unlawful acts alleged by plaintiffs occurred. Except as so admitted, Boeing

16 17

denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3.

18 19

4. Answering paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

20 21

allegations contained therein.

22 23

5. Answering paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

24 25

Lear S. Lavi was an employee of Boeing from April 26, 1991, to October 8, 1999, in Renton,

26
27 Washington on the 7371757 Program. Boeing further states that Lavi is classified as white,

28
29 according to Company records. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

30
31 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 5 and therefore denies

32
33

the same.

34

35

6. Answering paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

36
37 Ahmad Golchin was employed by Boeing in Everett, Washington from February 1997 until

38
39 January 29, 1999, and that according to Company records, Golchin's last known address is

40 41

located in Marysville, Washington, and he is classified as white. Boeing further states that

42
43 Golchin has represented to Boeing that he was born in Iran. Boeing lacks knowledge or

44
45 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in

46
47 paragraph 6 and therefore denies the same.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99·1227L) ·2
[03002·0683ISL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenne, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101·3099
Phone: (206) 583·8888 Fax: (206) 583·8500

1

7. Answering paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

2
3 Syed L Rizvi was employed by Boeing in Everett, Washington from September 18, 1992 to

4
5 March 26, 1999, and that, according to Company records, Rizvi's last known address is

6
7 located in Mill Creek, Washington, and he is classified as AsianlPacific Islander. Boeing

8
9 further states that Rizvi has represented to Boeing that he was born in India. Boeing lacks

10
11 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

12 13

allegations in paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same.

14

15

8. Answering paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

16 17

Mike M. Taing was employed by Boeing from September 9, 1996 to April 23, 2002 in

18
19 Everett, Washington. Boeing further admits that Taing has represented that he was born in

20
21 Cambodia. Boeing further states that according to Company records, Taing is classified as

22
23 white and his last known address is in Everett, Washington. Except as so stated, Boeing

24
25 denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 8 .

26

27

9. Answering paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

28
29 Khalil Nouri was employed by Boeing from August 1992 to March 26,1999, that Nouri

30
31 worked at Boeing facilities located in Auburn, Renton, and Everett, Washington, and that,

32
33 according to Company records, Nouri's last known address is located in Everett, Washington,

34
35 and he is classified as white. Boeing further states that Nouri has represented to Boeing that

36
37 he was born in Mghanistan. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

38
39 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 and therefore denies

40
41 the same.

42

43

10. Answering paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

44
45 that Raul M Aballe was employed by Boeing from November 25, 1996 to March 26, 1999,

46
47 at which time he was laid off as part of a reduction in force. Boeing admits that Aballe has

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 3
[03002-0683iSL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LIP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

represented that he was born in The Philippines and is classified in Company records as

2 3

AsianlPacific Islander. Boeing further admits that Aballe first worked for Boeing in the

4 5

Commercial Airplane Group in Auburn Washington. Boeing lacks knowledge or information

6 7

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 10

8
9 and therefore denies the same.

10 11

11. Answering paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

12 13

that Bao Trinh was employed by Boeing in September 1997 in a Manufacturing Engineering

14 15

group in Everett, Washington. Boeing further admits that Trinh has represented that he is

16 17

Vietnamese. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing is without information sufficient to

18
19 form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 11.

20 21

12. Answering paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

22 23 that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, that it operates facilities in the

24 25

State of Washington and other locations, that it is an employer under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b),

26 27

and that it does business in the Western District of Washington. Except as so admitted,

28 29

Boeing denies the allegations contained therein.

30 31

13. Answering paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

32
33 allegations contained therein.

34 35

14. Answering paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

36
37 allegations contained therein.

38

39

15. Answering paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

40
41 allegations contained therein.

42

43

16. Answering paragraph 160fPlaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits that

44 45 plaintiffs seek certification of a class as stated in paragraph 16, but denies that any class

46
47 should be certified. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained therein.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 4
[03 002-0683/SL03 2230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

17. Answering paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

2 3

allegations contained therein.

4 5

18. Answering paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies that

6 7

the class members are sufficiently numerous to make joinder of all members impracticable.

8 9

Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

10 11

the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 and therefore denies the same.

12 13

19. Answering paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

14
15 allegations contained therein.

16 17

20. Answering paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

18 19

allegations contained therein.

20 21

21. Answering paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

22 23

allegations contained therein.

24

25

22. Answering paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

26 27

allegations contained therein.

28 29

23. Answering paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

30 31

allegations contained therein.

32

33

24. Answering paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

34
35 Lavi is classified as white according to Company records. Boeing admits that Lavi has

36 37

represented to Boeing that he received a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of

38 39

Cincinnati in June of 1990 and that he had prior work experience as an engineer with General

40
41 Dynamics. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

42
43 or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 24 and therefore denies the same.

44

45

25. Answering paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

46 47

that it hired Lavi in Tool Engineering in April 1991 as a technical employee in a grade 4

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 5
[03002-0683!SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

classification. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining allegations of

2 3

paragraph 25.

4
5

26. Answering paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

6 7

allegations contained therein.

8 9

27. Answering paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits the

10 11

allegations contained therein.

12

13

28. Answering paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

14 15

that Lavi transferred to the 757-300 program in June 1996, that Lavi transferred to the I&R

16 17

Outplant Tool Engineering group in September 1997, and that Lavi was given the

18 19

opportunity to serve as I&R Chairman, while maintaining some Outplant duties. Except as

20 21

expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 28.

22 23

29. Answering paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

24 25

that, effective March 3, 1998, Lavi was classified as a professional engineer with a primary

26 27

skill code of MAl and a grade level ofWl2. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies

28 29

the remaining allegations of paragraph 29.

30 31

30. Answering paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

32 33

that Lavi filed a complaint with Boeing's Equal Employment Opportunity Office in May

34
35 1999, alleging that in February 1999, first-level supervisor Rick Roppel had, in a crew

36 37

meeting, said to an employee "Paul, 1 can't tell if you're sleeping or awake, maybe you need a

38 39

toothpick to keep your eyes pryed[sic1open," and that the employee to whom this was

40 41

addressed was classified as AsianlPacific Islander according to Company records. Boeing

42 43

further admits that during the investigation of Lavi's complaint, Roppel stated that he said to

44 45 the employee, who appeared to be sleeping, something to the effect of "I couldn't tell if your

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 6
[03002-0683/SL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 eyes were open or not." Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining

2
3 allegations of paragraph 30.

4 5

31. Answering paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

6 7

allegations therein.

8 9

32. Answering paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

10 11

that Lavi received a notice of potential layoff under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining

12 13

Notification Act, in August 1999. Boeing denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 32.

14 15

33. Answering paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

16
17 that on February 2, 2000, it received a notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity

18
19 Commission of a discrimination charge filed by Lavi. Except as expressly so admitted Boeing

20 21

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

22 23

remaining allegations of paragraph 33 and therefore denies the same.

24

25

34. Answering paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

26
27 that Golchin has represented to Boeing that he was born in Iran, that he received a Bachelor

28 29

of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Utah in June

30
31 1993, and that he was employed by the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality

32
33 as an Environmental Support Specialist and an Environmental Engineer Tech from 1993 to

34
35 1997. Except as so admitted, Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

36
37 belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 34 and therefore denies the

38 39

same.

40

41

35. Answering paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

42
43 that it hired Golchin in February 1997 as a Grade 10 Manufacturing Engineer (skill code

44
45 MM6), that Grade lOis the lowest grade listed in the CBA applicable to engineers, that

46 47

Golchin's initial salary was $37,000 per year, and that he was automatically assigned a

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L)-7
[03002.0683iSL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 retention rating ofR3 at the time of his hire under the CBA, like all new hires in his

2 3

bargaining unit. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in Paragraph

4
5 35.

6 7

36. Answering paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

8 9

that Golchin was assigned a retention rating of R2 in October 1997. Except as so admitted,

10 11

Boeing denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36.

12

13

37. Answering paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

14
15 that around July 1998, the group in which Golchin had been working was reorganized, and

16 17

that as a result, Golchin and several other employees (classified as white and otherwise

18 19

according to Company records) began working under supervisor Gary Rubino on the 44

20
21 section and other sections of the 747 model airplane. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies

22
23 the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 37.

24 25

38. Answering paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

26 27

that in October 1998, Golchin received a retention rating of R3, and that under the CBA

28
29 applicable to Golchin's employment, R3s in a given primary skill code typically are laid off

30
31 before R2s and Rl s in that primary skill code, iflayoffs become necessary within that primary

32
33 skill code. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining allegations contained in

34 35

paragraph 38.

36 37

39. Answering paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

38
39 that in November 1998, Golchin and several other employees (both classified as white and

40
41 otherwise according to Company records) began working under the supervision of Larry

42
43 Pirone on the 46 section. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining allegations

44 45

contained in paragraph 39.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 8
[03002·0683/SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 120I Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

I

40. Answering paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

2
3 that on November 25, 1998, Golchin and other employees (both classified as white and

4 5

otherwise according to Company records) were issued notices under the Worker Adjustment

6 7

and Retraining Notification Act indicating that they could be laid off Boeing further admits

8 9

that on January 29, 1999, Golchin was laid off. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

10
II remaining allegations contained in paragraph 40.

12 13

41. Answering paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

14
15 allegations contained therein.

16

17

42. Answering paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

18
19 on February 19, 1999, it received a notice from the EEOC ofa charge of discrimination filed

20 21 by Golchin, and that Boeing received notice from the EEOC that it issued a Notice of Right

22 23 to Sue on Golchin's charge on August 3 I, 1999. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

24 25 remaining allegations contained in paragraph 42.

26

27

43. Answering paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

28 29

Rizvi has represented to Boeing that he was born in India, that he received a B. S. in

30
31 Electrical Engineering in 1967 from Western States College of Engineering in Inglewood,

32
33 California, and that he had prior work experience at McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell

34
35 International and Ford Aerospace. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form

36
37 a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 43 and therefore

38 39

denies the same.

40 41

44. Answering paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

42 43 that it hired Rizvi in September 1992 as a Tool Designer - Assembly, Installation, and Test

44
45 Tooling with job classification MXTl05 (a technical position). Boeing further admits that in

46
47 July 1996, Rizvi'sjob title became Tool Engineering Specialist 2, and his job classification

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 9
[03002-0683iSUl32230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 became MWJW3 5. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in

2 3

paragraph 44.

4 5

45. Answering paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

6 7

Rizvi's employment with McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International was calculated into

8 9

Rizvi's years of service with Boeing. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations

10 11

contained in paragraph 45.

12 13

46. Answering paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

14
15 allegations contained therein.

16 17

47. Answering paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

18 19

that Rizvi was assigned to organization U-3863 from September 1992 to March 1998.

20 21

Boeing further admits that Rizvi had several supervisors during that time period, including

22 23

William Cooper, and that his supervisors were classified as white according to Company

24 25

records. Boeing further admits that Cooper supervised Rizvi from approximately September

26 27

1992 through approximately September 1996. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

28 29

allegations contained in paragraph 47.

30 31

48. Answering paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

32 33

that in 1998, it reduced headcount in its 777 Program, and that in March 1998, Rizvi

34
35 transferred into the Fuselage Assembly Improvement Team ("FAIT") within the 747 Program

36 37

of the Tool Engineering Organization, organization T-B370, under the supervision of

38 39

Richard G. Billieu. Boeing further admits that Rizvi was the only employee from the 777

40 41

Program who transferred to the 747 FAIT at that time, and that other employees from the

42
43 777 Program transferred to other areas, including the 747 Program, the 767 Program and the

44
45 Flightline. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 10
[03002-0683!SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenoe, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

49. Answering paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

2 3

that Rizvi was laid off in March 1999, that he had worked in T-B370 for one year prior to his

4
5

layoff, that he had a retention rating of R2 at the time of his layoff, and that under the CBA

6 7

for technical employees applicable to Rizvi's employment, R3 s in a given job classification

8 9

typically are laid off before R2s and Rls in that classification, iflayoffs become necessary

10
11 within that classification. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in

12
13 paragraph 49.

14

15

50. Answering paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

16
17 since Rizvi received notice of his impending layoff on January 22,1999, there have been

18
19 employees who transferred into Organization T-B370 who are classified as white according

20
21 to Company records, and some employees who transferred into T-B370 worked in T-B370

22
23 after the date of Rizvi's layoff. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations

24
25 contained in paragraph 50.

26 27

51. Answering paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

28 29

on January 4, 2000, it received from the EEOC a notice of a charge of discrimination filed by

30
31 Rizvi. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph

32 33 51.

34

35

52. Answering paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

36
37 that Taing has represented to Boeing that he received a degree in Industrial Engineering from

38 39

the University of Washington in June of 1993, that he worked at Federated Logistics as an

40
41 Industrial Engineer from September 1993 to May 1996, and that he was born in Cambodia.

42
43

Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

44 45 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 52 and therefore

46
47

denies the same.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 11
[03002·0683!SL032230.162)

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

53. Answering paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

2 3

that Taing began working at Boeing as a Manufacturing Engineering Planner I, in job

4
5

classification NHJS33, a technical position. Boeing denies the remaining allegations of

6
7 paragraph 53.

8

9

54. Answering paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

10 11

that under the CBA for technical employees, R3s in a given job classification typically are laid

12 13

off before R2s and Rls in that classification, iflayoffs become necessary within that

14
15 classification. Boeing further admits that according to information Larry Milzarek provided

16
17 to Boeing, he does not have an engineering degree and that Milzarek is classified as white

18 19

according to Company records. Except as so expressly admitted, Boeing denies the

20 21

allegations in paragraph 54.

22 23

55. Answering paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing has no

24
25 record of Taing receiving Certificates of Achievement from Boeing and therefore denies the

26
27 same.

28 29

56. Answering paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

30 31

that on January 4, 2000, Boeing received notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity

32
33 Commission of a charge by Taing. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the

34
35 allegations in paragraph 56.

36 37

57. Answering paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

38
39 Nouri has represented to Boeing that he was born in Mghanistan, that he received an AA

40
41 degree in mechanical drafting from Pasadena City College, and that he received a Bachelor's

42
43 of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Pasadena City College and Polytechnic

44 45 University. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

46
47 or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 57 and therefore denies the same.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 12
[03002-0683iSL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

58. Answering paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

2 3

Nouri has represented to Boeing that prior to his employment with Boeing in 1992, he

4
5

obtained experience in tool design. Boeing admits that it hired Nouri in August 1992 as a

6 7

Tool Designer with job classification MXTl04 (a technical position) in its Fabrication

8 9

Division in Auburn, Washington. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations

10 11

contained in paragraph 58.

12 13

59. Answering paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

14 15

that in February 1996, Nouri transferred to the 777 Program within the Tool Engineering

16 17

Organization in Everett, Washington, and that in July 1996, Nouri'sjob classification became

18 19

MWJW35. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained in paragraph 59.

20 21

60. Answering paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

22 23

when it hired Nouri, he was automatically assigned a retention rating ofR3, like all new hires

24 25

in his bargaining unit, under the under the CBA for technical employees applicable to Nouri's

26 27

employment, and that R3s in a given job classification typically are laid off before R2s and

28
29 Rl s in that classification, iflayoffs become necessary within that classification. Boeing

30
31 further admits that in May 1996, Nouri was assigned an R2 retention rating, and that in July

32 33

1997, Nouri was assigned an R3 retention rating. Boeing further admits that Nouri appealed

34
35 his July 1997 retention rating, and in September 1997, Nouri was assigned an R2 retention

36
37 rating. Boeing further admits that in November 1998, Nouri was assigned an R3 retention

38 39

rating, and that in March 1999, Nouri was laid off. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

40
41 allegations contained in paragraph 60.

42

43

61. Answering paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

44 45 allegations contained therein.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTlFFS' FlFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO c99-1227L) - 13
[03002·0683!SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

62. Answering paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

2
3 it has no record of Nouri receiving letters of commendation recognizing his work

4
5 performance and therefore denies the same.

6 7

63. Answering paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

8
9 allegations contained therein.

10 11

64. Answering paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

12
13 that Nouri worked in the 777 Program of the Tool Engineering Organization in Everett,

14
15 Washington, from February 1996 through July 1997. Boeing further admits that in

16
17 Spring 1996, Nouri complained to his manager at the time that a co-worker, Mike Dennis,

18
19 had made a comment about Middle-Easterners not brushing their teeth. Boeing further

20
21 admits that in late 1996, Nouri complained to his manager at the time, Pam Brooks, that a

22
23 co-worker, Dan Luckey, had called Nouri a name that Nouri found offensive. Boeing further

24
25 admits that in August 1997, Nouri filed a complaint with Boeing's internal EEO office,

26
27 alleging that Mr. Dennis had said "Middle-Easterners don't brush their teeth," and that Mr.

28
29 Luckey had referred to Nouri as "towel head." Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

30
31 allegations contained in paragraph 64.

32 33

65. Answering paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

34
35 that Nouri requested and received a transfer to the 767-400 Body Structures Tool

36
37 Engineering Organization, effective August 4, 1997. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies

38
39 the allegations contained in paragraph 65.

40 41

66. Answering paragraph 66 ofPlaintifi's Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

42
43 allegations contained therein, except that it admits that Nouri was assigned a retention rating

44
45 ofR3 in November 1998.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 14
[03002-0683iSL032230.1621

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

67. Answering paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

2
3 that when Nouri worked in the 767 Program, Nouri complained to his manager at the time,

4
5 Paul Anderson, that a picture of a camel had been left on his desk, and that one of Nouri's

6
7 co-workers had referred to Nouri as an Arab. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

8
9 allegations contained in paragraph 67.

10 11

68. Answering paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

12
13 that Nouri was assigned to a new cubicle. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the

14
15 allegations in paragraph 68.

16

17

69. Answering paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

18 19

that as of March 1998, there were eleven technical employees, including Nouri, in the 767-

20
21 400 Body Structures Tool Engineering Organization. Boeing admits that of the eleven

22
23 technical employees in this organization in March 1998, two were classified as AsianlPacific

24
25 Islander, one was classified as African-American, and eight (including Nouri) were classified

26
27 as white, according to Company records. One employee classified as AsianlPacific Islander

28
29 was laid off in March 1999. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations contained

30
31 in paragraph 69.

32

33

70. Answering paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

34
35 on January 4, 1999, it received a notice of charge of discrimination from the EEOC filed by

36
37 Nouri, and that Boeing received notice that the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on

38
39 Nouri's charge on May 13, 1999. Except as so admitted, Boeing denies the remaining

40
41 allegations contained in paragraph 70.

42

43

71. Answering paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

44
45 Aballe has represented to Boeing that he was born in the Philippines. Boeing lacks

46 47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 15
[03002-0683/SL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

2 3 allegations in paragraph 71 and therefore denies the same.

4

5

72. Answering paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

6
7 Aballe represented to Boeing that he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical

8
9 Engineering from Cebu Institute of Technology in 1972. Boeing lacks knowledge or

10
11 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in

12
13 paragraph 72 and therefore denies the same.

14

15

73. Answering paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing states that

16
17 it hired Aballe in November 1996 into the pay code 2T position of Plastics Assembler Band

18
19 assigned him to work in Boeing Commercial Airplane Group in Auburn, Washington.

20
21 Boeing further states that in April 1998, Mr. Aballe became a Quality Assurance Planner 2,

22 23 also a position in pay code 2T. Boeing lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

24
25 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in paragraph 73 and therefore

26
27 denies the same.

28

29

74. Answering paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

30
31 allegations contained therein.

32

33

75. Answering paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

34
35 that Mr. Aballe received a salary increase in 1998, but denies that it was his only salary

36
37 increase during his time at Boeing. Boeing lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to

38
39 the truth or falsity of Aballe's allegation that his 1998 salary increase came at a time when his

40
41 supervisor was African-American Except as stated above, Boeing denies the allegations in

42
43 paragraph 75.

44

45

76. Answering paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

46
47 that Aballe complained to supervisor Donald Smith about the workplace habits of his co-

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 16
[03002·0683!SL032230.162)

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 worker Steve Dixon but denies that Aballe suggested that his race or national origin played a

2 3

role. Boeing specifically denies that Aballe told Smith that Dixon called him a "FLIP."

4
5

Boeing lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

6 7

allegations in paragraph 76 and therefore denies the same.

8 9

77. Answering paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing has no

10 11

record of Aballe receiving letters of appreciation and awards for his performance and

12
13 therefore denies the same. Boeing denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 77.

14 15

78. Answering paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

16
17 that in the application process, Trinh represented to Boeing that he was born in Vietnam and

18 19

that he received a degree in Mechanical Engineering from St. Martin College in 1997.

20 21 Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing is without sufficient information to form a belief as

22 23

to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations in paragraph 78 and therefore denies the same.

24 25

79. Answering paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

26
27 that it hired Trinh in 1997 and assigned him as a pay code 4 engineer to a Manufacturing

28
29 Engineering group in Everett, Washington. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies

30
31 the allegations of paragraph 79.

32 33

80. Answering paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

34
35 allegations contained therein.

36 37

81. Answering paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

38
39 allegations of paragraph 81.

40

41

82. Answering paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

42
43 allegations of paragraph 82.

44

45

83. Answering paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

46
47 that Trinh was assigned a retention rating of R3 upon entry into the company, that in 1998,

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFfH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 17
[03002'()683!SL032230. [621

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 he was assigned an R2 rating, and that in December 1999, he was assigned an R3 rating.

2
3

Boeing further admits that Trinh's grade level was initially 10 and is now (under a new

4 5

classification system) level 2. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations

6
7 of paragraph 83.

8 9

84. Answering paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

10 11

that Frank ("Kearney") Williston commended him on his work ethic. Boeing further admits

12 13

that Trinh was a productive member of his team and that he was given engineering

14 15

assignments, which tended to be more difficult. Except as expressly so admitted, Boeing is

16 17

without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in

18
19 paragraph 84 and therefore denies the same.

20 21

85. Answering paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing admits

22 23 that Trinh was a valuable member of the Problem Resolution Team. Upon information and

24
25 belief, Boeing admits that Trinh has received thank you notes from customers. Except as

26
27

expressly so admitted, Boeing denies the allegations of paragraph 85.

28

29

86. Answering paragraph 86, Boeing realleges its answers to paragraphs 1

30 31

through 94.

32

33

87. Answering paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

34 35

allegations contained therein.

36 37

88. Answering paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

38
39 allegations contained therein.

40

41

89. Answering paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

42
43 allegations contained therein.

44

45

90. Answering paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing realleges

46
47 its answers to paragraphs 1 through 94.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 18
[03002-0683iSL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

I

91. Answering paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

2 3

allegations contained therein.

4 5

92. Answering paragraph 92 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

6 7

allegations contained therein.

8 9

93. Answering paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

10 11

allegations contained therein.

12 13

94. Answering paragraph 94 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

14
15 allegations contained therein.

16 17

95. Answering paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing realleges

18 19

its answers to paragraphs 1 through 94.

20

21

96. Answering paragraph 96 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

22 23

allegations contained therein.

24 25

97. Answering paragraph 97 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

26
27 allegations contained therein.

28

29

98. Answering paragraph 98 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

30
31 allegations contained therein.

32 33

99. Answering paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended CAC, Boeing denies the

34
35 allegations contained therein.

36

37

38

39

In answer to the Prayer for Relief, Boeing states that plaintiffs' prayer for relief is a

40
41 statement of their legal position for which no answer is required, however, Boeing denies that

42
43 plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.

44

45

In answer to the Jury Trial Demand, plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial is a statement of

46
47 their legal position for which no answer is required.

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 19
[03002·0683!SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1

II. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2

3

L Plaintiffs lack standing to raise some or all of the claims of the alleged class of

4
5 persons that plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied.

6

7

2. The types of claims alleged by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the

8
9 alleged class of persons that plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly

10
11 denied, are matters in which individual questions predominate, and accordingly, are not

12
13 appropriate for class treatment.

14

15

3. Certain of the plaintiffs' claims and of the claims of the alleged class of persons

16
17 that plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, are barred in

18
19 whole or in part by the relevant statute oflimitations and equitable doctrines oflaches,

20
21 waiver, and estoppeL

22

23

4. Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the alleged class of persons that plaintiffs purport

24
25 to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, are barred by plaintiffs' failure to

26
27 meet the mandatory requirements of Fed. R Civ. P. 23(a) and (b).

28

29

5. The claims alleged by the named plaintiffs are neither common nor typical of

30
31 those, if any, of the alleged class of persons that plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence

32
33 of which is expressly denied.

34

35

6. Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives of the alleged class of persons that

36
37 plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied.

38

39

7. Certain of the interests of plaintiffs, or of some of them, are in conflict with

40
41 the interests of all or certain sub-groups of the members of the alleged class of persons that

42
43 plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied.

44

45

8. In the event that the Court or a jury should ever conclude that race, skin

46
47 color, ancestry and/or national origin was a motivating factor in any of the employment

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 20
[03002-0683 I SL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 decisions challenged by plaintiffs, which Boeing expressly denies, Boeing affirmatively avers

2 3

that the same decisions would have been made absent consideration of any impermissible

4
5

factor(s).

6 7

9. Plaintiffs have failed to identify a pattern or practice of discrimination against

8 9

plaintiffs

10 11

10. Plaintiffs have not identified any discrete employment practice or selection

12 13

device which allegedly has any adverse impact upon "Asian-Americans" as plaintiffs define

14
15 that term. Plaintiffs' complaint therefore fails to state a claim for adverse impact

16
17 discrimination under Title VII.

18 19

11. Plaintiffs' claims and the claims of the members of the alleged class plaintiffs

20 21

purport to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, are barred, in whole or in

22 23

part, for failure to comply with and exhaust administrative and/or contractual remedies.

24

25

12. Plaintiffs' Title VII claims are barred to the extent their allegations are not

26 27

substantially identical to the claims in the administrative complaints filed by plaintiffs with the

28 29

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or the applicable state or local

30
31 administrative agencies.

32 33

13. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims brought

34 35

under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

36

37

14. Boeing denies that race, skin color, ancestry and/or national origin or any

38 39

other impermissible factor played any role in Boeing's various assignment, compensation,

40 41

classification, retention indexing, or promotion policies, or in any other of defendant's policies

42 43

or procedures that plaintiffs are or may be challenging.

44

45

15. Insofar as any employment policy or procedure has a statistically significant

46 47

adverse impact on the alleged class of persons plaintiffs purport to represent, the existence of

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 21
[03002-0683/SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie U,p 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washiugton 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

1 which Boeing expressly denies, such policies or practices nevertheless are lawful because they

2 3

are job-related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity.

4 5

16. If any selection device utilized by Boeing had any adverse unlawful impact on

6 7

the alleged class of persons plaintiffs purport to represent, which Boeing expressly denies,

8 9

such consequences were not intentional.

10 11

17. Boeing has a policy against harassment and a reasonable and available

12 13

procedure for handling complaints thereof, which provides for prompt and effective

14 15

responsive action. To the extent plaintiffs unreasonably failed to utilize or otherwise avail

16
17 themselves of this policy and procedure, their claims of alleged hostile work environment are

18
19 barred.

20

21

18. Plaintiffs' claims are barred andlor they have suffered no damages because

22 23

Boeing exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior.

24

25

19. Plaintiffs and members of the alleged class of persons that plaintiffs purport to

26 27

represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, failed to mitigate their alleged losses.

28

29

20. Boeing has not engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination with respect to

30
31 plaintiffs and Boeing cannot be liable for compensatory or punitive damages.

32 33

21. The entitlement to any relief which otherwise may be due in this case to

34
35 plaintiffs and the members of the alleged class of persons that plaintiffs purport to represent,

36
37 the existence of which is expressly denied, is limited by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.

38

39

22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

40
41 be granted.

42

43

23. With respect to the putative class defined in Plaintiffs' complaint, the existence

44 45

of which is expressly denied, the complaint fails to state a claim.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 22
[03002-0683/SL032230.162j

Perkins Coie In' 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

I

24. Some of plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of accord and

2
3 satisfaction and/or settlement and release.

4

5

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6

7

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Consolidated Class

8
9 Action Complaint, Boeing prays as follows:

10

II

A That the Fifth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint be dismissed

12
13 with prejudice;

14

15

B. That Boeing be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees; and

16 17

c. That the Court award Boeing such other and further relief as the Court deems

18
19 just and equitable.

20

21

DATED: August 13, 2003.

22

23

24

PERKINS COlE LLP

25 26 27

Bya~~

28

29

Jeffrey A Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853

30

RimaF. Hartman, WSBA#25714

31

Attorneys for Defendant The Boeing Company

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41
42

43
44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 23
[03002-0683ISL032230.162j

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

3

I certifY that on August 13, 2003, I caused to be served a copy of the attached

4
5 Defendant's Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Consolidated Class Action

6
7 Complaint upon the following by the methods indicated:

8
9 Mr. Steven 1. Toll (Hand-Delivered)

Mr. Joseph M. Sellers (Fax & US. Mail)

10 Ms. Julie Goldsmith

Ms. Christine E. Webber

11 Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.

12 13

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860

14 Seattle, WA 98104

IS

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L. C. 1100 New York Avenue NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-3934

16

17 Me. Harish Bharti (U.S. Mail)

18 Law Offices of Harish Bharti & Assoc., LLC 19 5516 - 17th Avenue NW
20
21 Seattle, WA 98107

22 23

Signed at Seattle, Washington, this 13th day of August, 2003.

24 25 26

~

27

Steve Herchelrode

28

29 30

31

32

33 34 35 36

37

38 39

40 41

42

43 44 45 46
47

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFlli AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (NO. c99-1227L) - 24
[03002'{)683!SL032230.162]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

 
 1

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

13

14 NOURI, et al.

)

)

15

Plaintiffs,

)

)

16

v.

)

)

17

)

)

18 THE BOEING COMPANY, INC.,

)

)

19

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

20

CAUSE NO. C99-1227L
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL
Noted: January 23, 2004

21

22

23

24

25 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS

NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 1

26

@PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1 I. RELIEF REQUESTED
2 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court approve Plaintiffs’ Proposed Notice to the
3 Class (“Notice”), attached to the Declaration of Christine Webber (“Webber Decl.”) as Exhibit
4 A, as well as Plaintiffs’ proposal for distribution of this Notice to prospective class members as
5 set forth herein. Despite attempts over the past few months to reach an agreement, the parties
6 have been unable to agree on the appropriate scope of distribution of the Notice to current and
7 former Boeing employees. Plaintiffs believe that compliance with due process and Federal Rule
8 of Civil Procedure 23 requires that the Notice be mailed to all Boeing employees in Washington
9 state who were employed in Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical (Paycode 2T) positions at any
10 time during the class period of October 12, 1996 to the present, to ensure that as many individual
11 class members as reasonably possible receive notice. Boeing contends that distribution of the
12 Notice should be limited to only a subset of potential class members. As a result of this
13 disagreement over the scope of distribution of the Notice, the parties have not been able to reach
14 agreement on the text of the Notice.
15 Thus, for the reasons set forth in this memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs
16 respectfully request that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Class Notice
17 Proposal.
18

19 II. BACKGROUND
20 On May 22, 2002, the Court certified a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) on
21 behalf of “all current and former employees whose national origin or ethnic background is from
22 Cambodia, Vietnam, the Phillippines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran who have been
23 employed at Boeing’s facilities in the state of Washington as salaried employees in Paycodes 2T
24 or 4, below the level of first level manager at any time from October 12, 1996 to the present.”
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 2 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1 Order, May 22, 2002.

2

On November 6, 2003, Plaintiffs provided Boeing with a proposal for notice to the class.

3 (Webber Decl. at ¶ 2 ). In an effort to facilitate a prompt agreement on the language of the

4 notice, Plaintiffs’ Notice is modeled on the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative forms of class

5 action notices.1 From November to December 2003, the parties engaged in extensive e-mail

6 exchanges concerning Plaintiffs’ notice proposal and at least two telephone conversations, before

7 deciding during a telephone call on December 30, 2003, that the parties could not reach an

8 agreement on the scope of distribution of the Notice to the class. (Webber Decl. at ¶ 3). The

9 parties have been unable to reach an agreement on the text of the Notice, although Plaintiffs have

10 modified the proposed Notice in response to concerns Boeing has raised. (Webber Decl. at ¶ 4).

11 Due to disagreement on the scope of distribution of the Notice, Boeing has declined to provide

12 Plaintiffs with either detailed feedback or a counter-proposal concerning the language of the

13 Notice. (Webber Decl. at ¶ 5).

14 III. 15 16

ARGUMENT
A. Notification of all Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical (Paycode 2T) Positions Provides the Best Notice Practicable Under the Circumstances.

17 The parties’ central area of disagreement concerns the appropriate scope of distribution
18 of the Notice. Plaintiffs believe that due process and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 require that the Notice be 19 mailed to the last known address of every current and former employee employed by Boeing in 20
Washington state in Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical (Paycode 2T) positions at any time 21 during the class period, in order to reach as many class members as reasonably possible.2 Boeing 22

23

1 The model is available at http://www.fjc.gov on the Class Action Notices Page under

the link, “Employment discrimination class action certification: full notice.” 24

25

2 Plaintiffs plan to mail Notices to the last known addresses the parties have for all such employees. Should any letters be returned to sender, Plaintiffs will engage in additional efforts

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 3 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1 seeks to limit distribution of the notice to some subset of potential class members. Boeing has

2 suggested that the Notice be limited to those class members who responded to an optional survey

3 in the Spring of 2003 that asked recipients to identify their ethnicity or national origin. This

4 survey was distributed to current and former Boeing employees in Washington state employed in

5 Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical (Paycode 2T) positions at any time from October 12, 1996

6 to the Spring of 2003. However, participation in the survey was completely voluntary, and a

7 substantial percentage of employees did not respond to the survey. (Webber Decl. at ¶ 6). As

8 such, limiting class notification to those individual class members who chose to respond to the

9 survey would fail to provide sufficient notice to numerous class members.

10

The due process protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

11 Constitution requires that in a class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3), absent class members

12 must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation. See Mullane

13 v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 U.S. 306, 314-315 (1950). “The notice must be the

14 best practicable, ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties

15 of the pendency of the action . . . .” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shuts, 472 U.S. 797, 812

16 (1985)(citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-315). The Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2) notice provisions were

17 “designed to fulfill requirements for due process to which the class action procedure is of course

18 subject.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173-74 (1974) (citing to Advisory

19 Committee’s Note to Rule 23, 28 U.S.C. App., p. 7765).

20 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B) provides:

21

For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class

22

members the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual

notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. 23

24

25 to obtain a valid address based upon the individual’s social security number.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 4 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1

Plaintiffs’ proposal to mail Notices to the last known address of each current and former

2 Boeing employee in Washington state employed in an Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical

3 (Paycode 2T) position during the class period, would provide the “best notice practicable under

4 the circumstances” as required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. Boeing’s effort to limit

5 notice to a subset of the potential class fails to comply with these stringent requirements. Since

6 many employees did not respond to the voluntary Spring 2003 survey, notice would be provided

7 only to that subset of class members who chose to respond to the survey. The Notice itself

8 neither provided any reference to the definition of the class that had been certified nor notice that

9 failing to respond to the survey would impact class members’ legal rights. Further, employees

10 hired after the distribution of the survey would be precluded from receiving notice of their rights.

11 Even expanding the scope of notice to include all current and former employees in Boeing’s

12 database identified as “Asian,” would result in a failure to reach class members who are not

13 classified as “Asian” in Boeing records such as Iranians and Afghanis.

14

Precedent exists for sending notice more broadly than to only those known to be

15 members of the class. For example, in Neal v. Director, District of Columbia Dept. of

16 Corrections, Civ.A.No. 93-2420, 1995 WL 517246, at * 6 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 1995), the court

17 ordered that notice be delivered or mailed to all current and former employees, employed during

18 the applicable class period, where the class was limited to those employees subjected to a pattern

19 or practice of sexual harassment and retaliation. Because database information did not permit

20 identification for those who might have suffered retaliation, notice was provided to all

21 employees.

22 As the Supreme Court has made clear, “the express language and intent of Rule 23(c)(2)
23 leave no doubt that individual notice must be provided to those class members who are
24 identifiable through reasonable effort.” Eisen, 417 U.S. at 175; see also Frank v. United
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 5 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1 Airlines, 216 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice for a Rule 23(b)(3) class action requires

2 “individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.”) Plaintiffs

3 have proposed doing just that. There is no sufficient justification to support Boeing’s effort to

4 deny notice to potential class members when they can be easily identified. Since Plaintiffs will

5 bear the full cost of mailing the notices to potential class members, the cost of a comprehensive

6 mailing will not burden Boeing. Accordingly, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for

7 Approval of Class Notice Proposal.

8

B. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Notice Satisfies all the Requirements of Rule 23

9 Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice, attached to Webber Decl. as Exhibit A, fully complies with
10 the requirements of Rule 23. Rule 23(c)(2)(B) provides that for any class certified under Rule
11 23(b)(3):
12

The notice must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood

13

language:

14

•

the nature of the action,

•

the definition of the class certified,

15

•

the class claims, issues, or defenses,

16

•

that a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the

member so desires,

17

•

that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests

exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded, and

18

•

the binding effect of a class judgment on class members under Rule

19

23(b)(3).

20

Plaintiffs have satisfied all elements of Rule 23's notice provision. In clear language, the

21 Notice explains the nature of the action, defines the class and sets forth the claims in the case.

22 Notice, pp 1-5. In addition, the Notice provides in plain language an explanation of a class

23 member’s rights and options, including that a class member may enter an appearance through

24 counsel; that the court will exclude any class member who requests exclusion, as well as the

25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 6 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1 procedures for requesting exclusion; and the binding effect of a judgment on class members

2 under Rule 23(b)(3). Notice, pp. 6-7. Plaintiffs’ Notice also includes a website for class

3 members to consult for more information about the case and a toll-free number class members

4 may call to ask class counsel questions about the case.3 Further, in an effort to facilitate prompt

5 agreement on the Notice, Plaintiffs modeled the Notice on the Federal Judicial Center’s

6 illustrative forms of class action notices. The Federal Judicial Center’s website at

7 http://www.fjc.gov, Class Action Notices Page, states that these notices were designed to

8 illustrate how attorneys and judges might comply with a change to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B),

9 effective December 1, 2003. Plaintiffs have revised the Notice to address concerns raised by

10 Boeing, including making it more explicit that the Notice applies only to class members and that

11 if an individual is not a member of one of the national origin or ethnic groups identified in the

12 Notice, that individual is not a member of the class.

13

As set forth in the proposed Notice, Plaintiffs request that the deadline for class members

14 to seek exclusion from the class be set for March 15, 2004.4 This will provide parties with notice

15 of who is a part of the class, at least two weeks before the trial date of April 5, 2004. In addition,

16 Plaintiffs request that notices be mailed out to class members by February 15, 2004, so that class

17 members have time to consider whether to opt out of the class.

18

19

20

21

22 3 The website address and toll-free number will be established once the Notice is
23 approved for distribution.

24

4 The proposed Notice requires that class members postmark their Exclusion Requests by

25

March 15, 2004, so the parties should receive notice of who is part of the class within a week thereafter.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 7 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

1

In light of Plaintiffs’ compliance with the notice provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and

2 Plaintiffs’ efforts to address concerns raised by Boeing, the Court should approve Plaintiffs’

3 Proposed Class Notice and Plaintiffs’ proposal for distribution of this Notice to all Boeing

4 employees in Washington state who were employed in Engineering (Paycode 4) or Technical

5 (Paycode 2T) positions at any time during the class period of October 12, 1996 to the present.

6

7 Dated: January 8, 2004
8
9

Respectfully submitted,

10

11 By: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

s/Christine E. Webber

By:

Steven J. Toll

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD &

TOLL, P.L.L.C.

701 Fifth Ave., Suite 6860

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 521-0080

Joseph M. Sellers Christine E. Webber COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/ 408-4600

Counsel for Plaintiffs

s/ Harish Bharti Harish Bharti Law Offices of Harish Bharti & Associates, LLC 5516 17th Ave. NW Seattle, Washington 98107 (206) 706-6400

22

23

24

25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROPOSAL - Page 8 @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/IMANAGE;159209;1

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521-0080

 
 •
CCToJUDGE .Dol

1

2

3

4 5

11011111111 11111 111m 11111111111111111111111

6 7

1111111111111111111111111

THE

HONORATIB'ITL'lE"."\,F~I~LElDrf0F._S__

FNT FRED
L.A.RSENCElKIVE- D

JM- d [UO/. DJ

AT SfoAllLL

CI.rRK U,g_ UISllllGT COURT WmERN DISII~IGT OF WASHINGTON

BY

OfJ'UTY

8

99-CV ~1l227-M

9

III

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

WHSTERN DlSnUCT OF WASHINGTON

"14

AT SEATTLE

IS
16 KHALIL NOURI,
17

NO_ C99-1227L

18

Plainliff,

19

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

2"

v

21

22 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware

23 24

corporation,

25 2(0

lJetendant.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLASS CLAIMS
Note for Motion Calenda..: January 30, 2003

27

2~

29

CONTENTS

30

31 32

L

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT." ... __ .. _."

_."""_",,_,,_,,.1

33
34

n.

ARGUMENT/AUTHORITY_ ...... .

"..".",,_ 3

35

16

A. Plaintiffs' Class Claims Are Not Maintainable as Ones for "Race" or

37

"National Origin" Discrimination Under Title Vll or Section 19&1 ,., ........ 3

38

)9

I Plaintiffs.! New Aggregation Does Not Constitute a "Race" ."._ .. _.4

40

41

a) Plaintiff, Improperly Combine Members of the Majority

42 41 44

Race With Minorities in a Class Actioll for Race Discrimination ......... . ....... __ .. __ . __ .... ,,_._ .. __ .. _._ ....... _._ .. 5

45

46

47
ORIGINAL

lJEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99·1227L) ~ i
l{]]Q(J2-0683 I SLOJ::I4 5{I.Ol!.21

Pcrkin~ Coie Ul" 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4KOO Se<l.ttlc, Washington 9S 10 1<1099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (2-06) 583-8500

1 2
3
4 5
6
, 7
"H)
11
12
II
14 15 16 17 18
"20
2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
'2"9
30 31
32 3.1
3.
35
36 37
3'
39
.0
41 III
42 43 44 45
40
47

b) Plaintiffs' Statistical Analyses Demonstrate that Any

Disparities in Treatment of Their Class Are Not Based

0[1 Discrimination Against the Asian Race .... ,' _

_....... ,6

2 Plaintitl'S' New Aggregation Does Not Constitute a "National

On·£.l.l"l or "E-1hnI°C.ltyII .. "" ......... "" ........ " ... ,...... " .............. "

..... 7

a) Collections: of "National Origins" Are Not Themselves

"National Origins" or "Ethnicities" Wit.hin the Meanings

ofTitle VI! or Section 1981. .................... ,......

........... 7

b) Selective Statistical Aggregation Is Improper ...... . ........... 8

B. Plaintitfs' Claims Regarding Retention Ratings Should Be Dismissed

Because Assignment bfa Retention Rating [s Not an Actionable Event

Under Title VTI or Sectio~ 1981,.............

. .. ,. ........... 13

C. Because Plaintiffs Lack Eyidence That a Specific Employment Practice Results in Adverse Impact, Their Impact Claims fail. _ ....... ,. ,_ ....... " " ..... 16
I
D. The Court Should Dismist Plaintiffs' Time-Barred Claims for Damages ", ..... 17

E. Plaintiffs Lack Statistical ~upport for Their Claims on ilehalr of
Technical Workers ........ ;.......... ".......... ,......................... ,.... ,.... .

.. .. 17

1. PlaintitT.,,' Statistics Do Not Support a Disparate Irlipact Claim

for Technical Workers .... ,....

_... "". 18

a) Compensation

... 19

b) Retention." ....

.. ....... ,. .. 20

2. Plaintiff,' Statis1ic, Cannot Support a Finding of Intent; Plaintiffs' Claims of Disparate Treatment for Technical Workers Should Be Dismissed .. "" .," ............... " ...................... 20

CONCLUSION ...

..,. ............ 24

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - ii
r(}3(102..(~,Jo:JISL03~45C1 ,()Jo:21

PcrkiU!i Coie I,Ll' 1201 Third Avenue.:, Suite 48()() &:<ink, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax; (206) 583-8500

I

2

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

]

4

Named plaintiffs represent a class of Boeing engineers and technical workers from

5
6 seven diverse ethnicities-some racially Asian and some racially white. Plaintift~ claim to

7
8 ha.ve experienced race and national orig.in discrimination in the Company's annual salary

vn 9
10 adjustment and retention rating processes. They sue under Title of the Civil Rights Act

II
12 of 1964 as amended, and 42 U.S,c. § 1981. Discovery has closed, all expert reports have

IJ
14- been finalized and submitted, and trjal is set for Apri1 5, 2004.

15

J6

The final report of plaintift's' expert statistician, Dr. Bernard Siskin, makes clear that

17
18 plaintiffs are now presenting their Case as a single aggregation of their various ethnic and

19
20 racial groups. Plaintim: intend to ignore the many obvious differences among their sevetl

21
22 ethnicitics. and proceed as if there Were a ,~ingle "race" or a .~jngle "national origin"

23
24 compris.ing Cambodians, Vietnamese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Afghanis, and Filipino~.

25 26 This contrasts vvith plaintiffs' strategy at the class certification stagc1 which included separate
27
2~ statistical analyses by countly of origin, enabling plaintiffs to argue that each of the
2.
30 cognizable ethnic blTOups suffered statistically demonstrable discrimination and that trial of

31
32 tlleir claims together was feasible and appropriate_ Plaintiffs have abandoned this approach;
TJ,
34 their expert has conducted no such analyses for trial, At the direction of counsel, he has

35
]6 instead focused entirely on undifferentiated, aggregated statistics for the dass, Plaintiffsl

17
38 "aggregated" approach is unprecedented and insupportable.

39

40

PlaintitTs' claim fof' race discrimination tails because they include in their monolithic

41
42 and fictional "race" both racial whites and racial non-whites. This confounds any stati~tica1

41
44 analysis with a white comparator group and runs- contrary to the most fundamental principles

45
4-6 of race discrimination analysis and proof. Further, plaintiffs' "cherry-picking" technique

47

VEF'S M0110NIMEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-ln7L)-1 os:» IO~)j'J2.j)('I[}.'8L0334!i{),

Perkin!! Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Sui(e 4800 Seattle, WasiliR!.:rtoTl 98101-3099
Phone: (206) .583-SAA8. Fax: (106) 581·8500

1 excludes from the class many ethnic Asians, such as Japanese and Chinese, thus masking the

2 3

reality that large constituencies of the Asian race undi~putedly do as well or better than their

4 5 white peers. Plaintiffs' own expertls analysis shows that non-class Asians, despite their shared

"7 race with the Asian portion of plaintiffs' class, received pay comparable to whites_ Thus, the

R

" inequities plaintiil's allege cannot be based on disparate treatment of a recognizable race.
10

11

Under a national ongin/ethnicity analysis, plaintiffs' claims also fail because they

12
1.1 improperly aggregate the class without reference to any defirung principle other than the goal

14
15 of creating statislical disparities_ In other words, plaintiffs do not and cannot articulate any

J6
17 unifylng characteristics that arise out ofa shared national origin OJ' ethnicity. Their collective

18 19

shares no CI,)mmon culture, lan~'1Jage, religion, tradition, or other cohering feature. Plaintiffs.'

211
21 expert concedes he is aware of no basis for aggregating his Hllalysis other than that counsel

22
2] directed him to do so, withotJt explanation. Neither Title VII nor Section J98] permits this

24 2.'; liability-manul'acturing technique. Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed in its entirety.

26
27

Should the Court deny Boeing's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' entire

28 29

case, several component parts ofit should be dismissed tor independent reasons:

JO

JI

•

All claims based on the assignment ofretcntion rating.s should be

32

dismissed because retention ratings, as distinct ft'om layoffs, do not rise to

33

the level of adverse employment actions actionable under Title vn or

,14

Section '198l.

.15

36 37

•

All disparate impact claims should be dismissed because plaintitl's cannot

3"

identify any specificj facially ncutntl employment practice that is causally

]9

related to the alleged adverse impact their statistical expert has reported.

40

41

•

All claims for damages that relate to periods outside of the statutes of

42

limitation should be dismissed as time~barred.

43

44 45

•

All claims relating to technical workers should be dismissed because they

46

arc unsupported by adequate record evidence.

47

DEF"S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUOGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 2
[030()2·(168J!sL033450.UH'I J

Perkins Coic LLI' 120] nlird Avenue, Suile 4800 StaHle, Washington '>::-1101-3099
Phone. (206) 583-88'" Fii_li: (206) 58J-H5ll0

I

II. ARGUMENT/AUTHORITY

2

3 A. Plaintiffs' Class Claims Ate Not Mail)tainable as Ones for "Race" or tlNatiollal

4

Origin" Discrimination Under Title Vll or Section 1981

-'

6

Title Vll prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual "becautle of

7

8 such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 V.S.C- § 2000e-2(a)( 1).
9

10 Section 1981 provide, that "[a]l1 persons within the juri,diction of the United States shall

II

12 have the same right ... to make and enforce contracts ... as is el~oycd by white citizens. II
"14 42 U.S.c. § 1981.

15

16

Although Section 1981 docs not itself use the word Itrace," it has been interpreted by

17

'" the Supreme Court to prohibit acts of face discrimination. Runyon y_ McCrary, 427 U.S.
19

20 160,168 (1976). Moreover, underthe rubric of "race," Section 1981 has been held to
21

22 protect "identifiable classes of persons ... subjected to intentional discrimination solely
23

24 because of their ance81ry or ethnic characteristics." Saint Fran.cis College y. Al-KhaLr~ 481 25

26 US. 604" 613 ('1987) (emphasis added), Thus, the notions of "race" and "ethnicity" under 27

28

Section

1981

overlap

to

a

great

extent

with

the

concept

of "national

oti

gin

l !

under

Title

VIT.I

29

31> Id, at 614 (Brennan, 1., concurring),

31

32

By contrast, IIrace" under Title Vll is a separate concept from national origin, as is

33

34 apparent from its being identified separately in the statute. Under Title VIl, racial categories
35

36 have their generally understood meanings, similar to those used by the United States Census 37

3~

3~

40

41

42

43

44

1 "The lcnn "L'llionai origin' 011 its face Tefers to the country where a lX-'TSOll was born, or, lUore

45 broadly, the W\ltllry from which his or her ancestors came," Espi!,lOZ3 v. Farah l'0Jg. Co., 414 I),S. 86, 88

46 (1973); .!:gic v, Hughes Hc:.li~opters, 1n(,:., ~40 F.2d 667, 673 (9t~ Cir, )<)88) (for purposes of Title VI I,

47 "'llalional origin' lllcludes the COUTllry of one's ancestors").

PEP'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO C99·1227L)· 3 In]()(J2-0683r'SL[J3~4j(l.mI21

Perkins eoie LI.I' 1201 Third Avenue, S\lite 4800 Scaule, Washirlgton 98101-.1099
Phonc: (206) 583-HH88 flax:: (206) 583-8500

, Bureau_1 Thus, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is charged with

2 3 enforcing Title Vll, has established the following racial categories: White (not of Hispanic

4
5 origin), Black (not of Hispanic origin), ffispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American

6
7

Indian or Alaskan Native, with set definitions and boundaries.3

? "

Plaintiffs have been conspicuously vague in their treatment of this class, nevcr fitrrlly

lO
11

committing as to whether thcir theory is of a "race '· class or a "national originU class. But

12 13

under either analysis, plaintiffs' claims fait

14

15

1. Plaintiffs' New Aggregation Does Not Constitute n ;tRace"

,(,

17

To the extent that plaintiffs' "race" discrimination theoty is. separable from their

18
19 national ongi,n/ethnicity theory, it now flies directly in the face of all commonly understood

20 ZI principles offace and race discrimination. This is true for at least two reasons: (a) because

22
23 plaintiffs' Itrace" class includes members of the classic comparator group; and (b) because

24 25 even using the statistical analysis of Dr. Siskin. large racially Asian groups excluded from

26 27 plaintiffs' class fare well at Boeing, thus dispelling any inference that the Asian race is an

28
29 object of discrimination.

30

3\
32

33

34 lj

36

J7

2 IJl rcvising the ral::i<\l categories to be used in the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau articulated

,g tllat one of the principles guiding the review ot the categories was that the concepts and tenIlinology "should

3'.1 reflect clear i.md gene•.llly undcrstood definitions rJlat ca.1l aclricrc broad public acceptance." Revisions to the

40 Standards for [lie Classificatiotl ofFedenil Data on Race and Elhnicity, 62 Fed. Reg. 210 (October JO, 1997), 41 available at www.whitehou:;c.govlWlI/EOP/Orvlli/hunVfedn;g,hIJUl. The revised standards indude five 41 miltLmlU11 categ(lries for daUI on T<lCC; (1) AmeriCiIll hidian or Alaskil Native, (2) AsiilTl, (3) Black Or African

43 AmericlIJI, (4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pad fie Islander, and (5) White; and two categories fur d;:U.'l on 44 edmicity: (1) Hj~PiULic or Latino tmd (2) Not IIispamc or Latino. M,

45

:l Eqlm.l Employment Oppon.llnlty Comrrl1;~skm, Standard F(lr'I1i 100, Rev. 3-97 Employer

4(, Infonnatiotl Report EEO-l 100-118 Instruction l3ooklet, a....ailable at

47 \'1\1'\\', ccoc.gov/eeo1surveyIe Iinstmct. htrnl.

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 4
[1)3(10241(,!(:l.'s [,OJ34~(J.Q82:1

PeridDS Coil;'! LLP
1201 ThinJ Avenue, Suile 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-)099
Phone: (206) 5S3-88XM Fax: (206) 5&3-&500

a) Plaintiffs 'Improperly Combine Membl~rs of the Majority Race

2

With Minorlti~.J) in a Class Aetion for Race Discrimination

3

4

By including members ofthe majority race in their claims of class race discriminalion,

;

(I plaintiffs embark on a unique and insupportable course. Courts have certainly allowed 1'I'wI'e

7

8 than one minority race to proceed in a slngle class action, alleging that the majority race

9

10 (white) is treated better.4 In addition, courts have allowed whites to sue tbr reverse race

II

12 discrimination, alleging that :minorities receive preferential treatment. 5 But those kinds of

13

J4 claims or discrimination are entirely distinct from what plaintiffs attempt here. Here, the class

15

16 claims for race discrimination are made on behalf ofpa/'f of one racial minority and part of

17

]8 the racial majority--together, alleging discrimination as compared to the re-si oflhe majority.

I~

20 Allowing members of the majority race--the classic comparator group-to litigate claims of

21

22 race discrimination with the minority plaintiffs as a monolithic block, v101atcs the basic tenets

23

24 of Title VII and Section 198 L See, e.g., S.haare Tenia Conwegalion v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615,

25

26 617 (1987) (the racial animus addressed by §·1981 must be "directed towards the kind of

27

28 group that Congress intended to protect when it passed the statute"); Jylanzanares v, Safeway

29

30 1jtorcs, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 970-71 (I Dill Cir. 1979) (plaintiffs must constitute a.n idcntitiable

31

32

33

34

35

4 SCl,:, c;.g,., Wmd5 Co.. c.Packing Co. v. Atonia, 490 l,J.S. 642, 647 (1989) (clas~ of all J"/On~while

36 cannery workers); Paige v. C.l11ifomi!1, 291 F_3d 1141, 1149 (9'-" Cir. 20(2) (class of all nOJ"l~white officers),

37 cerl. denieg, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003); TlI(lll]asv. Counly qfLos Angelcs, 978 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 19(2) (proposed

38 c];ISS of all minorily residents); Domingo. v. New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429, 1442 (class of (11/ non-

"40

whites), nKldifd on. other WOI!Tld.~ 8.[ 742 F.2d ~2f), (9th Cir. 1984); .iyIanduj.mo ,... Jl~s.ic VeJ,!cl<lbJ~ Prods"
Inc., 541. F,2d ~32 (9'" Cir, 1976) (class or "Negroes, Asimls, American Indians, [andl Spanish-sumamc

41

AIIICric31lS").

42

~ See, c.g., Mcponald v. Sanl.a. Fe Tnril TranSQQrtation Co., 427 U.S. 271 (1')16) (under ~cction

43

11Jt!.1); Rudebu~h_~. HU1,;l"hes, 113 F.3d 506 (9t1>Cir. 2002) (unacr Title VTI), One cOlU1 has even alloo'ed a

44 Caucasi;'ITt of Portuguese cxlractiQn to 5ue for "race" discrimination under Tille VII, curnparing himself (0

45 nQII-Portuguese whiles. l.:eruandes "'. ~.p!>ta Bros. MagH~, 199 F.3d 572, 578 n.2 (1A1 eir. 1(1)9). See

46 alsq ~t Francis Coll~g~, 481 U.S. a.1. 613 (holding lhat an Anlb (CaLlCasian) of Iraqi descent r,;lln Slie under

47 Section 1981 rOf "race" discrimination, comparing himselflu whites).

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99.J227L) - j
rOJ002..(1/i~1ISJ .1l33450 .(I~ZI

Pt.~rldns Coie LU' 1201 C('hird AveTl\lC, SLLite 4800
Seattle, Wmihlllgton 98101TJ099 Phone: (20(;) 5t!.3~8888 Fax: (206) 58J~850()

1 group so that treatment of that group may be measured against treatment of the I!standard

2 3

group"); Martinez y Oakland Scavenger ell" 680 F. Supp. 1377, 1389 (N.D. Cal. 1987)

4
5

("Section 1981 affords. protection Lo ideIltifiable groups of non-white.~, ") (empha~is added).

6

7

b) Plail1tiffsi Statistical Analyses DemQDstr'ate that Any Disparities

8

in Treatment of Their Class Are Not Based on Disnimination

9

Against the Asian Race

10

11

Plaintiffs pursue C/(ISS claims for race discrimination on behalf of only some members

12

" of the traditionally recognized minority Asian race_ Large portions of that same traditionally
14

15 j'ecognized minority race, such as Chinese and Japanese workers, are excluded, All available

16

17 evidence as to the treatment ofthese excluded Asian groups-including the analysis of
18

19 plaintiffs' own expert--demonstrates that they Hue much better than plaintHl's' hand-picked 20

21 subset of so-called "Asian" nationalities and, in almost all comparisons, do as well as whltes. 6 22

23

24

25

(, Sel;:, c.!?., Declaration of 13~rnard Sisk;jn, October 24, 2001 (Siskin Decl. III) (Declaration ol'ltima

26 Hartnull ("Hartman Oed.") all)P. 58-92). The difference beLwccn class "Asians" and other kiicl1ls, sllch a.s

27 Japanese lmd Chinese, is nwsl dramatically dcmonstrated by comparing salary di.ffcr~ntials thai can be

28 calcululCd from Dr. Siskill's tables. Table SE2 reflects the shon[all in compcns;1.1.iol1 for Chl5S "Asial1s" as

2. calculated by Dr. Siskin. Table SE1 displays the av<:tage shortfall for all persons who arc cla..c;;sifled as As.ian

]0 in Boeing's C(lHlpur.er database ·-i.e., those persor1s who would quaJj(v as Asian under standard govenllllcnc

31 classifications. Although Dr. Siskin does not calculate the total shorl.fall for the Boeing-coded k;i;"ms, it is

32 e~JIIc1y easy to do so. All one needs to do is multiply the tot<'lll1l1111OOr ofpcrsons r~flected on Table SE3 by

33 the salary differenccs rcOected 011 Tilble S1:£3. The total Tlumber of non-class Asians can then he caleulu!ed

34 quite closely by sublracting the IlIImbcr of class "Asians" set out ill cQlumn 2 of SE2 From the l1Ul1itM.-r of

35 "Asians" ~cl ou[ in column 2 of SE3. Ii is tllcn simple to calculate what impaet the non-class Asians have

36 upon ,my fllooreticaJ C(lmpensation shortfall.

37

Dr, Siskin's data for March I, 1999 (reflecting the tnne period of March 2, 199K through March I,

'3"9

1999) can be used as an example. At Table SE2, Dr. Siskill indica.[es that there werc 909 class "Mians", with an average "difference in salary" of$1 ,647 and total "d;lmag~s" in the mnoun! ofSL497, 121. Table SE3

40 il1dicate:s ,hal lhere were 1,811 Bocillg-roded Asians with an avemge salat')' difference" of $83 3. Multiplying

41 these latter two numbers tugcther. one cmm::S 10 a shortfall of$1,50S.563. How~..ver, it. is appareIl! rrom Table

42 SE2 [hat the allege(! shonfaU for the class N Asians" malccs up $1,497.123 ol'!haj amount. TIlliS, .he

43 additional. 902 T1(ln-ci:::tSs Asil1DS.l.ldd only $11,440 to the shortfall. In other words, the Tlon-class Asians were,

44 on avcmge, paid $13 11 ye.nr less than those white J:.ersons Dr. Siskin claims are "simila.rly situated" \0 [heln.

45 By wll\raSI, he calculates the ciassmembers as being $1,647 behind "similarly Sliuil(L;d" whites. T11c data at

46 March 1,2000 are cv(:Tlll\Qre telling, with class"Asians" calculated with i.l sbortfall of:U,674 alld non-class
47 A~ians acntally being at/vat/raged in comparison to whit(;S by $30, on avemgc.

DEF'5 MOTION"IMEMO FOR :-:iUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 6
f03002.Q683/slln:j4 jO.OS2j

Perkins Coie 1.1,1' 1201 Third Avcnue, SUite 4XOO Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone (206) '33-8888 Ftl"l.: (206) 583-8500

,

1 if some racial ASians are disfavored at Boeing while olher racial Asians arc not., the

2
3

inescapable conclusion is that whatever the cause of any perceived inequity, discrimination

4 5

against the Asian rac~ is not the cUlprit.

(,

7

2, Plaintiffs' New Aggregation Does Not Constitute a "Natiol1al Origin" or

8

" Ethnicity"

9

\0

a) Collections of "National Origins" Are Not Themselves "National

11

Origins" or "Ethnicities" Within the Meanings of Title VII or

12 13

Seclion 1981.

14
15

Nor is plaintiffs' class claim tenable as one for nationaJ origin or ethnic discrimination.

16 17

Plaintiffs have ejected to eschew any notion of subgroups among their class and instead to

18 19

treat the seven ethT1icities in their class as ifthey were one national origin/ethnic bhx..'k.

20
2\

Thus, plainti!Ts' counsel directed their statistical expert, in preparing his current report for

22 23

trial, to lump the class statistics together, rather lhan analyze them as seven individual and

2.
25

recognizable ethnicities as he had done at the certification stage."I By lreating the group

26 27

collectively, plaintifls ignore tbe fundamental fact that the seven distinct ethnic groups

2"
'3"0
31

comprising their class are plainly not a national origin or ethnicity.!:! They are seven s~pt1rate ethnicities, not united by tradition, culture, ianb'Uage, religion, or history.

32

33

34 - - - - - - - - - - -

35

36

7 Depmiiliotl ofDernard R Siskin, December 2, 2W.1 ("Siskin .ocp. ") at 14: 17-25 (Harul"l1Ul Decl. ill

31 p. 106); see Dcclamljoll ofBemllTd Siskin, dated July 30, 2001 ("SiskiD II Decl.") at Tables 3A, 4A. 9, to

38 (Hartmml Oed. atpp. 16~19, 30-31).

39

8 Plaintiffs side-stepped this issue at the class certification stAgc, by offering SlilliStical studie~ by

4tJ indjvjdl..~1 CQWltry and <ITguing that the individual ethnicities experienced similur treatment at the J._and::. of

41 Hoeing. Siskin Decl. 11 at 'rables 3A, 4A. 9, 10 (Hartman Decl, <1.1. pp. 16-19, ~O-31), But those stati~tica1

42 i>tLidles have been superseded by sludies done using tire da.!.'i gathered in Ihe Court-ordered nalional ongin

43 Sllrv;:y, On,lCt Regarding Conlcnll; of Survey, MutCh 7, 2003 (Dkt. "# 257). Because plainUlls have

44 abUTldoned the country-by-country breakdowns, [here is now all Ctllircly differenllandscape against which this

45 qUC$lion must be comidcrcd. In other words, while Boeing disagreed with plaintiffs'legal thoory Oil class

46 ecnification. it believc.s that plaintiOs' TICw approach is f;VCtl less defensibk ,,·-dOillg irreparable harm to the

47 cOllcepts ofnlllional origin/ethnic discrimination llmk..'t" Title VII and Section 1981

DEF'S Mn[,[ONIMEMD FOR SUMMARY JULJGrvlENT (NO. C9')-1227L) ~ 7
[03()02.(1683iSI.o:H450 .082]

Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avclme, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washinb10Il 98101-:3099
Phone: (206) SIB-8888 F",: (206) 583-8500

vn Title and Section 1981 protect against animus directed at IInational origin" or

2
3

their "ethnicity"-not because of membership in an utterly fictional, attorney-coDcocted

4
5

conglomeration of selected ethnicities, who when bundled together in statistical studies can

6
7

create a disparity,

" 9

b)

Selective Statistk~1 Aggl"egation Is Jrnptoper

10

11

PlaintitT's' melding of their races and ethnicities constitutes a final act of contortion of

12
\3 the definition of "Asian." The history of this case shows that plaintiffs began with an

14
15 overinclusive definition of" Asian" that encompassed the entire Asian continent. 'Plaintiffs'

16
17 Memorandum in Support of Mation tor Class Certification, January 3, 2001 (Dkt # 80); at 12

18
\9 n.12. When the Court rejected that group as intolerably disparate, even tor purposes of Rule

20
21 23,' plaintilfs' counsel asked Dr. Siskin to provide statistical data. regarding employees from

22
23 each of the countries on the Asian continent. Siskin Dep. at 15: 16-17:5 (Hartman Decl. at

24 25 pp. I03 a 05). With that data, counsel strategically redefined IIAsianll to include not only the 2(,
27 five cthnicities of their former named Nmm representatives, but also to add Filipinos and

28 29 Vietnamese. This decision was reached, Boeing suspects, because the latter two ethnicities'

30
31 statistics served plaintitf.'1' litigation purposes.

"33

It was not difficult to identify named plaintiffs ITom the two additional ethnicities

34 35 plaintiffs' counsel had chosen. Counsel simply pulled two nallied plaintiffs from t.heir

36 37 SharmalO clients (Elena Olinares, a Filipino engineer, and Baa Trinh, a Vietnamese engineer)

33".

40

41

.42
43

!) Order Denying Motion for Class Certification, May 24, 2001 (Dkt # 152) HI 5-6 (concluding tlml the live Ihei\Tn.'lmed class repreSCIltatives were inadequate to rcprcs(!nt such a diverse group).
10 In a series of complainls med o..'er a ten--day period ill March of 2000, pla~~l(iffsl COIIllSei brought:l

45 companion action to Nom] in King County Superim Cuurl, under the caption ofShi'wJJfl.X. Boeing Co.

40 (Cause No. 00-2-06292-3SEA). The Shanna ca..<;c was removed to federal court on April 6, 2000 (Cause No.

47 cnn-0582L) and consolidated wil.ll I.hc Nouri C;;lSe on July 10,2000. Order Gnmting Plaintiffs' Motion for

DF.F'S MOTIONIMEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO C99-12271.) _, J r03002-06R3!SLOn~ ~fU)K2

Perkin!! Coie 1,1,1' 1201 TIJ..ird !\VCnJ,I(!, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
PhOTIC: (206) 583-8888
Fa'll: (206) 583-8500

and added them to their NOLJri group, Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
L

2 3

Campl,mt, July II, 200 I (Dkt #156) Extremely telling is the fact that plaintiffs chose nUl

4 5

to add Chinese and Japanese plaintiffs from the Shat:J;ll.3. group. 11

" 7

PlaintiffS' genymandered definitiotl of "Asian" conslitutes an improper attempt to

8 9

selectively aggregate ethnic groups into a class in order to achieve their statistical ends. The

10 11

fact that plaintiffs' counsel used the statistical breakdown regarding all 50 individual

12 13

continental Asian countries to cherry-pick ethnicities for inclusion in, and exclLlsion from,

14 15

their artificial definition of "Asian,r impeaches ally value their statistical evidence may

16
L7

otherwise have had. Even iheir own expert agrees. Dr. Siskin testified that flwhen counsel

1~
19

asked us for this list by national origin I told him specifically that they could not base class

20 21

deflnition on-that it would be inappropriate from a statistician's viewplJint 10 look at tile

22
23

data to define the groups." Si,kin Dep. at 152:14-153;2 (Hartman Dec!. at pp. 112-13)

24
25 (emphasis added).

26

27

Moreover, statistics: that meltt seven distinct national origins into one large block do

28 29

not shed any reliable light on the treatment of anyone national origin cognizable under law.

30 31 Rich v, Martin-Marietta,Corp 522 F 2d 333, 346 (IOili Cir. 1975), In Rich, one Hispanic

vn 32
33

and six black plaintiffs filed claims under Title

and §1981 alleging discrimination in hiring

34 35

and promotion, The district court found for the defendants, relying on their favorable

16 37

statistics. that combined data regarding "blacks, women, and Chicanos and Orientals and

38 39

American Indians" into one statistical block. rd. The appellate court reversed and remanded

41l

41 - _ . , - - - - - -

42 Coru;olidillion, Leave to File 11 Consolidated AInclldcd Complaint, and Extend Time to Move for C1as~

43

Certification (Dkt # 168).

44

11 Like Ms. OHna~ and Mr. Trinh, fonner named Sbanna plaintiffs Willy Chang (a Chincsc

45 Cltgitteer).and Wlllia,m Tomlla (a h!puncS¢ engilleer) we:n; aV'lilable to expa7)u !11C class .repres~n!"th)JI.

46 Shamrn. PIlIin1.iIIs' Second Am'-'tIdcd Complaint for Damages for Employment Discrimination and Other

47

Cl<lim~, tiled on Mm:ch 13, 2[]OO_

DEF'S MOTIONIMEMO FOR SUMMARy JUDGJI.1ENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 9
ra3(l(ll-(lt'i8~iSI HU4l0 ,0821

Perkins Coie III 1201 Thjrd Avcnue, Suite 4N.OO Seattl~, Washington 98101·3099
P11011e: (206) 58J·88'88 Fax: (206) 583-8500

the case, making particular note of the Caet that the combined statistics masked known

2
3

differences in the treatment of the subl"Tfoups_ I i The court stated strongly t.hat under such

4
5

circumstances, undifferentiated statistic.1l were "not relevant amI • .. useles,~" Id;,

6 7

Here, the same reasoning holds troe. Amalgamation of seven dislinci and

"9 ind;v;dually identifiable national origins into one artificial"natjonal origin" destroys the

10
Il

significance of the statistics. Aggregation in such a case is wholly inappropriate_ll To hold

12 1.1

otherwise would be to strip the terms "national origin" and lO ethnicity'l of all meaning and to

14
15 encourage the sort of liability-creating engineering of class statistics that has occurred here.

Hi

17

An oft-cited fourth Circuit opinion lays plain the dangers of statistical manipulations:

18

19

[S]tatistical evidence ... "must 110t be accepted uncritically," and, because of the

20

sophistication and complexity of many of the statistical models being used in

21

discrimination cases by professional econometricians, courts mu,\·t gille "c/o."'ie

22

:'tcrutiny (to tllef empirical p1'OOF' on which the mlJdel.r; are erected, in order to

23
24

gUaJ'd against the u,~e. nfstatistical data which may have been ",,·e.gmenled amI

25

particularized anf/fashioned to obtain CI de."'iired result. "

26 27 EEOC v. Fed. Re'erve Bank, 698 F.2d 633, 645-46 (4" CiT. 1983) (internal citations

2"
29

omilted) (emphasis added), rev'c!. pn other grounds sub 1!Qm. Cooper v. Fed. R.~!I~tVC Bank,

30 31 467 U.S. 867 (1984).

"33

That admonition has been heeded. in several cases like this one, where a party has

)4 35 created arbitrary groupings upon which to conduct ~tatistica1 analysis in order to serve their

36

37

38

19

40

12 The Ninth Circuit has held that aggregated statistical datil may be used where it is ilion; probaLive

41 [liml subdivided data, Paige, 291 F,)d at. 11.48, but that plainly is 1l0llhC situation here. hi P:l1ge, plaintiffs

42 wcre claiming that the employcr's practices had an idenLic..'l1 discriminatory effect "upon members of all

43 minoriry groups, and trul( i11()SC pr;'lc[ices unlaMtilly ~nefr! ;!"(Jlely the members of In.e wllile majority." Id. at

44 1149 (emplmsis added), In contrast, in the present eliSC the plaintiffs' statistics include only some

45 traditionally Asi,.n minorities ~lDd even iHcludf! members of the llll\iority, Plaintiffs' class of select cthnicities

46 prc~cms no logical expl.i.lrnltioIt for u."illg aggregated statist1cr:;, particularly given that plaintitfs' own statistics

47 show that some racial Asians do better than class" Asians" and e\'eD bettl;:f lli,\Tl whhcs. ~ supra 0.6.

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) • 10
LO]l)oz-()tJ8.1fSLOJJ..j 50 ,082J

Peoons Coie LLP J201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Sc..1ttle, Wash.ifl!,<1:on 98101-3099
Phone: (106) 583-SRKlo:
Fax: (206) 583-8500

I litigation cnds. See, .eg., Smith Y. Xerox Corp, 196 F3d 358 (2'" Cir. 1999), Fisher Y.
2 .vassar College, 70 f3d 1420 (1'"' Cir 1995); Flores v Hartlord Police Dep't, 1981 U.S. Disl.

4 5

LEXIS 11484(D. Conn. Feb 17,1981).

6
7

In Flores, the plaintiffs offered 110 reason for their analytical grouping of Puerto Rican

"9 and bJack applkants other than the need to obtain a useful data collection for statistical

10 11

analysis. The court held:

12

13

The .~eJection of suhjects for compuri.·mn by 11 statisticul anmy.ds cannut depend on

14

a mere desire on the part ofthe plaintiffs to generute numbers. The figures

15

generated by application of statistical formulae are meaningless if they are not backed

16

by supporting facts and theory. When an employment test disquaJifies applicants

17
18 19

Tie along lines of national origin, the ~iscriminatory effect, presumably, could be caused

by a cultural or linguistic bias.

experience of blacks is not presumptively

20

comparable or relevant, under su ,h a theory, to judging the impact ofa test on Puerto

21

Ricans" _ Lirigan6' may not pi k anti choo.~e among variQus minorities to find

22

nume.l'ical difference!) that happ, n to suit thei1' CQ.fJes.

23

24 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXlS 11484 at '44-4Si(emphasis added).

25

;

26

Likewise, in fuher, the plaintiffnlaniputated the population studied by the statistician

27

2" to preclude analysis of data that did not Sltpport her case. There, the plaintitl' propOllnded
29

30 statistical evidence to s.upport her claim that no married woman on the Vassar faculty had
31

32 been granted tenure in the "hard" sciences in the three decades preceding her 1985 denial of
D

34 tenure. PlaintifJ?s definition ofa IIhard" stience included biology, chemistry, math, physics 35

16 and geology but not psychology, even though at the time ofplaintitl1s tenure review-, Vassar's
17

38 administrative stmcturc included psychology in her division. The Second Circuit declared
39

40 that the District Court's reliance on such selective data was clearly erroneous, and the 41

42 judgment was vacated. The court stated, !'[pJlaintif.fs statistical case is built on
43

44 gerrymandered dutu and a series ofstafi.\'licaifallades. II 70 F, 3d at 1443 (emphasis added). 45 46

47

Dl£li'S MOTIONIMEMO FOR SUMMARY rnDGME:NT (NO. C99,1227L) - 11 JC.lJ002-0683ISL0334,'iO .Olo:2J

Pcl'ldns Coie 1.1.1'
1201 Third AV(''1IUC, Suite 4800
Se.attle, Washington 98101-J099 Phone: (206) 583-8888 FlIx; (2tl6) 583-8500

1 Plaintiff~P exclusion in this case of groups such as Chinese and Japanese employees, who are

2 3

dearly members of the Asian race, is far more blatant than the exclusion committed in Fi~her.

4 5

And in Smith, the plaintiffs! statistician had attempted to group each plaintiff with the

6 7

coworkers to whom that particular plaintiff was compared for selection in a reduction in

"9 force. However, when the number of persons in a particular unit was too small to yield a

10 11

statistically valid re~mlt, plaintitfs' expert pooled units that he thought were reasonably

12 13

homogeneous. The defendant argued that these Wefe impermissibly pooled units, making the

14
15 ttndings of statistical significance invalid. The court agreed, stating:

16

17

In any large population a subset can be chosen that will make it appear as though the

1"

complained ofpra~iice produced a disparate impact Yet, when the entire group i~

19

analyzed any observed differcntial may disappear, indicating that the identified

20

employment. pract.ice was not. t.he cau&e of the disparity observed in the subset.

21

12 196 F.3d at 369.
23

24

In the pres.ent case, the statistical data have obviously been "segmented and

25

26 particularized and fashioned to obtain a desired result." .Fed. Reserve Bank, 698 F.2d at 646.
27

'" Plaintitls have strategically engineered a definition of "Asian" that suggests statistical
29

10 disparities by removing groups of Asian employees with positive statistical data, adding
11

32 groups of Asians whose data bet.ter suits plaintiffs' purpQses~ and aggregating all statistical
33

34 analyses. Although Boeing has questioned the bizarre composition of plaintiffsI class many
35

36 times in this litigation, plaintiffs have never come forward with any logical explanation as to
37

38 why the class is composed of some, but not all, traditional racial Asian ethnicities Of why it
39

40 makes sense culturally, traditionally, or linguistically to lump these seven ethnicities and not
41

42
43

44

45
.6

47

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT (NO_ C99-1227L) - 12
[(J3(102·0683fS1.0334~O.i.l~21

Perkins Coic U..F 1201 Third AvcmI-C, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washi.L1g1:on 98101-3099
Phone: (206) Sg3-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500

others together for a discrimination suit. 13 The answer came from their expert, DL Siskin,
,2 who te!ttificd that plaintiffS' counsel knew how the individual cthnicities' statistics looked

4
5

hefore they fonnulated their class, and whose analyses show that non-class Asians fare far

6 7

better than class "Asians" in the employment practices at issue here, Se~ Siskin Dep. at

S 9

16: 13-'18; supra n.6. Boeing respectfully submits that the Court should disregard plaintiffs'

W
11

ge1'l'ymandered "dass" statistics, and in so doing, dismiss plaintiffSf case in its entirety.

12
13 B.

PJaintiJfs' Claims Regarding Retention Ratings Should Be Dismissed Because

14

Assignment of a Retention Rating Is Not an Actionable Event Under Title VII

15

or Section 1981

16

17

It is unlawful under Title VII to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,

18

1'J or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respe(..i to his compensation, tenns,
20

21 condition"" orprrVl/eges a/employmellt" 42 U S.C. § 2000e-2(0)(I) (emphasis added), The
22
:n Court1s orders during the life of this case have deady, and properly, distinguished between
24

25 the assignment of retention ratings and decisions regarding actual layoff. 14 No class claim for 26

27 laynJfs exists in this case. However, plaintiffs continue to attempt to blur the line between
2M

29 rete1ltion ratings, which have no impact whatsoever on the terms and conditions of
30

.11 employment, and layoffs, which obviously do.
12

13

The mere assignment of a retention rating-without IUore-does not constitute an

14

35 actionable event, because it does not affect the terms, conditions or privileges of employment,

36

37 Indeed, a retention rating is merely a number, recorded in a personnel database, and is only
JK

39

40

41

42

43

n Plaillli('f..:; have suggested only lIull the individual named plaintiffs come from 1.hese sev,-,'n

44 countries but, as ha.. been shown, the current named pl"'n1.irf."<f have, in fact, been sclCC1cd from a pool that

45

included PCrSQ1tS of Chinese and Jap.ane~c origin as well.

46

14 SCC~, Ord!"'']' Regarding Defendant's Molion for Clarillcation, December 2,2002 (Dkt # 236)

47 at 4,lIud n. L

DEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO C99- J221L) - JJ rOJO()2-1j(,K:lISL<J.'3450.01l2 J

Pi,!r'l.:.ins Coie LLl"
1201 Third Avenue" Suite 4800 Seattle, WashillbrtOTl 9Kl0l-3099
Phone: (206) 5H3-S8S8
fax: (206) 58j:~8500

used iflayoffs are necessary in the partIcular job classification or location at issue. For most

2
3

ofthe relevant years in this case, Boeing was not engaged in Jayoffs, which meant that

4
,5 employees' retention ratings had no effect whatsoever on the terms and conditions of their

7 employment Even when layoffs do occur at Boeing, if an individual's joll c1assilkation is not

8 9

impacted, he or she is utterly unaffected by whatever retention rating has been assigned.l~

10 11

And employees who are laid off' can sue, either as individuals or, in appropriate

12
n circumstances, as a class, if they believe discrimination has occurred.

14

15

A low retention rating is somewhat analogous to a negative performance review,

16
17 sitling in an employee's file-possibly for a ::let duration-··,which may ultimately have no

18
19 impact at all on the employee's compensation, employment status, grade level, or any other

20 21 actual employment condition. Unless and until it results in a material change in the actual

22
23 terms and conditions of employment, that evaluation is simply not actionable, On that point,

24 2.5 the D,C. Circuit. has written as follows:

26

27

Performance evaluations are likely to be "[i1nterlocutory or mediate decisions having

28

no ilnrnediate effect upon employmenl." The result of an evaluation is often

29

speClllative, making it difficult to remedy, For example, a single poor evaluation may

)()

drastically limit an employee's chances tor advancement, ~)r it may be outweighed by

31

32

later evaluations and be of no real consequence. This reasoning is reflected in Hrawn

13

[v. Brody. 199 FJd 446 (DC. Cit. 1999)] where the court suggested that

34

perfonnancc evaluations should not be con~idered adverse actions if they did not

35

"aITect [Jthe (employee's] brrade or salary," and analogiz.ed petfonnance evaluations to

36

lateral transfers, which are not actionable injuries unless they "affcct[] the terms,

37
JU

conditions, or privileges of [an employee's] employment or her future employment.

39

opportunities such that a reasonable trier offset could conclude that the plaintiff has

40

suffered objectively tangible harm,"

41

42

43

44

4'

46 47

\.; See, e,g., lk:POSjtiOll oFM,'llcolm Case, November 20, 2002, al 75:5-76:5 (Hariman Decl. <11 pp, ':.18-99).

DEP'S MOTIONJMRMQ POR SUMMARY JllDGJ\.1ENT (NO. C99-12271.) - 14[()::In02-06KliSL033450 ,os;!.J

Perkins Coie I,Ll' 12(lI Third Avenue, SLLite 4800 Seattle. Wm,hillgr.on 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583·888K Pax: (206) 5tB-8500

1 Russell v_ P.rincipi, 257 F.3d 815, 818-19 (D_C Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).

2 3

Notably~ the court went on to hold, in language that squarely addresses the retention ratings

4
5

claims in this case, that the employee's alleged exposure to higher risk 0/ layoff because of

6 7

lolV performance raiiflg was an "unrealized risk ofa future adverse actioll ... too

8 9

eplum't£l'ai to ,·on.<;titute an adw!l'se employment action " and support a t/jn;rimination

10 II

claim undG'711tle VI! Jd_ at 819-20 (emphasis added). See also !:lel~eson v. Am Int'l

I.12
"

Group, Inc", 44 F. Supp. 2d 1091, 1098 (S.D, Cal. 1999) ("A mere t~,ea! oftcrmin.tion _.

15 is not an adverse employment action. It had no effect on the terms, conditions or duration of

16
17 employment") (emphasis added); Chi,hol!n v_ Foothill Capital Corp., 3 F' Supp. 2d 925, 938

18 19

n.5 (N_D. Tll. 1998) (threat offiring is insufficient on its own to constitute an adverse

20 21

employment actjon).

"23

In the context of the stticter criteria governing retaliation cases, Ninth Circuit law is

24
25

consistent with these principles. Tn Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 2002),

26
27

the court held that because plaintiff did not allege (1) that his employer had relied upon hi,

2X 2'

performance evaluations in making a furtber employment decision adverse to him, (2) that his

30
"32

employer had published the evaluations by making them available to other potential

33 employers, (3) that the evaluations resulted in any meaningful charlge in work assignments

14
35 (either in the form ofl'elieving him of responsibilities or saddling him with additional,

16
37 burdensome tasks), the evaluations themselves were not actionable as adverse employment

38 39

actions_ See also Ko!1an v. Califorpia, 5 F. Supp_ 2d 843, 853 (CD. Cal. 1998) (a negative

40 41

evaluation without any concomitant demotion or reduction in responsibilities. is not a

42 43

cognizable adverse employment action; because the negative evaluation was never used as a

44 45

basis for taking any action against the plainlill), afl'd, 217 F3d 1104, il13 (9ili Cir. 2000)

46 47 (plaintiff "was not demoted, was not stripped ofwork responsibilities, was not handed

OEF'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-l127L) - 15
lmU02-Oti83fSlm345o.o,.z1

Perkins Coic LJJ' 1201 Third Avenue, Sl,Ute 4800 Seaule, Washingtoll 1)8101-3099
Phone: (106) 583·8888 F'ilX: (206) 583·R500

ditTerent Of more burdensome work responsibilities, was not fired or suspended, was not

2 3

denied any raiset:i, and was not reduced in salary or any other benefit. Thus, [!)heJ has not

4
5 shown that her evaluation was discriminatory or retaliatory, or was such an 'intolerable' act

6
7

dlat would furce an employee to quit. ").

" 9

Because the assignment of a retention rating is not an actionable event under Title VII

10 11

or Section 1981, Boeing respectfully requests that plaintiffs' claims for discriminatory

12
13

retention ratirtgs be dismissed.

14
15 C. Because Plaintiffs Lack Evidence That a SpeCific Employment Practice Results

16

in Adverse Impact, Their Impact Claims Fail

17

18

To establish a prima facie case ofdisparate impact under Title Vll, plaintiffs are

19
20 required to show that a specific: employment practice had a significant adverse impm;:J on the

21
22 ptOtected group and som'~ callsal connectioll between the employment practice and the

23

24 alleged disparate impa.ct J..l.amas v. Butte" Community College DistriQt, 238 F.3d "] 123, 1127

25

26 (9'" Cir. 2001) (emphasis added); accord Munl'z v. OlT, 200 F.3d 29\,302-03 (5'" Cir. 2000), 27

18

Plaintiffs here have presented statistics aHeging disparate impact without making aroy

2" 30 evidentiary link to a specific Boeing employment practice or policy. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr.

31

32 Siskin, was utterly unable to even posit such a connection in his deposition, Instead, he

33

)4 admitted that he had no idea whether the alleged compensation disparities ill his. statistical

35

)6 analysis arose from the annual compensation exercises (which plaintiffs challenge) or some

37
38 other aspect ofplaintiffsj employment expcrieDcec See.. c.g.• Siskin Dep. at 7·'; 15~72:20

39

40 (Hartman Decl. at pp 107-08). Plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment simply by

41

42 presenting statistics aimed at showing a disparate impact.

4)

44

45

46

47

DEF'S MQTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY
JUD(;MENT(NO. C99-1227L) -16 fO.'00l·0683IS1 j)]]4s0.08.21

Perkins Coic W'
1201 Thitd Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (20G) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 51B-8500

1 D. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs' Tirne-Barred Claims for Daltulges

2

3

The following statutes of limitation apply in this case: Section 1981 disparate

4
5 treatmeot claims are barred prior to October 12, 1996;16 Title VII dis.parate treatment claims

6
7 are barred prior to March 4, 1999;17 and disparate impact chums are barred prior to

8
9 September 14, 2000. \I! Although these limitations periods have been clearly established by

10
11 the Court for some time, plaintiifs' expert has included in his report calculations of damages

12
13 that include periodS outside the time frames, I') Boeing respectfully requests that the Court

14
15 dismiss any claims for damages for disparate impact prior to September '14, 2000, any claims

16
17 tor disparate treatment damages pursuant to Title VII prior to March 4, '1999, and any claims

18
19 for disparate treatment damages pursuant to Section 1981 prior to October 12, 1996,

20
21 F.. Plaintiffs Lack Statistical Sdpport for Their Claims on Behalf of Technical

22

Workers

23

24

Even if plaintiffs' newly aggregated statistics for their gerrymandered "race"JUnational

25

26 originll group were somehow determined to be proper; those statistics still do not support

27
2. plaintiffS' claims on behalfoftechnicaJ workers. When viewed within the applicable time
29

30 frames and through lhe lens of the Supreme Court's and the Ninth Circuit's guidance
"32 regarding legally significant statistics, the analyses ofplailltifts' own expert make dea.r that

33

34

35

36

37 38
'"4<1

16 Order Denying Defendant's Motion (0 Strike Certain Claims Under 42 U.s.C. §1981, May 24, 2001 (Dkt # 153), at 2.
11 Order GrdntiJlg in Part and Denying in Part DefendaTlt's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

41 on Statute ofLimitaUons.. May 24, 2001 (Dkt # 151), at 3.

42

43

II! Order Gra.nting Plain1ifTs' Third Reqm:st for Class Certification, May 22, 2002 (Dkt # 216). at 2,

44 n.L

45

J9 FOI" example, on Tables ST2 and S.B2 of his most recent report, Dr. Siskin C"1Ilcul,l:fcs damag<.:,<, ror

46 the year pr(:ceding MtlTcll 1, 1995. Siskin Decl. III at Tables sn and SE2 (Ilartmml DL!cl. at pp. 79-KO), See

47

infra n_20, explaining the liming of Dr. Siskin's compensation s1.udics.

DW1'S MOTION/MEMO FOR SUM:MARY ruDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 17
t o3001-CH58:]ISL\l:\J45()JI1I21

Perkins Cuie LU
120] Third Avenue, Suite 4800
SCa:/t1e, Washington 9xlOl-3099 Phone: (206) 58)-888&
Fax: (206) 583-8500

plaintiffs' claims as to technical workers are without adequate evidentiary support to defeat

2
J sumnlary judgment.

4
" 6
7

The Supreme Court has specifically declined to state that "precise calculations of statistical significance are nece5sary in employing statistical proof." Hazelwood S9b.. Dist v.

K
9

United States, 433 U.S. 299, 311·12 n.17 (1977); Watsouv. fort Worth ~ank & Twst, 487

to II

U.S. 977, 995 n.3 (1988), (the Court has "not suggested that any particular number of

12 13

'standard deviationfl' can detennine whether a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in the

14 IS

complex area of employment discrimination.")' Instead, the Court has offered only a general

16 17

guideLi.ne that "'if the difference between the expected value and the observed number is

18 19

greater than tlV(J 01' three standard deviations,'!' then the hypothesi!; [that no discrimJnation

20 2!

occur""l] would be suspect" HazelwDod, 433 U.S. at 309 n.14 (citation omitted) (emphasis

22
23 added). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted that guidance to mean that while a social scientist

24 25

may be suspicious of standard deviations just above two or three, a ditferent---cven higher ,,-

26
27 standard applies in courl, adding that "courts should be 'extremely cautious' of drawing any

28 29

inferences from standard deviations in the range of 1 to 3." Gay v. Waiters' ~_D~

30
31 Lunchmen', Union Local No. 30, 694 Ji.2d 531, 551 (9'" Cir. 1982) (citation omitted).

32

33

\, Plaintiffs' Statistics Do Not Support a Disparate Impact Claim for

34

Tecbnical Workers

35

36

Summaty judgment is appropriate when statistics do not support a dispaTate impact

37

'" analysis. See Katz v. Regents of the Univ. '1f Cal., 229 F.3d 831, 835 (9" Cir. 20(0)

]')

..j.O (aftirming summary judgment dismissal where the plaintiffs were "unable lo set forth a

41

42 substantial statistical disparity"). Courts generally detennine the "sufficiency" or

43
44 "substantiality" of numerical disparities on a case-by-case basis in the context of disparate

45

46

47

uEF'S MOTIONfMEMO FOR SUM:M:ARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227J..) - IS
[03002-06~J.iS I,1I?':l45()_u:i:21

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Trued Avelme, Suilc 4800 Seattle, Washington ~8101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-&888 Fmc (206) 58J-H500

1 impact claim$, rather than establish any mathematical standard. Watson, 487 U.S, at 995; see

2
J

also C1~dy v. County-"f Los Angeles, 770 F.2d '1421, 1428-29 (9'" Cir. 1985).

4

5

a) Compensation

6

7

During the applicable statute of limitations for disparate impact claims-September

"I} 14,2000 forward-plaintiffs' expert's. statis.tics do not support their claim for disparate

HI
11 impact for teclmical workers in regard to compensation_20 In the last two years of plaintiffs'

12
11 disparate impact period, Dr. Sj~kin's statistics tor compensation claims by tecJutical workerfl

14
15 do not even reach two standard deviations. SiskinDcd. lIT, Table STI (reflecting lAS

16
17 standard deviations tor the 2001 salary exercise2] and L43 standard deviations for the 2002

18 19

salary excrcisei2) And in the remaining relevant 5.S-month period-September 14, 2000 to

20
21 March 1, 2001-that is captured in Dr Siskin's snapshot ofMarch 1,2001, Dr. Siskin's units

22
23 of standard deviation are greater than two, but not three, and therefore not suspect under

24
25

Supreme Courl and Ninth Circuit guidelines. hl (reflecting 2_67. standard deviations as of

26
27 March 1,2001), Without cognizable statisticaJ proofofa pattern a disparity; plaintiffs'

2"
29 disparate irnpact claims for compensation of technical workers must fail.

30

"32

33

34

J5

36

17

20 "('0 understand Dr. Siskin's compens.alion tables, it is cmdal that the Coutt be aware that, III

38 Boeing. the new salaries for engineers and Icchllical workers take eilcct on Mmch 2. Deposition of Jeffrey

39 J<nldcrs at 44:6-13 (Hmttnan Decl. at p. 95). Dr. Siskin's snapshots of salaries takcn on March 1 tilCl'Crore 40 generally reflect the s!dary in place for the prL'Vi{)lIs yeaI_ Thus, his Sludies of March 1, t 996 salaries actually

41 I'COcct salaries set in 1995, his studies of March 1, 1997 salarics actLl.ally reflet.,.1 salaries set in 1996, and so 42 forth. Siskin Ocp. at 82:12·83-11, 84: 1~20 (Hartman Decl. at pp. 109·11).

43

44

2] This is listed by Dr. Siskin as March J, 2001 data. See supm 11.20, explaining the liming of Dr.

45

Sil;kin's compensation ~.ud:ics.

46

22 This is listed by Dr. SiskiTl as September 26, 2002 data. See rupTIl n.20, explaining the timing of

47

Dr. Si~kin'$ compensation studies.

IJBF'S MOTION/MEMO. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMRNT (NO. C99-12271.) - 19
t():IO01·063~VSL03;1'15(J.()~2 J

Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4&00
Seattle, WasllingioTI I}SlOl-3099
Phone: (2()(.) 583-8888
F,,, (206) 583-8500

1

b) Retention

2

1

Similarly, Dr. Siskin's studies do not show statistically significant disparities in

4
5 retention ratings for technical workers in either 2001 or 2002, Siskin Ded ITT, Table STS

6 7 (reflecting 0,97 standard deviations in 200 I and 0.77 standard deviations ill 2002, when

"9 contTolling for year/grade/job2:!). And for the 3.5 additional relevant months-from

10
11 September 14,2000 to December 31, 2000-his analysis shows a standard deviation just

J2
13 rcaching into the rallge of potential significance under applicable law, ld. (reflecting 3.24

14
15 standard deviations in 2000 when controlling for ycar/grade/job),;1A Again, because plaintiffs

16
17 lack evidence of a pattern of significant statistical disparity within the limitations period for

18 19 their claims of disparate impact in the assignment of retention ratings for tcchrl.ical workers,

20
21 those claims should be dismissed as a matter of Jaw.

22

23

2. PlaintilTs' Statistics Canuot Support a Finding of Intent; Plaintiffs'

14

Claims of Disparate Treatment for Technical Workers Should Be

"26

DiSlnissed

27 28

Tn

this

case j

plaintifT.<;' disparate treatment claims

(although

subject

tn

different

29 statutes oflimitatioll than their disparate impact claims) arc based primariJy on the same
]0

31 :statistical evidence as underlies their disparate impact claims. Where a disparate treatment
32
::13 claim rests entirely on statistical evidence, it too should be dismissed for fctilure of statistical
34

35 evidence. \'enk v. Or. Slal.e lid. of Higher Educ., 816 F,2d 458,464 (9" Cir. 1987),
36

37 JR

39

40

21 Dr, Siskin peIfbrml;:d 11is analyses ofretentiQII ratings three WIIYS: (1) controllin.g rOT nothing; (2)

41 controlling for gradelyC<lr; and (3) controlling for grade/year/job. Siskin Decl. 1lI at Tables 51'4, STS, SE4

42 and SES (UnrtmlLTl Oed. at pp_ 83·90, ) Boeing has chosen 10 uSC Or. Siskin's third analysis, which, aWlt)llgh

43 fatally fl,~wcd for reasons 110t discuS$cd here, is the most defensible of his trlfee, because it considcr!\ some of

4'

the f.'lC(OIS relevant 10 \he retention proc~~s \haL are ignored ill his OIlier models.

45

24 It is uncle<lr rTOm Dr. Siskin's report and from his d¢posilioll whether his conclusions are reached

46 by looking only .!:It employee." 011 board during the last three months of rile :rear or wll1::1hcr iJlstead he C,lptllfC:S 47 ratings outside the limitations period,

DEFS MOTION/MEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO, C99-1227L)-20
r0300~ -Ofif:'\,'S t .i!JJ4S0.0821

Perkin:!! Coie UP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4KOO Semtle, WashiTlgwn 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583·~~~K Fax: (206) 583-'K500

I

Whether brought under Title vn or 42 U_S_C. § 1981, claims of disparate treatment

2 3

require proof of intentional discriminatioD_ IntlJ Bhd of TeamsteT'S v. United States, 431 U.S.

4 5

324, 335 t1, 15 (1977) (proof of a discriminatory motive is critical to establish a prima facie

"7 case of discrimination in a disparate treatment case). Although statistical data may, in a

8 9

proper case, be sufficient to raise a prima facie case, to do so in the Ninth Circuit, the

10
II statistics must be "stark," and the plaintiffs still bear the ultimate burden ofprovinl{

12 13

intentional discrimination by something more than statistics.25 As the Ninth Circuit has

14
15 cautioned:

16

17

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based solely ali

18

:':itatistical evidence, the plaintiff must produce statistics showing "u delJr paltern,

19

llnexplainahle on grounds other than race." "But such cases are rare." Absent a

20

"stark" pattern, lIimpact alone is not determinative, and the [c]ourt must look to other

21 22

evidence_" It is vitally important, therefore, to remember that "statistically significant"

23

results are not necessarily "legally significant" results. As the district court

24

reco,brnized, "the probability orrandom occurrence ofa value is not the obverse of the

25

probability that is the result of deliberate action. II Simply put, statistics demonstrating

26

that chance is not the more likely explanation are not by themselves sun1cient to

27

demonstrate that race is the more likely explanation for an employer's conduct.

2'""
30

Gay, 694 F.2d at 552~53 (emphasis added; citations and foolnotes omitted).

31 32

As t.he below table illustrates, in this case, plaintitls' own expert's statistical studies for

33 .14

technical workers-flawed as they am-show that, in almost every year; there are no

35 36

~tatistically signil1cant diJTerences ("greater than two or three" standard deviations) between

37
class I. Asians" and whites in terms of compensation or retention rating. Even the single value
.1"

39

40

41

42

4]

2:; The Ninth Circuit has warned against "taking a quantitative approach to the question of inferring

44 di5(.;riminatory inlCIll from slali5li(';1I1 [.:vidl;:lLc(.;. . .. LAJ purdy slulifl,iiCl.li mmlysi:s would Hhnost (;omplclcly

45

blur the distinction beh'.:een 'impact' and 'iutent'

This would be both improper and unwise. The question

46 whether thr; facts <Ire sufficient (0 permit a leg:!l mference of discriminatory intent cmmol properly be l'Cd.w.:cd.

47 into a mere baulc ofstat.istics." Gay, 6~4 F. 2d fit 552.

DEF'S MOTIONIMEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 21
[O)002--06S3ISLO:B450 0821

Perkin! Coie UP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle. Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888 [1"a.x: (206) 583-HoSOO

I that potentially;s statistically significant in Dr. Siskin's studies (retention ratings in 2000) tails

2 3

LO demonstrate a 'Istark" or "clear" pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race,"

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 II

Retention rating

12

(dispamll,; treatment under

Il

1.41

Siskin Dec!. III, Table

1996

ST5 (controlling for

yoar/grade,(iob)

14

15

Compensation

16

17

(disparate trcatInent under

'"\0

20

Retention rating

21

22

(disparate treatment under

]996
listed by Pr, Siskin as March 1, 1997
1997

248

Siskin Decl. III, TaN!':

STl

Siskin Dl.:cl. III, Table

3.00

ST5 (controlling for

year/gmucljob)

21

24

25

Compensation

26

27

(disparate treatment under

28

Inl

]997

293

Siskin Ded. III, Table

listed by Dr, Siskin as

STl

March 1, 1998

29

30

Retention raling

11

12

(disparate treatment under

33

1.84

Siskin Decl. III, Table

1998

ST5 (controlling for

year/grade/job)

34

35

Compensation

16

37

(disparate treatment under

38

1998

293

Siskin Oed. nI, Table

listed by Dr, Siskin as

STl

March 1, 1999

39

4()

R.crcl.1tion fating

41

42

(disparate treatment under

4J

Section 1981 and

44

1.67

Siskin Decl. ill, Table

1999

ST5 (controHing for

year/grade/job) ---

45

46

47

i() H<lrlman DecL ,at pp, 58-92.

DEF'S MOTlONIMEMO FOR SUM.MARY
JlJDGMENT (NO. C99-1227L) - 22
[Ol<)o2·<I(.!{.~/:,,;L(J.H'15(1.0Ul

Perkins Coie LI.P l20] Third AvelUle, Suite 4800 S~a1tle, Washinglon '18101-3099
PhoTIc: (206) 583-8888 F~~ (206) 583-8500

-

-.

1

-.

.,," -

..-

2

Compensation

1999

2.37

Siskin Decl. III, Table

3
4
5

(disparate treatment under section..~.~81 mill Title VII)

listed by Dr. Siskin as

March I, 2000

..

--

6

STI
.,. ",.
S jskill Dec!. III, Table

7

Retention rating

ST5 (cOIltrolling lor

8

9

(disparat(: trcatntcnt under

10 ~ecti~~ 1981 and Title VII)

\I

2000

3.2'
.., "

year/grade/job)

12
13

Compensation

14

(disparate treatment under

15 16

section 1981 and Title VTI) ...

2000 listed by Dr. Siskin as
March 1,2001
-_.'"

Siskin Decl. III, Table

2.67

STI

_..

17

Retl.:11[ion rating

IX

19 (disparate treatment under

2001

20

Section 1981 and Title VII;

21
22

.~i_5parate impact under Title VII) -

Siskin Oed. Ill, Table

0.97

ST5 (controlling for

year/grade/job)

-

----

21 24

Compensation

2001

Siskin Dec!. III, Table

25 26

(disparate treatment under Title
yn and Section 1981)

(lislCd by Dr. Siskin as March I, 2(02)

1..5

STl

27

... , .-

.. " ...

2S

29

Retention rating

Siskin Oed. III, Table

30

31

(disparate treatment under

32

S!';cliun 1981 atld Title VII~

2002

33

ctispamtt: llnpact ut)dcr t.itle VII ) ... ".-

34

35 Compensation.

2002

(J,17

ST5 (cootrolling fOI

year/grade/job)

-_... ---

-" ,

143

Siskin Decl. nr, Table

36 37
3~

(disparale treatment under Title Yll and Section 19M!)
-

(listed by Dr, Siskin as
September 26 2002)
.....

STI

--

19

40

These variances certainly are not '!stark." Only one of them even surpasses the three

41
42 standard deviation mark and only slightly, Accordingly, the group of statistics should be

41
4. viewed with "extreme caution." Ql!y, 694 F. 2d at 551. Aside from plaintiffs' statistical

45
46 analyses--which arc dearly inadequate-plaintiffs have no evidence to s,upport their claims

47

DEFS MOTIONIMEMO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C':J9-1227L) - 23 J [OJ002-068J.ISUl33~ 50.()X2

Pel'kirHI Coic Lll'
1201 Third Av(,....m..l.c, S\liLc 4800 ScaUlc, Washington 98101 M3099
Phone: (206) 5H3-R8R8
Fax: (206) 583M8500

•

I ofinteflfional discrimination against technical workers, According!y, plaintiffs cannot make

2
• 1
5

out a prima facie cal;e of disparate treatment under Section 1981 or Title Vll, and their claims for technical workers should therefore be dismissed as a matter of law.

6

7

lIT. CONCLUSION

8

9

For the foregoing reasons, Boeing respectfully requests that the Court dismiss all of

10
11 plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. In the alternative, Boeing respectfully requests that the

12
13 Court dismiss plaintiffs' class. claims, consistent with the arguments above.

14

15

DATElJ: January 8, 2004.

16

17
I"
19
20

Bp y ~li;~ ;:wsB~ Aii5~-­

21

22

Jeffrey Holling,worth, WSBA #11853

23

Rima Hartman, WSBA #25714

24

Attorneys for The Boeing Company

25

26

27

28

29

30

11

32
:n

"35
36 37 38 39
411
41
42
41
44
45
46 47

DEF'S MOTIONfMEMO FOR SUMMARy JUDGMENT (NO. C::9~-1227L) - 24l J ().WIJ2-06831S:L0334~o.m!2

Perkins C(lie LLP 120l Third Aveuue, Suile 4800 .':)cllitlc, Wdshil1~,'IOTl 9810 1-3099
PhoI'1~: (206) 583-8888 Fit,; (206) .:'i83-~500

 
 1

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12

AT SEATTLE

13

14 KHALIL NOURI, et al.,
15

16 17

Plaintiffs,

18

19

v.

NO. C99-1227L
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS

20
21 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware

NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR:

22 corporation,

Friday, April 2, 2004

23

24

Defendant.

25

26

27 28

CONTENTS

29
30 I.

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

31
32 II. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................2

33

34

A. THE CLASS SHOULD BE DECERTIFIED BECAUSE IT DOES

35

NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(3)...............................2

36

37

1. Common Questions Do Not Predominate. ............................................2

38

39

2. The Class Action Device Is Not Superior..............................................5

40

41 42

B. THE CLASS SHOULD BE DECERTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO

43

VIETNAMESE AND FILIPINOS. ...................................................................7

44

45

1. Because the Vietnamese Representative's Claims Are Not

46

Typical, He Lacks Standing to Represent the Class. .............................7

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - i
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

2. The Filipino Portion of the Class Should Be Decertified

2

Because Their Representative Cannot Bring a Claim for

3

Monetary Damages or Injunctive Relief..............................................10

4

5 III. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................12
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - ii
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

3

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), Boeing respectfully requests that the Court

4

5 decertify the class in this case. The class was certified based on the Court's understanding

6

7 that plaintiffs were seeking to litigate "over-arching, systemic issues that are applicable to all

8

9 class members with little if any variation between individuals." Order Denying Plaintiffs'

10
11 Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Dkt #209) at 4. At this stage, however, it is plain

12
13 that plaintiffs propose a proceeding mired in the details of 1,850 individual claims for

14
15 compensatory and punitive damages and back pay. Even if plaintiffs succeeded in

16 17

establishing pattern and practice liability during an initial trial phase, the remaining portion

18 19

of the liability phase would be unmanageable. The proceedings would devolve into

20 21

individualized examinations of thousands of compensation and retention rating decisions for

22 employees from seven different nationalities, in two different paycodes, over a period of
23

24 nearly eight years. No constitutionally sound procedural mechanism exists to avoid this
25

26 inescapable reality. Further, the damages phases of this case, however constituted, must
27

28 permit Boeing to challenge the extent to which any individual was harmed by numerous

29

30 compensation or retention decisions, each of which would likely involve numerous and

31

32 changing comparators over time. Common questions plainly will not predominate, and the

33
34 class action device will create no meaningful efficiencies. The class should therefore be

35
36 decertified in its entirety.

37

38

In addition, portions of the class are separately unmaintainable at this stage because

39 40

the class representatives for two of the ethnicities are demonstrably inadequate.

41 42

Specifically, the complaints of Bao Trinh, the Vietnamese representative, relate exclusively

43 44

to his initial placement at the company, and he has no actionable complaints regarding his

45 retention rating or compensation, the only two class claims certified. Raul Aballe, the
46

47 Filipino representative, concealed this lawsuit as an asset in his bankruptcy proceeding, and

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 1
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

therefore is judicially estopped from pursuing his claim for monetary relief now. He also

1

2 has no claim for injunctive relief because he is no longer employed at Boeing and does not

3

4 seek reinstatement. For these reasons, the Vietnamese and Filipino representatives are not

5
6 adequate and their claims are not typical. These portions of the class are separately

7
8 unmaintainable as class claims and should be decertified.

9

10

II. ARGUMENT

11

12 A. THE CLASS SHOULD BE DECERTIFIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET

13

THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(3).

14

15

In ruling on a motion to decertify a class, the court should apply the same standard as

16

17 used in evaluating a motion to certify. O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 404,

18

19 410 (C.D. Cal. 2000). As Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate Trial makes even more clear,

20

21 plaintiffs do not meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Their

22
23 proposed trial plan unmistakably illustrates: (1) that common questions of law and fact do

24
25 not predominate over issues facing only individual members of the class, and (2) that a class

26
27 action is not superior to other available methods. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The class should

28 29

be decertified.

30

31

1. Common Questions Do Not Predominate.

32

33

Although the Court may have allowed plaintiffs the benefit of all possible favorable

34 35

inferences with respect to the predominance requirement after plaintiffs' third attempt at

36 37

class certification, plaintiffs' proposed trial plan now definitively establishes that common

38 issues do not predominate. For common questions of law or fact to predominate over
39

40 individualized questions "'the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof,
41

42 and thus applicable to the class as a whole, must predominate over those issues that are
43

44 subject only to individualized proof.'" Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 211 F.3d 1228,

45
46 1233 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Predominance does not exist where an analysis of

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 2
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

"plaintiffs' claims will require distinctly case-specific inquiries into the facts surrounding

1

2 each alleged incident of discrimination." Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d

3
4 999, 1006 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Reid v. Lockheed Martin Aero. Co., 205 F.R.D. 655,

5
6 683-85 (N.D. Ga. 2001); Reap v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 199 F.R.D. 536, 548-49 (D.N.J. 2001);

7
8 Robertson v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11662, *32 (D. Conn. July 5, 2001).

9
10 With respect to liability, this certainly is the case here. Even if plaintiffs can show proof of

11
12 a discriminatory pattern and practice in the liability phase, this would establish only a

13 14

rebuttable presumption that any individual employment decision was discriminatory.

15 16

International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 359 n.45, 361, 362 (1977).

17 Boeing would then have "the right to demonstrate that it would have treated any given
18

19 member of the plaintiff class exactly as it did absent the discrimination." Reid, 205 F.R.D.
20

21 at 684. The jury would be required to assess Boeing's idiosyncratic defenses for each
22

23 compensation and retention rating decision over several years for thousands of individuals

24

25 (plaintiffs and comparators alike). See Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 420

26
27 (5th Cir. 1998); Motel 6, 130 F.3d at 1006; see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.,

28
29 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended by 273 F.3d 1266.

30

31

With respect to damages, a similarly intractable problem exists. Here plaintiffs seek

32
33 compensatory and punitive damages, both of which would require highly individualized

34
35 testimony to determine each classmember's right to each type of damages. Determination of

36 37

emotional distress damages requires examination of "what kind of discrimination was each

38 39

plaintiff subjected to; how did it affect each plaintiff emotionally and physically, at work

40 and at home; what medical treatment did each plaintiff receive and at what expense; and so
41

42 on and so on." Allison, 151 F.3d at 419; see also Williams v. Owens-Ill., Inc., 665 F.2d 918,
43

44 929 (9th Cir. 1982), modified on other grounds, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18481 (9th Cir.
45

46 June 11, 1982). Determination of punitive damages is likewise extremely individualized.

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 3
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

The jury would have to hear hundreds of hours of testimony to determine who, if anyone,

1

2 suffered actual harm due to intentional willful discrimination, and in what amount, before it

3

4 could make a reasoned assessment of punitive damages awards. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v.

5
6 Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 580-81 (1996); Allison, 151 F.3d at 419; Reid, 205 F.R.D. at 682-86.

7
8 Obviously, jury deliberations regarding entitlement to and amount of punitive and

9
10 compensatory damages for each individual classmember would focus almost entirely on

11
12 facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole. Allison, 151 F.3d

13 14

at 417, 418-19; Reid, 205 F.R.D. at 684; Robertson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11662, at *27,

15 16

*32-33; Faulk v. Home Oil Co., 186 F.R.D. 660, 664 (M.D. Ala. 1999).1

17

The backpay determination presents a similar problem, although for Title VII claims,

18

19 the Court, not a jury, would face this issue. Where, as here, separate employment actions
20

21 underlie plaintiffs' claims, determination of backpay requires individualized inquiries similar
22

23 to those for compensatory and punitive damages claims. Robertson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

24

25 11662, at *28-29. Because trial of this case would require thousands of minitrials on

26

27 individual issues, completely overwhelming any common issues, Rule 23(b)(3) certification

28
29 is not appropriate, and the class should be decertified.2

30

31

32

33

34

1 For the reasons set forth in Boeing's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate Trial, the

35 bifurcation plaintiffs propose is unconstitutional. Dkt. #321 at 9-12. Even if constitutional, however,

36 bifurcation would not resolve the problems inherent in the highly individualized nature of the claims. See, e.g.,

37 O'Connor, 197 F.R.D. at 415; Pickett v. IBP, Inc., 182 F.R.D. 647, 659 (M.D. Ala. 1998).

38

2 Plaintiffs' allegations in this case are similar to those in Robertson. However, the multiple,

39 individualized determinations of backpay that would be required here are even more problematic. Members of

40 the plaintiff class may all have different qualifications, different experience levels, different job assignments,

41 different job classifications, different starting salaries, different skill and performance levels, and they have

42 worked at Boeing for differing amounts of time, all of which may factor into the determination of an

43 appropriate salary for any individual, and accordingly, what an appropriate backpay remedy would be.

44 Appropriate factual determinations for each classmember against relevant comparators would be highly

45 individualized, "an overwhelming task." Id. at *33. Plaintiffs' contrary assertion in their Reply in Support of

46 Motion to Bifurcate Trial at 4 n.4 (Dkt. #322) that lost wages for the class can be determined by a formula is

47 completely unsupported, and they do not even begin to suggest how this could be accomplished.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 4
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

2. The Class Action Device Is Not Superior.
1

2

A class action must advance "efficiency and economy of litigation." General Tel.

3

4 Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 (1982). When either individual liability

5

6 questions exist or the determination of each class member's damages cannot be proved by a

7

8 formulaic calculation, but instead requires individual proof of damages through a trial before

9
10 a jury, the class action is not superior. Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1192. Here, as explained above,

11
12 individualized hearings simply cannot be avoided. The plaintiffs' request for backpay and

13
14 compensatory and punitive damages make the proposed class action unmanageable. These

15 16

determinations will depend on the circumstances of each individual case and cannot be

17 18

computed on a group-wide basis. Allison, 151 F.3d at 419.3

19 20

Plaintiffs' demand for a jury further complicates the management of this case.

21 Because liability and compensatory and punitive damages issues are inextricably
22

23 interwoven, the Seventh Amendment requires that the same jury must hear both liability and
24

25 damages. See, e.g., id. at 425. To have one jury hear testimony on liability and
26

27 compensatory and punitive damages for 1,850 class members—as is Boeing's constitutional

28

29 right—is totally unrealistic. Cooper v. Southern Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16809,

30

31 at *114-15 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2001) ("The prospect of trying possibly two thousand . . .

32
33 claims before a single jury is simply absurd."); Reap, 199 F.R.D. at 550 (where same jury

34

35

36

3 See also Andrews v. AT&T Co., 95 F.3d 1014, 1025 (11th Cir. 1996) (individual determinations of

37 liability and damages defeat the underlying purposes of Rule 23); Burrell v. Crown Cent. Petroleum, Inc., 197

38 F.R.D. 284, 291-92 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (class action device not superior because plaintiffs would have to present

39 evidence of actual injury for each plaintiff and court would be forced "to engage in a highly individualized

40 inquiry into the specific circumstances of each plaintiff's claims"); Reyes v. Walt Disney World Co., 176

41 F.R.D. 654, 658 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (recognizing "the very real danger of certifying a large class action which

42 will thereafter most likely splinter into an unmanageable plethora of individualized claims"); Gorence v. Eagle

43 Food Ctrs. Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11438, at *34 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 1994) (class action not efficient or

44 economical where court could be "forced to hold a series of mini-trials to determine whether each class

45 member suffered discrimination, as well as individualized damages"); Butt v. Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling

46 Co., 116 F.R.D. 486, 492 (E.D. Va. 1987) (computation of damages would be a complex, highly individualized

47 task, and class certification would impose an intolerable burden).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 5
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

must hear evidence of liability and damages for 5,000 class members, "class resolution
1

2 would be too prolonged and complicated, and would not be superior to other available

3

4 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case."). Plaintiffs' proposal for

5
6 bifurcation—even if it were constitutional—would not solve these intractable case

7
8 management issues and "would prove to be no more expedient than the traditional handling

9
10 of civil cases". McKnight v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 550, 553 (E.D. Va. 1996),

11 12

aff'd sub nom., Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, 158 F.3d 742 (4th Cir. 1998), vacated and

13 14

remanded on other grounds, 527 U.S. 1031 (1999); Celestine v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 165

15 16

F.R.D. 463, 471 (W.D. La. 1995), aff'd, Allison, 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) (bifurcation

17 would not eliminate the complexities or practical problems with the proposed class action, in
18

19 light of Seventh Amendment concerns); Burrell, 197 F.R.D. at 292 ("[I]t would be difficult
20

21 to avoid violating the Seventh Amendment if the court were to move forward with Plaintiffs'
22

23 plan and allow one jury to pass on the issue of punitive damages while allowing potentially
24

25 hundreds of subsequent juries to decide whether and to what extent each individual plaintiff

26

27 is entitled to compensatory damages. On this basis alone, Plaintiffs' trial plan is not a

28
29 superior method of resolving this controversy.").4

30

31

Moreover, even after litigating 1) pattern and practice liability concerning

32
33 compensation and retention ratings, 2) backpay for 1,850 classmembers, and

34

35

36

4 Plaintiffs have in the past insisted incorrectly that punitive damages may be awarded prior to

37 compensatory damages, citing Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996), and that punitive

38 damages may be awarded without an award of compensatory damages, citing Passantino v. Johnson &

39 Johnson, 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) and Gill v. Manuel, 488 F.2d 799, 802 (9th Cir. 1973). Plaintiffs ignore

40 the Ninth Circuit's mandate in Hilao that compensatory damages should be determined first, and that it was

41 only in the extremely unusual circumstances of Hilao that a divided Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's

42 approval of the plaintiffs' unorthodox damages scheme. Further, in Passantino, the Ninth Circuit stated that

43 "we need not decide if punitive damages may be awarded under Title VII in the absence of a compensatory or

44 nominal damage award, because the jury did award compensatory damages." 212 F.3d at 515. Gill was an

45 individual Section 1983 action, and the Ninth Circuit has limited its applicability to Section 1983 cases in

46 which the plaintiff "has shown that the defendant violated a federally protected right." Passantino, 212 F.3d

47 at 514.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 6
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

3) compensatory and punitive damages for 1,850 classmembers, Boeing still could be

1

2 subject to a host of individual lawsuits by classmembers with potential claims of hostile

3

4 work environment, failure to promote, misclassification as a technical worker, retaliation,

5
6 discriminatory layoff, and numerous other claims which were, but no longer are, part of this

7
8 lawsuit. Indeed, the claims of approximately 25 individuals who were named as class

9
10 representatives in the original Nouri and Sharma actions include such allegations. Given the

11
12 threat of multiple individual suits regardless of whether this case proceeds as a class action,

13 14

a class action is not superior.5 Even after four years of unprincipled manipulation of the

15 16

class representatives and class definition, plaintiffs still fail to meet the requirements for

17 class certification. The class should be decertified.
18

19 20

B.

21

THE CLASS SHOULD BE DECERTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO VIETNAMESE AND FILIPINOS.

22 23

Even if the Court declines to decertify the entire class, the class claims of two ethnic

24 25

groups involved in this lawsuit should be decertified because their class representatives'

26 27

claims are not typical and the class representatives are not adequate.

28 29

1. Because the Vietnamese Representative's Claims Are Not Typical, He

30

Lacks Standing to Represent the Class.

31

32

According to Rule 23(a)(3), the claims or defenses of the representative parties must

33 34

be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." A class representative "must possess the

35

36

5 One of the most compelling rationales for finding superiority in a class action is the existence of a

37 "negative value" suit, where plaintiffs with individual claims worth only a small amount would face financial

38 barriers to bringing suit separately. Allison, 151 F.3d at 420; Reap, 199 F.R.D at 550. Indeed, certification

39 under Rule 23(b)(3) was intended for "vindication of the rights of groups of people who individually would be

40 without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521

41 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In contrast, a class action is not needed in

42 cases such as this, where proposed class members have the incentive and the ability to protect their interests

43 through pursuit of significant monetary damages and where full recovery of attorneys' fees is allowed. Allison,

44 151 F.3d at 420; Reap, 199 F.R.D. at 550; Miller v. Hygrade Food Prods. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Pa.

45 2001). Because each plaintiff has an interest in individually controlling the prosecution of his or her claim,

46 Rule 23(b)(3) certification is not appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A); Allison, 151 F.3d at 420; Reap,

47 199 F.R.D. at 549-50.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 7
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

same interest and suffer the same injury shared by all members of the class." Schlesinger v.

1

2 Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216 (1974); see also E. Tex. Motor

3

4 Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977); O'Connor,197 F.R.D. at 412. An

5
6 employee who was not aggrieved by a particular policy lacks standing to challenge that

7
8 policy. Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen Local 201, 843 F.2d 1395, 1409 (D.C.

9
10 Cir.), clarified on reh'g, 852 F.2d 619 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Lierboe v. State Farm Mut.

11 12

Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (vacating class certification because the

13 14

named plaintiff had no claim regarding insurance "stacking" and could not serve as class

15 16

representative for others who might have such claims); O'Connor, 197 F.R.D. at 412, 415

17 (granting motion to decertify class; where named plaintiffs' claims were time-barred, they
18

19 were not adequate representatives and their claims were not typical).
20

21

Here, Bao Trinh, the Vietnamese class representative, does not allege that he has

22

23 suffered the same injury as those he wishes to represent. Trinh's allegations center around

24

25 the fact that when he came to Boeing in 1997, he was placed in a Manufacturing

26

27 Engineering ("ME") planning group in which he was the only professional engineer.

28
29 Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement for professional engineers, Trinh was rated

30
31 for purposes of salary and retention ratings against other engineers with the same primary

32
33 skill code as he had. Trinh believes that because of his assignment in ME planning, he was

34
35 not able to compete well against engineers in other ME groups. He does not, however

36 37

contend that he was assigned to the ME planning group because of his race or national

38 39

origin. Nor, of course, is there any assignment claim in the present case. The following

40 deposition excerpt summarizes Trinh's testimony:
41

42 43

Q. Did you feel that you were at a disadvantage in salary exercises because of

44

where you were assigned?

45

A. Yes.

46

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 8
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Q. And you felt that you were at a disadvantage in retention exercises because

1 2

of where you were assigned?

3

A. Yes.

4

* * *

5 6

Q. Is that the primary thrust of your Complaint?

7

A. Yes.

8 9

* * *

10

Q. Do you believe that you were assigned to the manufacturing engineering

11

planning group because of your race or national origin?

12

A. I don't know.

13

14

Q. Do you have any facts to suggest that to you?

15

A. No.

16 17

Q. Do you believe that you were provided the retention ratings you were when

18

you were in manufacturing engineering because of your race or national

19

origin?

20

A. I don't know.

21

22

Q. Do you have any facts to suggest that you were?

23

A. I don't know.

24 25

Q. Does that mean, no, you don't have any facts?

26

A. I don't have.

27

Q. Okay, and do you believe that you were – that the reason you were given the

28 29 30

salary adjustments you were given when you were in manufacturing engineering was because of your race or national origin?

31

A. I don't know.

32

Q. Do you have any facts to suggest that that was the reason?

33

34

A. No.

35
36 Deposition of Bao Trinh ("Trinh Dep.") at 419:15-421:5 (SL 26-28); see also id. at 77:23-

37 38

78:19 (SL 7-8). Because Trinh admits that he does not have a claim for race or national

39 40

origin discrimination in compensation or retention rating, his claims in this case are not

41 42

typical of those of the classmembers he seeks to represent, and he does not satisfy the

43 requirements of Rule 23(a)(3). See Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158-59 (named plaintiff who had no
44

45 failure to hire complaint could not represent class of Mexican-Americans alleging
46

47 discrimination in hiring because his claims were not typical). Similarly, Trinh is not an

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 9
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

adequate class representative because his interests are not aligned with the class, as required

1

2 by Rule 23(a)(4). O'Connor, 197 F.R.D. at 412, 415. Accordingly, the class should be

3

4 decertified with respect to the Vietnamese members.

5

6

2. The Filipino Portion of the Class Should Be Decertified Because Their

7

Representative Cannot Bring a Claim for Monetary Damages or

8 9

Injunctive Relief.

10

On May 29, 2001, Filipino class representative Raul Aballe filed a Voluntary

11

12 Petition for Bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
13

14 Deposition of Raul Aballe at 21:5-11 (SL 32); Voluntary Petition (SL 34-58). In the
15

16 schedule attached thereto, Aballe did not list this lawsuit as an item of personal property.

17

18 (Schedule B to Voluntary Petition (SL 37-39)). A Chapter 13 plan was approved.

19
20 Chapter 13 Plan (SL 59-61); Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan (SL 62-66); Docket of

21
22 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Bankruptcy Petition

23
24 #01-45328-PBS (SL 67-71). Aballe never amended his Voluntary Petition or any of his

25
26 bankruptcy schedules to list this lawsuit as an asset.

27 28

A debtor seeking protection of the bankruptcy laws must disclose all assets or

29 30

potential assets to the bankruptcy court. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d

31 778, 783-86 (9th Cir. 2001); DeLeon v. Comcar Indus., Inc., 321 F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (11th
32

33 Cir. 2003); Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002). This
34

35 duty is continuing, and the debtor must update the disclosure if circumstances change.
36

37 Hamilton, 270 F.3d at 784. Complete and honest disclosure is "crucial to the effective
38

39 functioning of the federal bankruptcy system." Burnes, 291 F.3d at 1286 (internal

40

41 quotations omitted). Aballe—who was represented by counsel in his bankruptcy proceeding

42
43 and represented by plaintiffs' counsel in this action at the time he signed his bankruptcy

44
45 papers under penalty of perjury—did not list this lawsuit as an asset as is required by the

46
47 bankruptcy laws. Failure to list this action as an asset is inconsistent with Aballe's pursuit of

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 10
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

monetary relief in this action, and judicial estoppel therefore bars Aballe from pursuing

1

2 monetary damages here. Hamilton, 270 F.3d at 783-86; DeLeon, 321 F.3d 1291-92; Burnes,

3

4 291 F.3d 1288; Schertz-Nelson v. AT&T Corp., 2003 WL 22047646, at *5-7 (D. Ariz.

5
6 July 8, 2003).6

7

8

The fact that Aballe is judicially estopped from bringing claims for monetary

9
10 damages renders him inadequate as a class representative and renders his claims atypical.

11
12 Estoppel is a "unique defense" that, if assertable against a class representative, negates

13 14

typicality or adequate representation, thereby precluding class certification. See, e.g.,

15 16

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming denial of class

17 certification; typicality not met because there was "danger that absent class members will
18

19 suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it") (internal quotations
20

21 omitted); Guenther v. Pacific Telecom, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 333, 337-39 (D. Or. 1988)
22

23 (typicality requirement not met where plaintiffs subject to the unique defenses of waiver,
24

25 estoppel, and ratification); Monroe v. Hughes, Civ. No. 90-152-MA, 1990 WL 267361 *2-3

26

27 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 1990) (same). Here, Aballe's susceptibility to the unique defense of judicial

28
29 estoppel vitiates typicality and his adequacy of representation.

30

31

Not only is Aballe judicially estopped from seeking monetary damages; he also has

32
33 no claim for equitable relief. Because he is no longer employed at Boeing, he could not be

34
35 the beneficiary of the injunctive relief pertaining to employment practices at Boeing that the

36 37

class seeks, and he has made no claim for other injunctive relief such as reinstatement.7 In

38 39

sum, lacking claims for either monetary or equitable relief, Aballe is an inadequate class

40

41

42

43

6 Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine precluding a party from asserting a claim in one legal

44 proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim of that party in a previous proceeding. New Hampshire v. Maine,

45 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001); Hamilton, 270 F.3d at 782. It is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial

46 process. New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 749-50.

47

7 See Fifth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt. # 269).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 11
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

representative and his claims are not typical. See, e.g., Johnson v. Board of Regents of

1
2 Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1268 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming decertification; because

3

4 plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims for injunctive relief, the remedy sought by

5
6 the class, they could not act as class representatives); Jordan v. Hawaii Gov't Employees'

7
8 Ass'n, 472 F. Supp. 1123, 1132 n. 30 (D. Haw. 1979) (class certification denied where class

9
10 representative had no standing to seek injunctive relief because he was retired).

11
12 Accordingly, the Filipino portion of the class should be decertified.

13

14

III. CONCLUSION

15

16

For the reasons set forth above and in Boeing's prior briefing, the entire class should

17 18

be decertified.

19 20

DATED: March 18, 2004.

21

s/ Rima Hartman

22

John F. Aslin, WSBA #1583

23

Jeff Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853

24

Rima F. Hartman, WSBA #25714

25

Sonja Lengnick, WSBA #28065

26 27 28

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

29

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

30

Telephone: 206-359-8435

31

Fax: 206-359-9435

32

E-mail: RHartman@perkinscoie.com

33

Attorneys for Defendant

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 12
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1

2 3 4

On March 18, 2004, I caused to be served upon counsel of record, at the address stated below, via the method of service indicated, a true and correct copy of the following

5 documents:

6

7

Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class

8

9 Steven J. Toll

10 Joseph M. Sellers

11 12

Christine E. Webber

13 Jenny R. Yang

14 Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC

15 1100 New York Avenue, NW

___ Via hand delivery ___ Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class,
Postage Prepaid ___ Via Overnight Delivery ___ Via Facsimile _X_ Via E-filing

16 West Tower, Suite 500

17 Washington, DC 20005
18

19

20 Harish Bharti

___ Via hand delivery

21 Law Offices of Harish Bharti & Associates, LLC ___ Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class,

22 5516 17th Avenue NW

Postage Prepaid

23 24

Seattle, WA 98107

25
26 Attorneys for Defendants

___ Via Overnight Delivery ___ Via Facsimile _X_ Via E-filing

27

28

DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 18th day of March, 2004.

29

30

s/ Rima Hartman

31

John F. Aslin, WSBA #1583

32 33 34

Jeff Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853 Rima F. Hartman, WSBA #25714

35

Sonja Lengnick, WSBA #28065

36

Perkins Coie LLP

37

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

38

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

39

Telephone: 206-359-8435

40 41 42

Fax: 206-359-9435 E-mail: RHartman@perkinscoie.com

43

44

Attorneys for Defendant

45

46

47

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (NO. C99-1227L) - 13
[/SL040630260.DOC]

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

CLOSED, CONSOL, JURYDEMAND, PROTO
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL

Nouri, et al v. Boeing Company, et al Assigned to: Hon Robert S. Lasnik Demand: $100,000 Member case: (View Member Case) Case in other court: CCA, 04-35572 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 07/29/1999 Date Terminated: 06/03/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Khalil Nouri

represented by Christine E Webber COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL 1100 NEW YORK AVE NW STE 500 WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-408-4600 Fax: FAX 1-202-408-4699 Email: cwebber@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Dickson Campbell 9534 14TH AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98117-2308 206-783-3410 Fax: FAX 784-2206 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harish Bharti 5516 17TH AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98107 206-706-6400 Fax: FAX 706-6401 Email: bharti@lawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny R Yang

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 1 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

3/19/08 6:32 AM
COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL 1100 NEW YORK AVE NW WEST TOWER STE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3934 202-408-4600 Email: jyang@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL 1100 NEW YORK AVE NW WEST TOWER STE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3934 202-408-4600 Fax: FAX 1-202-408-4699 Email: jsellers@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL 1100 NEW YORK AVE NW STE 500 WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-408-4600 Fax: FAX 521-0166 Email: jreiser@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 3RD AVE STE 500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-622-8000 Fax: 206-682-2305 Email: garfinkel@sgb-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide
Page 2 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Lear Lavi

3/19/08 6:32 AM
801 SECOND AVE STE 1502 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-625-1326 Fax: 206-622-0909 Email: mjide@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL 1100 NEW YORK AVE NW STE 500 WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-408-4600 Email: stoll@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine E Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 3 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Mike M Taing

3/19/08 6:32 AM
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine E Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 4 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Ahmad Golchen

3/19/08 6:32 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine E Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 5 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Anthony Lacson

3/19/08 6:32 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 6 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Syed I Rizvi

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Christine E Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 7 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Hung M Do
Plaintiff Del L Bhat

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 8 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Benson Pang

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 9 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Raul Mancoa Aballe

3/19/08 6:32 AM
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 10 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Muhammad M Din

3/19/08 6:32 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine E Webber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 11 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Natarajan Sukumaran
Plaintiff Arun K Sharma

3/19/08 6:32 AM
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 12 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Elena R Olinares

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 13 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Krishna Bhadra TERMINATED: 09/07/2000
Plaintiff Quy T Do

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 14 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Ronie G Reyes

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 15 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Mehbod C Taidi

3/19/08 6:32 AM
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 16 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Willy Chang
Plaintiff Son T Le

3/19/08 6:32 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 17 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Hai K Trinh TERMINATED: 09/07/2000

3/19/08 6:32 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 18 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Viqar U Haq

3/19/08 6:32 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 19 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Aamir K Mohammed
Plaintiff Robert A Lundeen TERMINATED: 09/07/2000

3/19/08 6:32 AM
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 20 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Lawrence F Tulfo

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 21 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Trung Q Tran TERMINATED: 09/07/2000
Plaintiff Donald J Bennum

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 22 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Nick A Mostafavi TERMINATED: 09/07/2000
Plaintiff

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 23 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Mohammad A Ali
Plaintiff Bao D Trinh

3/19/08 6:32 AM
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 24 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Louis G Patayon TERMINATED: 09/07/2000

3/19/08 6:32 AM
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine E Webber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 25 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Joachim T Vu
Plaintiff Joseph H Nguyen

LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

3/19/08 6:32 AM

represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 26 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Sandy S Hernandez

3/19/08 6:32 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 27 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Mohammad H Yousufazi

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 28 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Thuc H Nguyen
Plaintiff

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 29 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Mohammad I Motiwala
Plaintiff Mohammed Nizamuddin

3/19/08 6:32 AM
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 30 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Toofan M Namini

3/19/08 6:32 AM
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine E Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Marc Sellers (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 31 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff William H Tomita

3/19/08 6:32 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 32 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Theordores T Kong

3/19/08 6:32 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 33 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Honn Hoy
Plaintiff Mahendra G Berry

3/19/08 6:32 AM
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harish Bharti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 34 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Plaintiff Lito C Palacay TERMINATED: 09/07/2000

3/19/08 6:32 AM
Jenny R Yang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Toll (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Dickson Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harish Bharti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Martin S Garfinkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Ide (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 35 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

Steven J Toll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

3/19/08 6:32 AM

V.
Defendant
Boeing Company a Delaware corporation

represented by Barbara Berish Brown PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 202-508-9500 Fax: FAX 1-202-508-9700 Email: barbarabrown@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Geoffrey Weinrich PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER 600 PEACHTREE STREET NE STE 2400 ATLANTA, GA 30308-2222 404-815-2400 Fax: FAX 1-404-815-2424 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chelsea D Petersen PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-359-3993 Email: cdpetersen@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Heyrich LAW OFFICE OF DONALD W HEYRICH COLUMBIA CENTER 701 5TH AVENUE STE 4795

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 36 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

3/19/08 6:32 AM
SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-838-2504 Fax: 206-838-2505 Email: DHeyrich@HeyrichLaw.com TERMINATED: 09/28/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth PERKINS COIE 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-583-8888 Fax: FAX 583-8500 Email: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Aslin PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-583-8888 Email: Jaslin@Perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon A Geier PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 202-508-9500 Fax: FAX 1-202-508-9700 Email: jongeier@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Anthony Thompson LAW OFFICE OF DONALD W HEYRICH COLUMBIA CENTER 701 5TH AVENUE STE 4795 SEATTLE, WA 98104
Page 37 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation a Maryland corp TERMINATED: 07/15/2003

3/19/08 6:32 AM
425-453-6980 Fax: FAX 425-450-7467 Email: pthompson@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zane A Brown, Jr PERKINS COIE 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-583-8888 Fax: FAX 583-8500 TERMINATED: 04/28/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rima Fawal Hartman Maynard Cooper & Gale 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 205-254-1982 Fax: FAX 205-254-1999 Email: rhartman@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 06/29/2005
Sonja Lengnick PERKINS COIE 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-583-8888 Fax: FAX 583-8500 Email: SLengnick@perkinscoie.com TERMINATED: 06/29/2005
represented by John Aslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

07/29/1999

1 COMPLAINT FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 38 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

08/03/1999 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 08/25/1999 10/15/1999 10/22/1999 10/28/1999
12/09/1999 02/01/2000 03/21/2000 03/24/2000 04/04/2000
04/14/2000 05/30/2000

RETALIATION AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # 260019 (PM) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Boeing Company on 7/30/99 (RS) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Philip Anthony Thompson (RS) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
4 ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by defendant (VK) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
5 ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORT: Joint Status Report due 10/18/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 08/27/1999)
6 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Robert S. Lasnik joint status report ddl continued to 10/22/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
7 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 5 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/25/1999)
8 MINUTE ORDERSETTING TRIAL DATE & RELATED DATES PURSUANT TO LR 16 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik: discovery ddl set for 3/6/00; discovery mtn filing ddl set for 2/28/00; dispositive mtn filing ddl set for 4/3/99; pretrial order ddl set for 6/2/00; trial brief ddl set for 6/28/00 Voir dire/jy inst set for 6/28/00; jury trial set for 7/3/00; 39.1 designation effective set for 5/19/00 (cc: counsel, Judge, GG) (VK) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
9 NOTICE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Harish Bharti w/Edward D. Campbell (MD) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
10 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik: jury trial stricken; joint status report ddl set for 3/20/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
11 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik joint status report ddl continued to 3/24/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
12 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 1 week (KERR) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
13 MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES PURSUANT TO LR 16 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik Deadline to Join Additional Parties is 5/2/00; discovery mtn filing ddl set for 10/2/00; discovery ddl set for 10/9/00; dispositive mtns ddl set for 11/6/00; 39.1 designation effective set for 12/22/00; pretrial order ddl set for 1/5/01; Motions in Limine deadline 1/5/01; trial brief set for 1/31/01; Voir dire/jy inst set for 1/31/01; jury trial set for 2/5/01 (cc: counsel, Judge, GG) (VK) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Steven J Toll, Matthew James Ide (KERR) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Boeing Company by John Aslin

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 39 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

06/01/2000 06/01/2000 06/01/2000 06/01/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/15/2000 06/30/2000 06/30/2000 07/05/2000 07/05/2000 07/05/2000 07/05/2000 07/07/2000

(VK) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
16 MOTION by plaintiff Khalil Nouri to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C991836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ NOTED FOR 6/16/00 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
17 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Khalil Nouri in support of motion to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C99-1836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C991836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
18 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri of motion to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C99-1836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [161] and supporting docs (dktclk) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
19 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C991836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [16-1] (KERR) (Entered: 06/13/2000)
20 DECLARATION of Zane Brown by defendant re: motion response [19-1] (KERR) (Entered: 06/13/2000)
21 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion to consolidate cases C991227L w/ C99-1836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [16-1] (VK) (Entered: 06/19/2000)
22 NOTICE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri of lodging of proposed consolidated amended complaint (dktclk) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
PROPOSED Consolidated Amended Complaint re: motion to consolidate cases C99-1227L w/ C99-1836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L; OA REQ [161] (dktclk) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
25 MOTION by plaintiff Arun K Sharma to certify class action NOTED FOR 7/21/00 (MD) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
26 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Arun K Sharma in support of motion to certify class action [25-1] (MD) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to certify class action [25-1] (MD) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
27 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff Arun K Sharma of motion to certify class action [25-1] (MD) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
23 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik granting pltfs' motion for consolidation, leave to file a consolidated amended complaint, and to extend time to move for class certification. Cases C99-1836L, C99-1895L and C00-582L consolidated into C99-1227L. (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 07/10/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 40 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000
07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/10/2000
07/10/2000
07/10/2000 07/10/2000
07/10/2000
07/10/2000
07/10/2000

24 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiffs (RS) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
28 MOTION by plaintiffs to stay certain proceedings NOTED FOR 7/28/00 (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
29 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to stay certain proceedings [28-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to stay certain proceedings [28-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
30 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion to stay certain proceedings [28-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
45 MOTION by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins NOTED FOR 7/28/00 (KERR) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
46 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of motion to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins [45-1] (KERR) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins [45-1] (KERR) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
47 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins [45-1] etc (KERR) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
31 MOTION by defendant for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) NOTED FOR 7/28/00 (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
32 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
PROPOSED Memorandum in opposition re: motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
33 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] NOTED FOR 7/12/00. Noted incorrectly (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
34 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] [33-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
35 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 41 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/10/2000
07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/10/2000 07/11/2000 07/20/2000
07/24/2000 07/25/2000
07/27/2000 07/27/2000

opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] [33-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] [33-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
36 DECLARATION of Marcella Fleming by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
37 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
38 DECLARATION of Gus Lindsey III by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
39 DECLARATION of Frenie Gonzales by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
40 DECLARATION of Cynthia Evans by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
41 DECLARATION of William Gibbs by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
42 DECLARATION of Malcolm Case by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
43 DECLARATION of Sheryl Feskens by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
44 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Janders by defendant (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to certify class action [25-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
48 WITHDRAWAL by plaintiffs of motion to certify class action [25-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/18/2000)
49 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik STRIKING deft's motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] [33-1] as moot, STRIKING motion for leave to file overlength brief (memo in opposition to pltfs' motion for class certif.) [31-1] as moot (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
51 RESPONSE by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins [45-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 07/26/2000)
50 APPLICATION by plaintiffs Lear Lavi, Toofan M Namini, Ahmad Golchen, Syed I Rizvi , Mike M Taing, Khalil Nouri AND ORDER admitting Joseph M Sellers and Christine E Webber pro hac vice. Receipt # 300877 (cc: counsel, Judge) (dktclk) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
52 ANSWER to complaint [24-1] by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv01227 (dktclk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
53 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion to sever claims and stay certain proceedgins [45-1] and motion to stay certain proceedings [28-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 42 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/27/2000 08/04/2000
08/04/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/16/2000 08/23/2000 08/23/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000

54 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion reply [53-1] (KERR) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
55 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik severing the claims of Trung Tran, Louis Patayon, Lito Palacay, Krishna Bhadra, Hai Trinh, Nick Mostafavi and Robert Lundeen; pltfs, who were named pltfs in the original complaints and whose counsel should be familiar with their claims, shall file their individual complaints within 30 days of this order [45-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
56 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING pltfs' motion to stay certain proceedings [28-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
LODGED ORDER: stipulation re confidentiality and agreed protective order (VK) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
57 Stipulation re confidentiality and agreed PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
58 AMENDED ANSWER by defendant Boeing Company to pltfs' consolidated amended class action complaint (CL) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
59 APPLICATION by defendant Boeing Company AND ORDER admitting Barbara Berish Brown pro hac vice. Receipt # 300986 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
60 APPLICATION by defendant Boeing Company AND ORDER admitting C Geoffrey Weinrich pro hac vice. Receipt # 300985 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
61 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to file motion for class certification NOTED FOR 9/15/00 (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
62 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
63 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiffs re motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: granting pltfs' motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
64 MOTION by plaintiffs to shorten time on motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] NOTED FOR 9/5/00 (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
65 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiffs re motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] [64-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: granting pltfs' motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] [64-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 43 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

09/05/2000
09/05/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/06/2000 09/11/2000
11/06/2000 12/08/2000 12/11/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/22/2000

66 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltfs' motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] [64-1], RENOTED FOR 9/7/00 pltfs' motion to extend time to file motion for class certification; deft's response due 9/5/00; reply due 9/6/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
67 MEMORANDUM by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 in opposition to motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] (MD) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
68 DECLARATION of John F. Aslin re: memorandum [67-1] (expando) (MD) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
69 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: in support of motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1] (MD) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
70 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of reply [69-1] (MD) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
71 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING in part pltfs' motion to extend time to file motion for class certification [61-1]; pltfs to be their class cert. motion on or before 12/11/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
72 NOTICE of subpoena duces tecum upon SPEEA on 11/1/00 (VK) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
LODGED ORDER: stipulation and proposed order re moton to certify class (VK) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
73 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re motion to certify class (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
74 MOTION by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 to withdraw attorney from representation of Anthony Lacson NOTED FOR 1/5/01 (MD) Modified on 12/22/2000 (Entered: 12/22/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to withdraw attorney from representation of Anthony Lacson [74-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
75 MOTION by plaintiff Muhammad M Din in 2:99-cv-01227, plaintiff Sandy S Hernandez in 2:99-cv-01227 to withdraw attorney NOTED FOR 1/5/01 (MD) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to withdraw attorney [75-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
76 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion to withdraw attorney [75-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
LODGED ORDER: joint stipulation re class certification motion (VK) (Entered: 12/26/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 44 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

12/26/2000
01/02/2001
01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001
01/03/2001
01/03/2001
01/03/2001
01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001

109 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of application of Deborah Vagins to appear pro hac vice (no application filed/ counsel called) (VK) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
77 STIPULATION and ORDER re class certification motion by Judge Robert S. Lasnik extending page limitations (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
78 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik striking jury trial date 2/5/01; to schedule to be issued (cc: counsel, Judge, GG) (VK) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
79 MOTION by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 to certify class action; OA REQ'D NOTED FOR 2/23/01 (KERR) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
80 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (SEALED) (KERR) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
81 DECLARATION of Bernard Siskin Ph.D by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (SEALED) (KERR) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
82 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (SEALED) (KERR) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
83 DECLARATION of Raul Mencao Aballe by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
84 DECLARATION of Donald Bennum by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
85 DECLARATION of William Chang by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
86 DECLARATION of Quy Trong Do by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
87 DECLARATION of Ahmad Golchin by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
88 DECLARATION of Viqar Haq by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
89 DECLARATION of Honn Hoy by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
90 DECLARATION of Lear S Lavi by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
91 DECLARATION of Aamit Kahn Mohammed by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 45 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

01/03/2001
01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001
01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001
01/03/2001
01/03/2001

01/04/2001)
92 DECLARATION of Mohammad I Motiwala by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
93 DECLARATION of Toofan Namini by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
94 DECLARATION of Thuc H Nguyen by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
95 DECLARATION of Mohammad Nizamuddin by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
96 DECLARATION of Khalil Nouri by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
97 DECLARATION of Elena R Olinares by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
98 DECLARATION of Benson Pang by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
99 DECLARATION of Syed I Rizvi by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
100 DECLARATION of Arun K Sharma by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
101 DECLARATION of Mike Taing by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
102 DECLARATION of William Tomita by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
103 DECLARATION of Bao Duc Trinh by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
104 DECLARATION of Hai K Trinh by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
105 DECLARATION of Lawrence Francis Tulfo by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
106 DECLARATION of Joachim T.D. Vu by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
107 DECLARATION of Mohammad Yousufzai by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 46 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/09/2001
01/09/2001
01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/07/2001
02/08/2001

01/04/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
108 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1] etc (KERR) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
110 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltf;s motion to withdraw [75-1] attornies: Matthew James Ide, Steven J Toll, Harish Bharti for pltfs Muhammad M Din and Sandy Hernandez (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 01/10/2001)
111 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltf motion to withdraw attorney from representation of Anthony Lacson [74-1] attornies terminated: Matthew James Ide ,Steven J Toll, and Harish Bharti for Anthony Lacson (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 01/10/2001)
112 MOTION by defendant Boeing Company for partial summary judgment, OA req'd by pltf NOTED FOR 2/16/01 (CL) Modified on 03/08/2001 (Entered: 01/26/2001)
113 MEMORANDUM by defendant Boeing Company in support of motion for partial summary judgment [112-1] (CL) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
114 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant Boeing Company exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
115 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Boeing Company of motion for partial summary judgment [112-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
116 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
117 COMPENDUM OF SELECT CITED AUTHORITY in support of motion response [116-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
118 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant. (FILED UNDER SEAL). (CL) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
119 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Boeing Company of motion response [116-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
120 ERRATA by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to declaration of Michael P Ward [118-1] (SEALED) (Called cnsl: Decl of M Ward is an exhibit to the decl of Rima Hartman, doc #118) (KERR) (Entered: 02/08/2001)
121 MOTION by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981, OA req'd by pltf NOTED FOR 2/23/01 (KERR) Modified on 03/08/2001 (Entered: 02/09/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 47 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

02/08/2001 02/08/2001 02/08/2001 02/08/2001
02/08/2001 02/08/2001 02/08/2001 02/08/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/13/2001

122 MEMORANDUM by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of motion to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981 [121-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
123 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re motion to strike certain claims under USC 1981 [121-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981 [121-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
124 MOTION by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations, OA req'd by pltf NOTED FOR 2/23/01 (KERR) Modified on 03/08/2001 (Entered: 02/09/2001)
125 MEMORANDUM by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [124-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
126 DECLARATION of Theresa E Prutt by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [124-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [124-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
127 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [124-1] etc (KERR) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
128 MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time for pltfs to file rpy in support of class certif, and to file responses to dfts' related mtns NOTED FOR 3/2/01 (CL) Modified on 02/13/2001 (Entered: 02/13/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for extension of time [128-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
129 MOTION by plaintiffs to shorten time on motion for extension of time [1281] NOTED FOR 2/14/01 (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
130 DECLARATION of Matthew J. Ide by plaintiffs in support of motion to shorten time on motion for extension of time [128-1] [129-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for extension of time [128-1] [129-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
131 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion for extension of time [128-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
132 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltfs' motion to shorten time on motion for extension of time [128-1] [129-1], SETTING pltf's motion for

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 48 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/15/2001
02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 03/02/2001 03/02/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001

extension of time for pltfs to file rpy in support of class certif, and to file responses to dfts' related mtns [128-1] for a telephone conference at 11:15am, on 2/15/01. Pltf's counsel shall initiate the telephone conference. (cc: counsel, Judge, GG) (CL) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
133 RESPONSE by defendant Boeing Company to motion for extension of time for pltfs to file rpy in support of class certif, and to file responses to dfts' related mtns [128-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
134 DECLARATION of John F. Aslin by defendant Boeing Company in in support of motion response [133-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
135 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING plaintiff's motion for extension of time for pltfs to file reply in support of class certif, and to file responses to dfts' related mtns [128-1]. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their mtn for class certification shall be filed and served by 2/23/01; the underlying mtn shall be noted for consideration on 2/23/01. Plaintiffs' response in opp to deft's mtn for partial summary judgment shall be filed and served by 3/7/01. Deft's reply, if any, shall be filed and served by 3/15/01. The underlying mtn shall be noted for consideration on 3/16/01. Plaintiffs' response in opp to deft's mtn to strike certain claims shall be filed and served by 3/7/01. Deft's reply, if any, shall be filed and served by 3/15/01. The underlying mtn shall be noted for consideration on 3/16/01. Plaintiffs' response in opp to deft's mtn to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations shall be filed and served by 3/7/01. Deft's reply, if any, shall be filed and served by 3/15/01. The underlying mtn shall be noted for consideration on 3/16/01. (cc: counsel, Judge) (SH) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
136 REPLY by plaintiffs TO RESPONSE to motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 03/07/2001 (Entered: 02/27/2001)
137 SECOND DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiffs in support of motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1], (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 03/07/2001 (Entered: 02/27/2001)
138 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion reply [136-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
PRAECIPE by pltfs to replace documents to motion reply [136-1], declaration [137-1] in the Court file.(FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
139 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of praecipe [0-0] (CL) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
140 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [124-1], exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
141 RESPONSE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri to motion to strike certain claims under

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 49 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/14/2001 03/14/2001 03/14/2001 03/14/2001 03/14/2001 03/14/2001 03/23/2001
05/24/2001
05/24/2001 05/24/2001

42 USC 1981 [121-1] (CL) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
142 RESPONSE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri to motion for partial summary judgment [112-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
143 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff Khalil Nouri of motion response [140-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
144 REPLY by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981, OA req'd by pltf [121-1] (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
145 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant Boeing Company in support of motion reply [144-1] (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
146 REPLY by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations, OA req'd by pltf [124-1] (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
147 REPLY by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion for partial summary judgment, OA req'd by pltf [112-1] (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
148 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant Boeing Company (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
149 DECLARATION of Ruth Todd by defendant Boeing Company (CL) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
150 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik SETTING the following mtns for Oral Arg., on 5/1/01 at 1:30pm., in courtroom 936: motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1]; motion for partial summary judgment, OA req'd by pltf [112-1]; motion to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981, OA req'd by pltf [121-1]. (cc: counsel, Judge, GG) (CL) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
151 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING and DENYING IN PART dft's motion for partial summary judgment, OA req'd by pltf [112-1]. Pltfs' disparate impact claims are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Pltfs may, however, seek recovery for intentional racial discrimination occurring no more than 300 days prior to the filing of their individual EEOC charges, and may, if certified, proceed with class-related claims arising after 3/4/99. (cc: counsel, Judge, CC) (CL) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
152 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING pltfs' motion to certify class action; OA REQ'D [79-1]. The class allegations in the Consolidated Amended Complaint are hereby stricken. (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
153 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING dft's motion to strike certain claims under 42 USC 1981, OA req'd by pltf [121-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 05/25/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 50 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

05/24/2001 06/13/2001
07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/23/2001 07/23/2001 07/24/2001 07/26/2001 08/02/2001

154 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART dft's motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations, OA req'd by pltf [124-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
155 ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING Other Pretrial Matters by Judge Lasnik: Jury trial set for 9/9/02 ; Deadline to Join Additional Parties is 7/11/02 ; Disclosure of expert testimony due: 3/13/02 ; Discovery Motion filing ddl 4/12/02 ; Discovery deadline set for 5/12/02 ; Dispositive Motions to be filed by 6/11/02 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 7/11/02 ; 39.1 designation effective 8/10/02 ; Perpetuation depos Motions in Lim ddl 8/12/02 Agreed Pretrial Order set for 8/28/02 ; Pretrial Conference to be scheduled by the Court. Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by 9/4/02 ; Proposed Voir dire/jury instructions 9/4/02 ; Length of Trial: 5 dys (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
156 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint NOTED FOR 7/27/01 (RY) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
157 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] (RY) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] (RY) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
Notice of proposed complaint and proposed complaint, exhibit A re: motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] (RY) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
158 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] etc (RY) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
159 MEMORANDUM by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 in opposition to motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] (CL) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
160 DECLARATION of Rima F. Hartman by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 (CL) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
161 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1], etc/ (CL) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
162 REPLY by plaintiffs TO RESPONSE to motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1] (CL) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
163 RENEWED MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification NOTED FOR 8/17/01. Exhibits attached (declarations) (CL) (Entered: 08/03/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 51 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

08/02/2001 08/02/2001 08/02/2001
08/02/2001 08/02/2001 08/27/2001
09/06/2001
09/06/2001
09/06/2001
09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/20/2001 09/24/2001

164 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for class certification [163-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL (CL) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
165 DECLARATION of Bernard R. Siskin by plaintiffs. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
166 DECLARATION of Christine E. Webber by plaintiffs in support of motion for class certification [163-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL AND IN EXPANDO) (CL) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
167 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion for class certification [163-1] (CL) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for class certification [163-1] (RY) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
168 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltfs' motion for leave to file second amended consolidated class action complaint [156-1]. Revised amended complaint due in 10 days from the date of this Order (cc: counsel, Judge) (KERR) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
169 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint NOTED FOR 9/7/01 (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
170 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
171 DECLARATION of Murray T.S. Lewis by plaintiff re motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
172 NOTICE by plaintiff of filing of Revised Second Amended Class Action Complaint (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
173 REVISED SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [24-1], [1-1] by plaintiffs (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
174 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 motion for reconsideration; etc (RY) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
175 ANSWER to revised second amended consolidated class action complaint [173-1] by defendant Boeing Company (RY) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
176 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik RENOTED FOR 10/5/01 pltfs' motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1]; further responsive brief due 10/2/01; further reply due 10/5/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 52 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

09/26/2001 10/02/2001 10/02/2001 10/02/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/19/2001 10/24/2001 10/25/2001
11/01/2001
11/07/2001 11/07/2001 11/07/2001 11/14/2001

177 ORDER/NOTICE OF JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due 11/7/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RY) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
178 RESPONSE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (VK) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
179 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [178-1] (VK) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
180 DECLARATION of Robert R. Otto by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [178-1] (VK) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
181 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (VK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
182 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion reply [181-1] (VK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
183 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 motion reply [1811] etc. (VK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
184 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik vacating order re initial disclosures, jsr, and early settlement dated 9/26/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
185 DECLARATION (supplemental) of Christine Webber re motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (MD) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
186 RESPONSE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to supplemental declaration of Christine Webber re: motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1] (MD) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
187 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltfs' motion for reconsideration of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint [169-1]. Plaintiffs may file within 10 days of the date of this order, a third amended complaint which includes a disparate impact claim. (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
188 NOTICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: filing third amended consolidated class action complaint (MD) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
189 THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 (MD) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
190 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of complaint [1891], of notice [188-1] (MD) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
191 ANSWER to third amended consolidated class action complaint [189-1] by defendant Boeing Company (RY) (Entered: 11/19/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 53 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

11/19/2001 11/19/2001
11/20/2001
11/21/2001 11/21/2001 11/21/2001 11/21/2001
12/03/2001 12/05/2001
12/14/2001
12/14/2001 12/14/2001 12/21/2001 12/21/2001

LODGED ORDER: stipulation and proposed order re scheduling class certification motions and page limitations (VK) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
192 MEMORANDUM by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 in opposition to motion for class certification [163-1] and Declaration of Michael P. Ward and Jeffrey Janders and Second declaration of Rima F. Hartman (under seal) (MD) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
193 STIPULATION and ORDER RE SCHEDULING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTIONS AND PAGE LIMITATIONS by Judge Robert S. Lasnik : pltfs' renewed motion for class certification [163-1] renoted for 12/28/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
194 MEMORANDUM by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of second motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations re: motion for class certification [163-1] (MD) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: order granting defts second motion to strike et al [194-1] (MD) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
195 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 of memorandum [194-1] (MD) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
196 MOTION (second) by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations re: memorandum in support of renewed motion for class certification NOTED FOR 12/7/01 (MD) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
LODGED ORDER: joint stipulation and proposed order re briefing schedule on deft's second motion to strike (VK) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
197 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re: briefing schedule.: RE-NOTED FOR 12/28/01 motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations re: memorandum in support of renewed motion for class certification [196-1]. Pltfs' opposition due 12/14/01 and deft's reply due 12/21/01. (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
198 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 in opposition to motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations re: memorandum in support of renewed motion for class certification [196-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
199 DECLARATION of Bernard R. Siskin PH D re: memorandum [198-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
200 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of memorandum [198-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
201 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: in support of motion for class certification [163-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
202 DECLARATION (second) of Christine Webber re: reply [201-1] (MD)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 54 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

12/21/2001 12/21/2001 02/01/2002
02/12/2002 02/27/2002
03/13/2002
03/13/2002 03/22/2002 03/22/2002 03/22/2002 03/28/2002 03/28/2002 05/03/2002 05/22/2002

(Entered: 12/26/2001)
203 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of reply [201-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
204 REPLY by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re: in support of second motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations [196-1] (MD) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
205 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Robert S. Lasnik SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT on plaintiffs' Renewed motion for class certification [163-1] at 9:00 2/27/02 in courtroom 936 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RY) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
206 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv01227 re motion for class certification [163-1] (MD) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
207 MINUTES of oral argument on pltf's renewed motion for class certification: RSL; Dep Clerk: KL; CR: Laurene Kelly; Pla Counsel J. Sellers/C. Webber/H. Bharti; Def Counsel J. Aslin/G. Weirich; after hearing the arguments of counsel, the court takes this matter under advisement (VK) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
208 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING deft's motion to strike inadmissible evidence and unsupported factual allegations re: memorandum in support of renewed motion for class certification [196-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
209 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING pltfs' renewed motion for class certification [163-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
210 Fourth AMENDED consolidated class action complaint COMPLAINT by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 (VK) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
211 Supplemental MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 in support of renewed motion for class certification [163-1] (VK) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
212 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 fourth amended consolidated class action complaint [210-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
213 ANSWER to 4th amended consolidated class action complaint [210-1] by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 (VK) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
214 SUPPLEMENTAL memo in opposition to by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 re renewed motion for class certification [163-1] (VK) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
215 NOTICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of change of address of atty Harish Bharti (VK) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
216 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING pltfs' third request for class certification [163-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 05/23/2002)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 55 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

06/12/2002 06/13/2002
06/17/2002 07/03/2002 07/08/2002 09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/23/2002 09/23/2002 09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/30/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002

217 NOTICE by plaintiffs and defendants in 2:99-cv-01227 re: Proposed Case Schedule (LS) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
218 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lasnik setting Trial Date and Related Dates pursuant to LR 16. Jury trial set for 9/8/03 ; Disclosure of expert testimony due: 2/14/03 ; Discovery Motions to be filed by 12/13/02 ; Discovery deadline set for 12/13/02 ; Dispositive Motions to be filed by 4/4/03 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 7/10/03 ; 39.1 designation effective 8/9/03 ; Motions in Limine deadline 8/11/03 ; Agreed Pretrial Order set for 8/27/03 ; Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by 9/3/03 ; Voir dire/jury instructions 9/3/03 ; Jury trial set for 5 days. (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (RS) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
219 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/27/02 (Re: Motion Hearing) CR: L. Kelly (SA) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
LODGED ORDER: stipulation and order evering the claims of certain individuals (VK) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
220 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik severing the claims of certain individuals (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
221 MOTION by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification and memo in support NOTED FOR 9/27/02 (VK) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
222 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification and memo in support [221-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
223 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification and memo in support [2211] (VK) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
224 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion response [223-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
225 REPLY by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification and memo in support [221-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
226 DECLARATION of John Aslin by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion reply [225-1] (VK) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
227 PRAECIPE: by defendants re: declaration of John Aslin in support of dfts' reply in suport of its motion for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification [226-1] (AF) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
228 MOTION by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 to compel production of documents NOTED FOR 11/15/02 (VK) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel production of documents [228-1] in

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 56 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

10/31/2002 11/02/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/14/2002 11/26/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002
12/05/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002

2:99-cv-01227 (VK) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
229 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 motion to compel production of documents [228-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
231 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Janders by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion response [230-1] (VK) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
230 RESPONSE by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion to compel production of documents [228-1] (VK) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
232 DECLARATION of Suzanne Fabricus by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion response [230-1] (VK) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
233 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 motion response [230-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
234 REPLY by plaintiffs in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion to compel production of documents [228-1] (KERR) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
235 STIPULATION/proposed amended case schedule (VK) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
236 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re deft's motion for clarification of order granting pltfs' third request for class certification [221-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
237 Fifth Amended MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lasnik setting Trial Date and Related Dates pursuant to LR 16. Jury trial set for 9/8/03 ; Discovery deadline set for 2/14/03 ; Dispositive Motions to be filed by 4/4/03 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 7/10/03 ; 39.1 designation effective 8/8/03 ; Motions in Limine deadline 8/11/03 ; Agreed Pretrial Order set for 8/27/03 ; Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by 9/3/03 ; Voir dire/jury instructions 9/3/03 ; Jury trial set for 5 days. (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (VK) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
238 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik DENYING pltfs' motion to compel production of documents [228-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
239 MOTION by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 for additional depo testimony by named pltfs NOTED FOR 1/3/03 (VK) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
240 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] (VK) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] (VK) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
241 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 57 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

01/06/2003 01/07/2003
01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/13/2003 01/14/2003 01/28/2003 02/14/2003
02/20/2003
03/07/2003 04/30/2003 04/30/2003
04/30/2003 04/30/2003
04/30/2003

LODGED ORDER: stipulation and proposed order re deft's motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs (VK) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
242 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik RENOTED FOR 1/17/03 motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1]; response due 1/7/03; reply due 1/13/03 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
243 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] (VK) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
244 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion response [243-1] (VK) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
245 DECLARATION of Matthew Ide by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion response [243-1] (VK) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
246 REPLY by defendant in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] (VK) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
247 CR 37 JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED SURVEY (KERR) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
248 NOTICE by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 of change of address (VK) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
249 ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik GRANTING in part and denying in part deft's motion for additional depo testimony by named pltfs [239-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
250 ORDER (CCA 02-80053) The court, in its discretion, DENIES the petition for permission to appeal teh district court's order 5/22/02. (SA) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
251 ORDER re contents of survey by Judge Robert S. Lasnik (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
252 MOTION by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 to extend time to complete discovery NOTED FOR 5/16/03 (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
253 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion to extend time to complete discovery [252-1] (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to extend time to complete discovery [252-1] (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
254 MOTION by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 for further clarification of the class definition or in the alternative, leave to add an additional pltf NOTED FOR 5/16/03 (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
255 DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re motion for further clarification of the class definition or in the alternative,

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 58 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

04/30/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/15/2003 05/15/2003 05/15/2003 05/15/2003 07/15/2003
07/15/2003
07/15/2003

leave to add an additional pltf [254-1] (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for further clarification of the class definition or in the alternative, leave to add an additional pltf [254-1] (VK) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
256 RESPONSE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion for further clarification of the class definition or in the alternative, leave to add an additional pltf [254-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
257 DECLARATION of Malcolm Case by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [256-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
258 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Janders by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [256-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
259 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [256-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
260 RESPONSE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 to motion to extend time to complete discovery [252-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
261 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99cv-01227 re: motion response [260-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
262 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Boeing Company in 2:99-cv-01227 motion response [260-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
263 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion to extend time to complete discovery [252-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
264 Second DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion reply [263-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
265 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 TO RESPONSE to motion for further clarification of the class definition or in the alternative, leave to add an additional pltf [254-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
266 Second DECLARATION of Christine Webber by plaintiff in 2:99-cv-01227 re: motion reply [265-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
267 ORDER denying 254 plas' Motion for Clarification and granting Leave to Amend by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(MH, ) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
268 ORDER granting 252 plas' Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff Date by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. All motions related to discovery must be noted on the Court's calendar no later than 8/22/03. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(MH, ) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
269 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Boeing Company filed

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 59 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/25/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003
08/07/2003
08/07/2003
08/07/2003
08/12/2003 08/13/2003 08/15/2003

by plaintiffs.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(MH, ) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
270 ANSWER to Fifth Amended Complaint by Defendant Boeing Company.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(KERR, ) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
271 MOTION/MEMORANDUM for Protective Order Re the Interrogatory That Accompanied Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admission by Deft Boeing Company. Noting Date 8/22/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certif of Service)(RS) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
272 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 271 MOTION/MEMORANDUM for Protective Order Regarding the Interrogatory That Accompanied Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admission (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
273 MOTION/MEMORANDUM for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Requests for Production by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 8/22/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)Oral Argument Requested.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
274 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 273 MOTION/MEMORANDUM for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Requests for Production (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, B, C (Part 1 of 2)# 2 Exhibit C (Part 2 of 2)# 3 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
275 DECLARATION of Suzanne Fabricus filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 273 MOTION/MEMORANDUM for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Requests for Production (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
276 MINUTE ORDER renoting 271 MOTION for Protective Order re the interrog that accompanied pltfs' first requests for admission filed by Boeing Company to 8/22/03; Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
280 AMENDED ANSWER to Fifth Amended Complaint by Defendant Boeing Company.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(KERR, ) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
277 MOTION re Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' August 12 Notice of 30(B)(6)Deposition by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 8/26/2003.

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 60 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

08/15/2003 08/15/2003 08/18/2003 08/18/2003 08/18/2003 08/18/2003 08/21/2003

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)OA Req'd. (RS) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
278 DECLARATION OF RIMA HARTMAN filed by Defendant Boeing Company, in support of 277Defendant's Motion and Memorandum in Support of Protective Order re Plaintiffs' August 12 Notice 30(B)(6)Deposition. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
279 DECLARATION of C. GEOFFREY WEIRICH filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 273 Defendant's Motion and Memorandum for Protective Order re Plaintiffs' August 12 Notice of 30(B)(6)Deposition. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
281 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, et. al. in opposition to 271 DEFENDANT'S MOTION for a Protective Order Regarding the Interrogatory That Accompanied Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
282 DECLARATION of Christine Webber filed by Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, et. al. in support of 281 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the Interrogatory That Accompanied Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
283 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, et. al. in opposition to 273 DEFENDANT'S MOTION for a Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
284 DECLARATION of Christine Webber filed by Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, et. al. in support of 283 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
285 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 277 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' August 12 Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Webber Decl. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99cv-01895-RSL(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 08/21/2003)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 61 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/25/2003
08/25/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003

286 REPLY/MEMORANDUM filed by Defendant Boeing Company, in Support of 271 MOTION for Protective Order re the Interrogatory that Accompanied Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admission. Oral Argument Requested. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
287 DECLARATION of RIMA HARTMAN filed by Defendant Boeing Company, in Support of 271 MOTION for Protective Order re the Interrogatory that Accompanied the Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admissions.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
288 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Boeing Company re 286 Reply/Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order, First Requests, 287 Declaration, of Rima Hartman. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
289 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Defendant Boeing Company re 273 MOTION for Protective Order re pltfs' 2nd set of interrogs and 4th set of requests for production filed by Boeing Company. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
290 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 277 MOTION and MEMORANDUM in support of Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' August 12 Notice of 30(B)(6) Deposition; Oral Argument Requested(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/27/2003)
291 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 277 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' August 12Notice of 30(B)(6) Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/27/2003)
292 MOTION and Memorandum to Extend Trial Date by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 9/12/2003. Oral Argument Requested.Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
293 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 292 MOTION to Extend Trial Date Associated Cases: 2:99-cv01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
294 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Boeing Company for 292 MOTION and Memorandum to Extend Trial Date, 293 Declaration of Rima Hartman in Support. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 62 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

09/09/2003 09/09/2003 09/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/17/2003
09/29/2003 10/01/2003 12/04/2003 01/08/2004 01/08/2004

295 Plaintiffs' RESPONSE to Motion filed by Khalil Nouri, et al re 292 Defendant's MOTION to Extend Trial Date. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
296 DECLARATION of CHRISTINE WEBBER filed by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri, et al, in Support of 295 Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Extend Trial Date, re 292 MOTION for Extension of Time. Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
297 REPLY MEMORANDUM filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 292 MOTION to Extend Trial Date; Oral Argument Requested (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv00582-RSL,2:99-cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
298 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company in support of 292 MOTION to Extend Trial Date (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL,2:00-cv-00582-RSL,2:99cv-01836-RSL,2:99-cv-01895-RSL(Temp4, ) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
299 SIXTH AMENDED MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Length of Trial: 5 days. Jury Trial set for/will resume 4/5/2004 before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. Expert Witness Disclosure due by 10/24/2003; Discovery due by 12/24/2003; Dispositive motions due by 1/6/2004; 39.1 Settlement Report due by 3/6/2004. Motions in Limine due by 3/8/2004; Pretrial Order due by 3/24/2004; Trial briefs to be submitted by 3/31/2004; Voir dire/jury instructions due by 3/31/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
300 AMENDED ORDER granting in part 271 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order re interrogatory by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
301 ORDER denying 277 Motion for protective order re Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
302 APPLICATION by Defendant Boeing Company AND ORDER admitting Jon A Geier for Boeing Company pro hac vice. Receipt # 313780. (RS, ) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
303 MOTION Approval of Plaintiffs' Class Notice Proposal by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri. Noting Date 1/23/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit A - Proposed Notice to the Class# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
304 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLASS CLAIMS, by Defendant The Boeing Company. Noting Date 1/30/2003.

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 63 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

01/08/2004
01/20/2004
01/22/2004
01/22/2004
01/22/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
01/29/2004 01/30/2004 01/30/2004 02/03/2004 02/06/2004

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(Temp1, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
305 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 304 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Class Claims. (Attachments: #(1) Exh A, pgs 3-33 #(2) Exh A, pgs 34-56 #(3) Exh B, pgs 57-92 #(4) Exh C, pgs 93-113)(Temp1, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
309 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 303 MOTION Approval of Plaintiffs' Class Notice Proposal. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion # 2 Declaration of Rima F. Hartman # 3 Declaration of Chelsea Petersen # 4 Certificate of Service)(Temp1, ) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
306 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 303 MOTION Approval of Plaintiffs' Class Notice Proposal (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
307 DECLARATION of Certificate of Service filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 303 MOTION Approval of Plaintiffs' Class Notice Proposal (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
308 APPLICATION AND ORDER by Plaintiffs allowing atty Jenny Yang to appear pro hac vice ; Receipt # 408345. (RS, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
310 SEALED DOCUMENT /OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to dfts' 304 MOTION for Summary Judgment on class claims. (Attachments: # (1) cover letter# (2) Certificate of Service # (3) Proposed Order)(RS, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
311 SEALED DOCUMENT/DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WEBBER by Plaintiffs in support of pltfs' opposition to dft's motion for summary jgm (Attachments: # (1) exh 1-2# (2) exh 3# (3) exh 4-6# (4) exh 7-11# (5) exh 12-13)(RS, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
312 SURREPLY filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 303 MOTION For Approval of Plaintiffs' Class Notice Proposal (KERR, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
313 REPLY by Defendant Boeing Company in support of its motion for summary judgment on class claims. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(RS, ) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
314 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Hollingsworth by Defendant Boeing Company. (RS, ) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
316 NOTICE of Change of Address by pltfs (RS, ) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
315 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 304 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 64 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

02/09/2004 02/12/2004 02/13/2004 02/17/2004
02/23/2004 02/24/2004
02/26/2004 03/18/2004 03/18/2004

317 MINUTE ORDER Status Conference set for 2/13/2004 at 08:30 AM before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. (KERR, ) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
318 MOTION to Bifurcate by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh. Noting Date 2/27/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
319 ORDER Regarding 303 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Approval of Class Notice Proposal, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AF, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
320 SEVENTH AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & RELATED DATES; Length of Trial: 8-10 days. Jury Trial set for 4/19/2004 before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. Plaintiffs' pretrial statement due by 2/19/2004; Defendant's pretrial statement due by 3/5/2004; 39.1 Settlement Report due by 3/19/2004; Motions in Limine due by 3/22/2004; Agreed Pretrial Order due by 4/7/2004; Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court; Trial briefs/trial exhibits to be submitted by 4/14/2004; Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 4/14/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AF, ) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
321 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 318 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Lengnick, Sonja) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
323 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Martin S Garfinkel on behalf of Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, Lear Lavi, Mike M Taing, Ahmad Golchen, Anthony Lacson, Syed I Rizvi, Hung M Do, Del L Bhat, Benson Pang, Raul Mancoa Aballe, Muhammad M Din, Natarajan Sukumaran, Arun K Sharma, Elena R Olinares, Krishna Bhadra, Quy T Do, Ronie G Reyes, Mehbod C Taidi, Willy Chang, Son T Le, Hai K Trinh, Viqar U Haq, Aamir K Mohammed, Robert A Lundeen, Lawrence F Tulfo, Trung Q Tran, Donald J Bennum, Nick A Mostafavi, Mohammad A Ali, Bao D Trinh, Louis G Patayon, Joachim T Vu, Joseph H Nguyen, Sandy S Hernandez, Mohammad H Yousufazi, Thuc H Nguyen, Mohammad I Motiwala, Mohammed Nizamuddin, Toofan M Namini, William H Tomita, Theordores T Kong, Honn Hoy, Mahendra G Berry, Lito C Palacay (AE, ) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
322 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 318 MOTION to Bifurcate (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
324 MOTION for Order Decertifying Class by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 4/2/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
325 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 324 MOTION for Order Decertifying Class (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 65 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

326 First MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
327 Third MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Jenny R. Yang# 2 Exhibit Part II# 3 Exhibit Part III# 4 Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
328 Second MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Limit Testimony of Leonard J. Biermann by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit Part 1 of Exs to Webber Decl# 3 Exhibit Part 2 of Exs to Webber Decl# 4 Exhibit Part 3 of Exs to Webber Decl# 5 Exhibit Part 4 of Exs to Webber Decl# 6 Exhibit Part 5 of Exs to Webber Decl# 7 Exhibit Part 6 of Exs to Webber Decl# 8 Exhibit Part 7 of Exs to Webber Decl# 9 Exhibit Part 8 of Exs to Webber Decl# 10 Exhibit Part 9 of Exs to Webber Decl# 11 Exhibit Part 10 of Exs to Webber Decl# 12 Exhibit Part 11 of Exs to Webber Decl# 13 Proposed Order # 14 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
329 Fourth MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Not Disclosed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Heather Green# 2 Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
330 MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF STANLEY SUE by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
331 MOTIONS IN LIMINE STRIKING SHIRLEY WILCHER'S TESTIMONY by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
332 MOTION to Exclude Stray Remarks by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Motion to Exclude Stray Remarks)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
333 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 331 MOTIONS IN LIMINE STRIKING SHIRLEY WILCHER'S TESTIMONY (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
334 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony and Report of William Partin by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: #

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 66 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

1)(Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
335 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 332 MOTION to Exclude Stray Remarks (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
336 DECLARATION of Suzanne Fabricus filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 332 MOTION to Exclude Stray Remarks (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
337 DECLARATION of Chelsea Petersen in Support of Def's Motion to Strike Expert Report and Exclude Testimony of William Partin re 334 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony and Report of William Partin by Defendant Boeing Company. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
338 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTES OF LIMITATION by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
339 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 338 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTES OF LIMITATION (Attachments: # 1)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
340 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING (A) EVIDENCE REGARDING LAYOFFS & (B) EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
341 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 340 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING (A) EVIDENCE REGARDING LAYOFFS & (B) EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
342 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Hearsay by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
343 DECLARATION filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 342 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Hearsay (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
344 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER MINORITIES, SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 3/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
345 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman and Michael Ward filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 344 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER MINORITIES, SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 67 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/24/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004
03/25/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004
03/26/2004
03/26/2004

(Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
346 PRAECIPE by Defendant Boeing Company. (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
347 ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL; Boeing's liability to the class and the compensatory damages of the named plaintiffs will be determined in a Jury Trial starting on 4/26/2004 at 09:00 AM; 318 Plaintiff's MOTION to Bifurcate is GRANTED; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AF, ) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
348 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 304 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Class Claims, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(AF, ) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
349 MOTION to Certify Class SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 4/9/2004. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
350 DECLARATION filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 349 MOTION to Certify Class SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A to Hartman Declaration# 2 Exhibit Ex. A to Ward Declaration# 3 Exhibit Ex. B to Ward Declaration# 4 Exhibit Ex. C to Ward Declaration# 5 Exhibit Ex. D to Ward Declaration# 6)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
351 MINUTE ORDER Status Conference set for 4/7/2004 01:30 PM before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
352 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 329 Fourth MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Not Disclosed in Response to Interrogatory No. 1 (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
353 DECLARATION of Rima Hartman filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 329 Fourth MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Not Disclosed in Response to Interrogatory No. 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A to Hartman Declaration# 2 Exhibit Ex. B to Hartman Declaration# 3 Exhibit Ex. C to Hartman Declaration# 4 Exhibit Ex. D1 to Hartman Declaration# 5 Exhibit Ex. D2 to Hartman Declaration# 6 Exhibit Ex. D3 to Hartman Declarlation# 7 Exhibit Ex. D4 to Hartman Declaration# 8 Exhibit Ex. E to Hartman Declaration# 9 Exhibit Ex. F to Hartman Declaration# 10 Exhibit Ex. G to Hartman Declaration)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
354 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 340 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING (A) EVIDENCE REGARDING LAYOFFS & (B) EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
355 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 334

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 68 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/26/2004
03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004

MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony and Report of William Partin (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
356 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 344 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER MINORITIES, SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine E. Webber# 2 Exhibit # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Bernard Siskin# 4 Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
357 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 342 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Hearsay (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine E. Webber# 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
358 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 331 MOTIONS IN LIMINE STRIKING SHIRLEY WILCHER'S TESTIMONY (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
359 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 338 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTES OF LIMITATION (Garfinkel, Martin) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
360 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 332 MOTION to Exclude Stray Remarks (Garfinkel, Martin) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
361 DECLARATION of Sandra E. Widlan filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 360 Response to Motion to Exclude Stray Remarks (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A & B, pp. 3-7)(Garfinkel, Martin) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
362 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 327 Third MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO ARREST OF NOURI AND SUBJECT OF ALLEGED ABUSE (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
363 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 328 Second MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Limit Testimony of Leonard J. Biermann (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 69 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004

364 DECLARATION of Leonard J. Biermann filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 328 Second MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Limit Testimony of Leonard J. Biermann in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Limit Testimony (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
365 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 330 MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF STANLEY SUE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jenny Yang# 2 # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
366 DECLARATION filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 328 Second MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Limit Testimony of Leonard J. Biermann In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Limit Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Hollingsworth Declaration)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
367 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 326 First MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition During Trial (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
368 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 326 First MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition During Trial (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. Part I to Lengnick Declaration# 2 Exhibit Ex. Part II to Lengnick Declaration)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
369 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 329 Fourth MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Not Disclosed Praecipe re Declaration of Rima F. Hartman in Support of Boeing's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Boeing Failed to Identify in Response to Interrogatory No. 1 (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
370 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Praecipe correcting Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Decertify Class by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 4/9/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit to Praecipe)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
371 DECLARATION of Steven Herchelrode filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 344 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER MINORITIES, SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A to Herchelrode Declaration)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
372 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 324 MOTION for Order Decertifying Class (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 70 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/30/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004

Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Webber Decl# 3 Exhibit Ex. B, part 1, to Webber Decl# 4 Exhibit Ex B, part 2,to Webber Decl# 5 Exhibit Ex C, D, E and F to Webber Decl# 6 Proposed Order # 7 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
373 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 327 Third MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Preclude Reference to Arrest of Nouri (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
374 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 329 Fourth MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Bar Testimony from Witnesses Not Disclosed (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit # 3 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
375 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 328 Second MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Limit Testimony of Leonard J. Biermann (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Webber Decl# 2 Exhibit # 3 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
376 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 330 MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF STANLEY SUE (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
377 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 338 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE STATUTES OF LIMITATION - Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Predates the Applicable Statutes of Limitation (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
378 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 340 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING (A) EVIDENCE REGARDING LAYOFFS & (B) EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
379 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 326 First MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Preclude Boeing from Revisiting Class Definition (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl of Bernard Siskin# 2 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
380 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 331 MOTIONS IN LIMINE STRIKING SHIRLEY WILCHER'S TESTIMONY (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
381 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 332 MOTION to Exclude Stray Remarks (Attachments: # 1 Hartman Declaration#

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 71 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

03/30/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004
03/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004 04/06/2004 04/07/2004

2 Exhibit Exhibit to Hartman Declaration# 3 Janders Declaration# 4 Corbell Declaration)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
382 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 342 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Hearsay (Attachments: # 1 Hartman Declaration# 2 Ex. Part I to Hartman Dec# 3 Ex. Part II to Hartman Dec# 4 Ex. Part III to Hartman Dec# 5 Proposed Order Amended [Proposed] Order)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
383 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 334 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony and Report of William Partin (Attachments: # 1 Hartman Declaration# 2 Exhibits to Hartman Declaration)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
384 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 344 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER MINORITIES, SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY (Attachments: # 1 Hollingsworth Declaration# 2 Herchelrode Declaration)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
385 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Christine E Webber on behalf of Plaintiff Khalil Nouri (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
386 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 324 MOTION for Order Decertifying Class (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
387 DECLARATION of Sonja Lengnick filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 324 MOTION for Order Decertifying Class in Support of Defendant's Reply (Attachments: # 1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
388 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 349 MOTION to Certify Class SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Exhibit Ex. A to Webber Decl# 3 Exhibit Ex. B to Webber Decl# 4 Affidavit Declaration of Bernard Siskin# 5 Exhibit Table 1 to Siskin Decl# 6 Exhibit Table 2 to Siskin Decl.# 7 Affidavit Siskin Decl. (3/30/04)# 8 Proposed Order # 9 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
394 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Julie Goldsmith on behalf of Plaintiffs (RS, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
389 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 331 MOTIONS IN LIMINE STRIKING SHIRLEY WILCHER'S TESTIMONY (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
390 Proposed Pretrial Order by Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 72 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

04/07/2004
04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/26/2004
04/26/2004 04/26/2004

391 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Donna Hunter (Vernon); Pla Counsel: Christine Webber and Harish Bharti; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Scheduling Conference held on 4/7/2004. In-court Hearing on motions in limine and pretrial matters set for 4/26/2004 at 09:00 AM. Jury Trial reset for 5/17/2004 at 09:00 AM. (KERR, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
392 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/13/04 Motion Hearing before Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Court Reporter: L Kelly. (SA) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
393 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 349 MOTION to Certify Class SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
395 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mehbod C Taidi, Bao D Trinh (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
396 Proposed Voir Dire by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
397 Proposed Voir Dire by Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
398 Proposed Jury Instructions/Joint Statement of Agreed Instructions by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh, Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) Modified on 4/26/2004 (RS, ). (Entered: 04/23/2004)
399 Proposed Jury Instructions/Joint Statement of Disputed Instructions by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh, Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) Modified on 4/26/2004 (RS, ). (Entered: 04/23/2004)
400 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
401 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Palmerton; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Martin Garfinkel, Harish Bharti and Sandra Widlan; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Pretrial Conference held on 4/26/2004. The Court and counsel discuss the posture of the case. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court rules on the motions in limine. Orders will issue. (KERR, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
402 ORDER regarding dft's 324 Motion to decertify class by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
403 ORDER denying 326 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to preclude Boeing from

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 73 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004

revisiting class definition during trial by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
404 ORDER granting 328 pltfs' Motion in Limine to limit testimony of Boeing's expert Leonard Biermann by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
405 ORDER denying 330 dft's Motion in Limine to strike expert report and exclude testimony of Stanley Sue by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
406 ORDER granting in part dft's 332 Motion to Exclude stray remarks by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
407 ORDER denying 340 dft's Motion in Limine to exclude evidence re layoffs and other employment practices by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
408 ORDER denying 338 dft's Motion in Limine to exclude evidence that predates the statutes of limitation by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
409 ORDER granting in part pltfs' 329 Motion in Limine to exclude undisclosed witnesses by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
410 ORDER denying 349 dft's Supplemental Motion to Decertify Class by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
411 ORDER denying 331 Motion to exclude testimony of Shirley Wilcher by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
412 ORDER denying 334 dft's Motion to exclude testimony and report of William Partin by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
413 ORDER granting 327 pltfs' Motion in Limine to preclude reference to arrest of Nouri and subject to alleged abuse by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
414 ORDER denying 342 Motion to exclude certain documents as hearsay by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
415 ORDER granting in part 344 dft's Motion to exclude evidence re other minorities by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
416 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Ronie G Reyes, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 402 Order on Motion for Order Notice of Substitution of Class Representative (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
417 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Raul Mancoa Aballe, Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh of Filing of Exclusion Requests (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Full Notice Exclusion

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 74 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

05/07/2004 05/14/2004 05/17/2004
05/17/2004 05/18/2004
05/18/2004 05/18/2004 05/19/2004

Requests Part I# 2 Exhibit A Part 2# 3 Exhibit A Part 3# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Certificate of Service)(Yang, Jenny) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
418 DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA upon Marcella Fleming Reed served on May 5, 2004, filed by Plaintiffs. (LT, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
419 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Gail Glass; CR: Sue Palmerton; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Marin Garfinkel and Harish Bharti; Def Counsel: Jeffrey Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Status Conference held on 5/14/2004. The Court and counsel discuss the posture of the case. This matter is scheduled for jury trial on Monday, May 17, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. (GG, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
420 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Harish Bharti, Christine Webber and Martin Garfinkel; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Jury Trial begun on 5/17/2004. The Court and counsel discuss pretrial matters. The prospective jurors are sworn and voir dire proceeds. The Court excuses for cause NAMES REDACTED PER PRIVACY ACT. After counsel exercise their peremptory challenges, the following jurors are sworn and empaneled: JURORS NAMES REDACTED PER PRIVACY ACT. Counsel present their opening statements. The testimony for the plaintiffs begins. Witness Jeff Janders is sworn and testifies. Exhibits 7, 10, 14, 262 and 12 are admitted. Court is adjourned until Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 8:45 a.m. (KERR, ) Modified on 12/8/2004 to redact jurors names per Privacy Act (ECS, ). (Entered: 05/18/2004)
421 Peremptory Challenges (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
422 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Harish Bharti, Christine Webber, Martin Garfinkel and Joseph Sellers; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Second Day of Jury Trial held on 5/18/2004. The testimony for the plaintiffs continues. Witnesses Jeff Jander, Wayne Cascio, Ph.D, Lear Lavi, Mike Taing, William Kipper, Bao Trinh, Syed Rizvi and Ahmad Golchin are sworn and testify. Exhibits 233, 549, 1135, 513, 514, 1136, 567, 568, 552, 256, 1, 4, 112, 121 and 3 are admitted into evidence. Court is adjourned until Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
423 RESPONSE by pltfs to Boeing's motion to exclude EEOC determination letters (RS, ) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
424 DECLARATION of Julie Goldsmith. (RS, ) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
425 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Harish Bharti and Martin Garfinkel; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Third Day of Jury Trial held on 5/19/2004. Testimony for the plaintiffs resumes. Witnesses Paul Wells, Stanley Sue, Ph.D. and Toofan

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 75 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

05/20/2004
05/24/2004
05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004

Namini are sworn and testify. Exhibits 27, 32, 65, 40, 25, 55, 87, 375 (reserved ruling on pages 3 & 4), 125 (partially), 377, 1073, 28, 34, 30, 751, 44, 45, 2 are admitted into evidence. Defendant objects to exhibit 370. The Court sustains the objection at this time. Court is adjourned until Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
426 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Harish Bharti and Martin Garfinkel; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Fourth Day of Jury Trial held on 5/20/2004. The testimony for the plaintiffs resumes. Witnesses Bernard Siskin, Ph.D, Michael Valliere and Shirley Wilcher are sworn and testify. Exhibits 392, 391, 395, 396, 401, 400, 416, 1251, 1229, 1231 and 417 are entered into evidence. Exhibits 1234, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1242, 1244 and 1246 are reserved for the testimony of Dr. Ward. Court is adjourned until Monday, May 24, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
427 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Harish Bharti and Martin Garfinkel; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Fifth Day of Jury Trial held on 5/24/2004. The Court and counsel discuss exhibits. Plaintiffs offer exhibits 58, 63, 71, 73, 93, 1062, 238 as additional evidence. Defendant requests time to review them. Plaintiffs rest subject to rulings on the above exhibits. Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court takes this matter under advisement. Testimony for the defendant begins. Witnesses Marcella Fleming-Reed, Michael Ward, Ph.D and Todd Zarfos are sworn and testify. Exhibits 39, 74, 72, 1138, 1146, 1148, 1150, 1152, 1154, 1156, 1158, 1142, 1139, 1177, 1179, 1181, 1183, 1185, 1187, 1173, 1232, 1233, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1242, 1244, 1246, 1171, 1259, 1190 are admitted into evidence, exhibit 374 is excluded and the Court rules that exhibits 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 shall be used for illustrative purposes only. Court is adjourned until Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. (KERR, ) Modified on 5/26/2004 (KERR, ). (Entered: 05/25/2004)
428 MOTION filed by non party EEOC to Quash trial subpoenas as for EEOC Staff; alternative motion for protective order. (Attachments: # 1 attachment AE# 2 attachment F-end)(RS, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/26/2004 (RS, ). (Entered: 05/26/2004)
429 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Boeing Company (Additional) (With Citations) (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
435 WITHDRAWAL of 428 EEOC's MOTION to Quash (RS, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
430 OBJECTIONS re 429 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri. (Attachments: # 1)(Goldsmith, Julie) (Entered: 05/27/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 76 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

05/27/2004
05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004
05/28/2004 05/28/2004 06/02/2004
06/02/2004

431 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Harish Bharti and Martin Garfinkel; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Sixth Day of Jury Trial held on 5/27/2004. The Court and counsel discuss the status of the case. Todd Zarfos will be the defendant's last witness. The testimony for the defendant resumes and concludes. Todd Zarfos finishes his testimony. The defendant rests. The Court and counsel discuss exhibits. Counsel is directed to make revisions to exhibits 121, 125, 375 and 377 and submit them to the Court. Exhibits 1062 and 1230 are admitted into evidence. Exhibits 58, 63, 71, 73, 93 and 238 are withdrawn. Plaintiffs inform the Court that there will be no rebuttal testimony. The jury is excused until Friday, May 28, 2004 at 12:45 p.m. The Court makes a ruling on exhibit 112 and partially admits it into evidence. The Court and counsel discuss jury instructions. Counsel is excused until Friday, May 28, 2004 at 9:30 a.m.? (KERR, ). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
432 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities Regarding "Pattern and Practice" Element of Plaintiffs' Prima Facie Case by Defendant Boeing Company. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Jury Instruction 12.1)(Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
433 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Boeing Company Final Proposals as to Court Instructions (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
434 Proposed Jury Verdict Form by Defendant Boeing Company (Hartman, Rima) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
436 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Susan Zielie; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Martin Garfinkel and Harish Bharti; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Seventh Day of Jury Trial held on 5/28/2004. The Court and counsel discuss jury instructions. The Court takes exceptions to the instructions. The Court instructs the jury. Counsel present closing arguments. The jury will begin deliberations on Tuesday morning. The jury is excused until Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 8:45 a.m. (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
437 Witness List (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
438 Exhibit List (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
439 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Laurene Kelly; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Martin Garfinkel and Harish Bharti; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Jury Trial completed on 6/2/2004. The jury informs the Court that they have reached a verdict. The jury finds in favor of the defendant. The Court polls the jury. The Court thanks and excuses the jury. Oral argument on plaintiffs' remaining claim is set for Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
440 VERDICT FORM(KERR, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 77 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

06/02/2004 06/02/2004
06/02/2004 06/03/2004 06/04/2004
06/04/2004 06/23/2004
06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 07/01/2004

441 COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
442 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik - Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Laurene Kelly; Pla Counsel: Christine Webber, Martin Garfinkel and Harish Bharti; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Rima Hartman and John Aslin; Prior to hearing argument on plaintiffs' remaining claim, the Court denies defendant's pending motion for a directed verdict.Oral argument on plaintiffs' disparate impact claim held on 6/2/2004. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court takes this matter under advisement. (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
443 JUDGMENT BY JURY VERDICT: jury finds in favor of the dft (RS, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
446 JUDGMENT BY JURY AND DECISION BY THE COURT ; matter is dismissed with prejudice (RS, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
444 ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2004 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Case reopened. Due to a clerical error, judgment was entered following the trial of certain issues to the jury. Because plaintiffs' disparate impact claim remains pending, the judgment entered on June 2, 2004, is hereby VACATED. (KERR, ) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
445 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum by Defendant Boeing Company. Noting Date 7/2/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Bill of Costs# 2 Itemized Bill of Costs# 3 Exhibit 1 of 7# 4 Exhibit 2A of 7# 5 Exhibit 2B of 7# 6 Exhibit 3 of 7# 7 Exhibit 4 of 7# 8 Exhibit 5A of 7# 9 Exhibit 5B of 7# 10 Exhibit 6 of 7# 11 Exhibit 7 of 7)(Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
448 DECLARATION of Bradley A. Cortese in Support of Boeing's Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
449 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth in Support of Boeing's Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
MOTION REFERRED to US District Court Clerk, Bruce Rifkin, re 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum filed by Boeing Company (AF, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
450 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 443 Judgment, 446 Judgment by Court by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri. (Attachments: # 1 Order on disperate impact claim# 2 Judgment on jury verdict# 3 Judgment dismissal)(Bharti, Harish) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 78 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/06/2004
07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/12/2004
07/13/2004 07/13/2004
07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004

451 NOTICE by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri re 450 Notice of Appeal Civil Appeals Docketing Statement (Attachments: # 1 Service List)(Bharti, Harish) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
Appeal Fees not received: fee not paid re 450 Notice of Appeal filed by Khalil Nouri (ZG, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
452 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Ronie G Reyes, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh, to 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
Civil Appeals Docketing Statement, by Plaintiffs Khalil Nouri, et al., forwarded to the Mediator's Office in Seattle. (ZG, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
453 APPEAL NOTIFICATION packet sent to US Court of Appeals re 450 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1)(ZG, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
Appeal Fees received: fee in the amount of $ 255 (receipt # 316690) re 450 Notice of Appeal filed by Khalil Nouri, paid on 7/1/04. (KN, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
454 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Ahmad Golchen, Lear Lavi, Khalil Nouri, Ronie G Reyes, Syed I Rizvi, Mike M Taing, Bao D Trinh re 452 Response to Motion, Notice of Filing Corrected Declaration of Christine E. Webber (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Declaration of Christine Webber# 2 Certificate of Service)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
USCA Case Number 04-35572 for 450 Notice of Appeal filed by Khalil Nouri. (ZG, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
455 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (04-35572) as to 450 Notice of Appeal filed by Khalil Nouri: Appellant shall notify Appellee regarding transcripts by 7/12/04; Appellee to notify Appellant regarding any additional transcripts by 7/21/04; Transcript designation due by 8/2/04; Transcript by court reporter due by 8/31/04; Appellants opening brief due by 10/18/04; Appellees response brief due by 11/16/04; Appellants optional reply brief due within 14 days of service of the response brief. (ZG, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
456 REPLY, filed by Defendant Boeing Company, TO RESPONSE to 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting Memorandum (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
457 BILL OF COSTS (REVISED) by Defendant Boeing Company. Taxation due by 7/19/2004; Noting Date 7/19/2004. (Attachments: # 1Itemization)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) Modified on 7/16/2004 to edit docket text(ECS, ). (Entered: 07/15/2004)
458 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendant Boeing Company re 447 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS and Supporting

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 79 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

07/26/2004 08/02/2004 09/30/2004 12/16/2004 06/15/2005 06/15/2005 06/29/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005

Memorandum, 457 BILL OF COSTS (REVISED) by Defendant Boeing Company (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
459 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Plaintiff Khalil Nouri for proceedings held on 5-17-2004 to 6-2-2004 Requesting Attorney: Harish Bharti. (Attachments: # 1 service list)(Bharti, Harish) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
460 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendant Boeing Company for proceedings held on 5/17/04, 5/18/04, 5/24/04, 5/27/04, 5/28/04 Requesting Attorney: Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
461 ORDER granting 447 Motion for Bill of Costs, granting 457 Motion for Bill of Costs in the amount of $56,859.76 against Plaintiffs by Clerk U.S. District Court Bruce Rifkin.(Rifkin, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
462 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 6/2/04 before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: L. Kelly. (SA, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
463 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/20/05 before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S. Zielie. (SA, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
464 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/20/05 (afternoon session) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
465 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Rima Fawal Hartman and Sonja Lengnick for Defendant Boeing Company. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
466 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/17/04 Opening before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
467 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/17/04 (Janders Testimony) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
468 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/18/04 (Excerpt of Proceeding Jury Trial testimony of Cascio) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
469 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/18/04 (excerpts of proceedings Jury Trial Testimony of Janders) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
470 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/19/04, 05/20/04 (excerpts of proceedings of Jury Trial Testimony of Wells) before

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 80 of 81

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.6 - Docket Report

3/19/08 6:32 AM

11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 05/10/2006 08/11/2006

Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
471 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/20/05 (testimony of Vallier) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
472 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/20/04 (testimony of Siskin) before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
473 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 5/24/04 before Judge Robert S Lasnik, (re 450 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S Zielie. (SA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 450 Notice of Appeal (LMK) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
474 MANDATE of USCA (04-35572) as to 450 Notice of Appeal filed by Khalil Nouri; it is ordered and adjudged by this Court, that athe judgment of the said District Court in this cause is hereby AFFIRMED. (LMK, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

03/19/2008 04:32:31

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: Kuznick

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:99-cv-01227-RSL

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

2.40

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?938952737955534-L_353_0-1

Page 81 of 81

 
 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

AT SEATTLE

6

7 KHALIL NOuru,

No. C99-l227L

8

Plaintiff,

v.

9
THE BOEING COMPANY,

10

Defendant.

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION,

LEAVE TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED

AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND TO

EXTEND TIME TO MOVE FOR

)

CLASS CERTIFICATION

12

This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation,

13 Leave to File a Consolidated Amended Complaint and to Extend Time to Move for Class 14 Certification." I Having considered the pleadings and exhibits submitted by the parties,2 it is

15
~16 17

hereby ORDERED that: (1) The following actions shall be consolidated for all purposes and proceedings in this
Court:

18

Nouri v. The Boeing Company. C99-1227L

19

Nouri. et aZ. v. The Boeing Company, C99-J836L

20

Golchin v. The Boeing Company. C99-J89SL and

21

22

I Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, and taking into consideration defendants'

desire to reach the merits of plaintiffs' class allegations at the earliest possible time, plaintiffs' request

23 for oral argument is DENIED.

24

2 Defendant moves to strike the exhibits attached to plaintiffs' memorandum for failure to

25 comply with Local Rule 7(b)(1). Defendant's motion itself, however, was contained in a footnote in its

opposition and fails to meet the requirements of a motion under either the Federal Rules of Civil

26 Procedure or the Local Rules. The motion to strike has not, therefore, been substantively considered.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

I

Shanna. et al. v. The Boeing Company. et al., COO-0582L.

2 The effect of this consolidation on suit limitation, exhaustion, and other substantive issues will

3 be determined, if at all, in the context of an appropriate motion.

4

(2) All future submissions shall be made under cause number C99-1227L with the

5 caption "Nouri. et al. v. The Boein~ Company."

6

(3) Plaintiffs shall, in \c""'l'ing with this Court's Order of June 19,2000, GH1Illill!;

7 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order in one of the now-consolidated cases, make efforts to

8 move this matter forward in a timely manner and refrain from casting unnecessary aspersions on

9 defense counsel and on defendant Boeing.

10

(4) The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed by plaintiffs on June 30,

II 2000, is now the operative pleading for this consolidated action.

12

(5) Plaintiffs shall file their motion(s) to sever specific individuals from the consolidated

13 action no later than ten days from the date of this Order.

14

(6) Defendant shall answer or move with respect to the Consolidated Amended Class

15 Action Complaint within twenty days of the date of this Order.

16

(7) In light of defendant's concerns, the significant delays that have already occurred in

17 this case, and the investigations and discovery efforts that have been made to date, plaintiffs

18 shall file their motion for class certification no later than seventy days from the date of this

19 Order. The parties are instructed to cooperate in an effort to complete class discovery as

20 expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

21 22

DATED

this

~

t"
day

of

July

2000.

23 24

s!!J:t! Robert

~

25

United States District Judge

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

-2-