Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 1 of 15

:~"0J IJ!(jlS1G 's'n

IN

T:6R~~:

~J~~~~~J~~~~?§.~;.

'I.~ )}~13'"'?')
Hri". S.

t':]J20~

EASTERN DIVISION

Jerrold Goldberg, Glenn Gentile, and Willie .

.

~s,

.e~,

r; "
U;.,

-

i ( i
u

..~.J ..

j

./

'..

UhUtnfDfi"/(llA F'£'8 1 '[!J
,~

v.

Plaintiffs,

'JUDGE JOANH~ LEFKOW

Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services, a subsidiary of National Express Group; and Madeline Cooley, individually,
Defendants.

02C 1125

AlAGISTRATB .

JlJ~lVO~

Complaint for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq, (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19(4),
42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Violation of 42 U.S ,C. § 2001e-3(a) (Section 704(a) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964)'
Plaintiffs, Jerrold Goldberg, Glenn Gentile, and Willie Jiles, by and through their attorneys, Aaron B. Maduff and Deanne Medina, of Maduff & Maduff, for their complaint against Durham School Services and Madeline Cooley allege and state as follows:
Introduction 1. This action results from racial discrimination in employment occasioned by the acts of Defendant Madeline Cooley, Base Manager of Defendant Durham School Services, who is responsible for assigning school bus routes and charters to Durham Drivers including the Plaintiffs. At first, Defendant Cooley, an African-American, began reducing and eliminating the routes and
- charters of Caucasian drivers specifically including Plaif)tiff Goldberg. When Plaintiff Goldberg -
began to object, Plaintiffs Ji)es.f1.nd Gentile supported him in that objection and his efforts to seek legal redress, including his filing a co'mplaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In retaliation, Defendant Cooley began reducing and eliminating bus routes and charters for Plaintiffs Jiles and Gentile, and either terminated, or conspired to terminate Plaintiff

'Plaintiff may amend this complaint at a later date to make it a class action complaint.

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 2 of 15
Goldberg based on false accusations of an accident. Thereafter, all three Plaintiffs filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for retaliation. Plaintiffs Jiles and Gentile were then also terminated or have had charters reduced to a token amount.
Parties 2. PlaintiffJerrold Goldberg, (hereinafter "Jerrold" or "Plaintiff Goldberg", is a citizen of the State of Illinois and resides within the territorial limits ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Plaintiff is Caucasian. 3. Plaintiff Willie Jiles, (hereinafter "Willie" or "PlaintiffJiles", is a citizen of the State of Illinois and resides within the territorial limits ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 4. PlaintiffGlenn Gentile, (hereinafter "Glenn" or "Plaintiff Gentile", is a citizen ofthe State of Illinois and resides within the territorial limits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 5. On information and belief, Defendant, Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services (hereinafter "Defendant Durham"), is a subsidiary of National Express Group and is a corporation licensed and doing business within the territorial limits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On information and belief Defendant Durham employs more than 500 persons. 6. Defendant Madeline Cooley aka Madeline Conway aka Madeline Cooley-Conway (hereinafter "Defendant Cooley" or "Cooley") is an individual who on information and belief lives within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Cooley was Defendant Durham's Skokie Base Manager and had responsibility and authority to assign rOLltes and charters to drivers. Defendant Cooley is of African-American decent.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 3 of 15
Jurisdiction 7. On November 7, 2001, Plaintiff Goldberg filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant Durham with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chicago office, Charge No. 21 OA20524, for racial discrimination in employment. 8. On November 14,2001, Plaintiff Jiles filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant Durham with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chicago office, Charge No. 210A20612, for retaliation for supporting Plaintiff Goldberg in his attempts to redress his grievances for racial discrimination. 9. On November 14,2001, Plaintiff Gentile filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant Durham with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chicago office, Charge No. 210A20616, for retaliation for supporting Plaintiff Goldberg in his attempts to redress his grievances for racial discrimination. 10. On November 14,2001, Plaintiff Goldberg filed a second charge of discrimination against Defendant Durham with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chicago office, Charge No. 210A20611, for retaliation for having met with counsel and for having filed the first charge of discrimination. II. On November 20, 2001, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to sue to PlaintiffJiles relating to his Charge of Retaliation, Charge Number 21 OA20612 by certified mail. The letter was received by Plaintiff Jiles several days thereafter. 12. On December 6, 2001, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to sue to Plaintiff Goldberg relating to his Charge of Discrimination, Charge Number 210A20524 by certified mail. The letter was received by Plaintiff Goldberg several days thereafter. 13. On January 28, 2002, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to sue to Plaintiff Gentile relating to his Charge of Retaliation, Charge Number 21 OA20616 by certified mail. The letter was received by Plaintiff Gentile several days thereafter. 14. On December 7, 2001, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to sue to Plaintiff Goldberg relating to his Charge of Retaliation, Charge Number 21OA20611 by certified mail. The letter was received by Plaintiff Goldberg several days thereafter.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 4 of 15
15. This action is brought for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), (hereinafter "Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § I 343(a)(3) and (4).
Venue 16. Venue is proper in this Court pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as, on information and belief, all Defendants reside in this District and the facts giving rise to this cause of action occurred in this District.
Events DURHAM'S BUSINESS
17. Defendant Durham is a bus company operating out ofbases in Evanston, Skokie, and Chicago, Illinois.
18. From these bases, Durham has two kinds of business: school routes and charters. 19. On the school routes, Drivers are paid a fixed amount per route. On the charter routes, drivers are paid a percentage of the charter fee. 20. Because Durham negotiates each charter fee individually with the client, some charters produce more money than others, and as a result, are worth more to the driver who takes a percentage. MADELINE COOLEY 21. Defendant Cooley was hired by Durham as the Base Manager for its Skokie Base in approximately June of2000. 22. Prior to the hiring of Defendant Cooley, Drivers were assigned charters or routes based first on a request by a client, and absent a request for a particular driver, by moving down a list in order of seniority. 23. As a result of that system, Jerrold Goldberg was taking approximately 6.5 Charters per week and making approximately $700 per week. 24. As a result ofthat system, Willie Giles was taking approximately 5 Charters per week and making approximately $600 per week.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 5 of 15
25. As a result of that system, Glenn Gentile was taking approximately 4 Charters per week and making approximately $500 on an annual basis.
JERROLD GOLDBERG 26. Jerrold Goldberg is a Caucasian individual who was hired by Durham in January of
1999 as a bus driver. 27. Between January of 1999 and approximately June of2000 (the time ofthe hiring of
Defendant Cooley, Jerrold had a clean record and disciplinary action had not been taken against him for misconduct.).
28. Beginning in June of 2000 shortly after her training was completed, Defendant Cooley began a campaign of verbal harassment against Jerrold and other Caucasian drivers.
29. In September, Cooley began denying Jerrold numerous charter bus runs and daily school bus routes to which he was entitled by seniority or request. This included both a decrease in the number of routes and charters, and those charters that Jerrold did get were less financially remunerative and desirable than those he had previously been getting and those for which he was requested. These assignments and the wages therefrom were instead assigned by Cooley to AfricanAmerican drivers.
30. On or about August 31,2001 Jerrold complained to Defendant Cooley that he felt he was being subjected to race discrimination concerning the charter assignments.
31. On or about October 2, 2001, Defendant Cooley suspended Plaintiff Goldberg for objecting to her failure to tell him of routes . No drivers at the Skokie Base had been suspended for such things prior to the arrival ofDefendant Cooley, and after her arrival, African-American drivers who did not support their Caucasian co-workers against race discrimination were not suspended or disciplined as severely after engaging in more egregious offenses.
32. As a result ofthese actions, on November 7,2001, Jerrold filed his first charge with the EEOC.
33. Beginning on or about October 3, 2001, Jerrold was subjected to false accusations ofmisconduct by Defendant Cooley, including an untrue allegation that his bus was involved in an accident which he failed to report in about November 2001.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 6 of 15
34. Durham terminated Goldberg's employment at Durham on November 8, 2001. WILLIE JILES
35. Willie Jiles, an African-American male, was hired by Durham in about January 1999 as a Bus Driver.
36. Prior to the hiring of Defendant Cooley, Willie received praise from his supervisors and peers for his work performance.
37. Beginning on or about October 3,2001, Willie began expressing his support for the complaints of racial discrimination voiced by many of his Caucasian coworkers, including Jerrold Goldberg.
38. Beginning on or about October 4,2001, Cooley began denying Willie numerous charter bus runs to which he was entitled by seniority or request. This included a decrease in the number of charters, and those charters that Willie did get were less financially remunerative and desirable than those he had previously been getting and those for which he was requested.
39. Since that time, Durham has paid Willie lower wages (a result of fewer and less desirable charters being assigned by Defendant Cooley) than it has paid to African-American employees who have not openly or otherwise supported their Caucasian co-workers.
40. When Defendant Cooley became aware that Willie had filed his EEOC Charge of Discrimination on November 14,2001, she began subjecting him to altered terms, conditions and privileges of employment, including decreasing his charters to one per week.
GLENN GENTILE 41. Glenn Gentile, an African-American male, was hired by Durham in January 1999 as
a Bus Driver and terminated by Durham on December 6, 2001. 42. Glenn's job perfOlmance throughout his employment with Defendant has been
satisfactory . 43. Beginning on or about October 3, 2001 Glenn began expressing his support for the
complaints of racial discrimination voiced by many of his Caucasian coworkers, including Jerrold Goldberg.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 7 of 15
44. Beginning on approximately October 4, 2001, Plaintiff Gentile was assigned lessdesirable school routes and has been denied charter assignments despite seniority and requests.
45. Since that time, Durham has paid Glenn lower wages (a result of fewer and less desirable charters being assigned by Defendant Cooley) than it has paid to African-American employees who have not openly or otherwise supported their Caucasian co-workers.
46. Glenn was present at the scene of an accident on November 3, 200 I and witnessed a bus hit a vehicle.
47. Because Glenn was familiar with Jerrold Goldberg's bus, he was able to recognize that the bus involved in the accident was not Jerrold's. It had a different shape than Jerrold's bus, and a different number than Jerrold's bus.
48. When Jerrold was accused of this accident and failing to report it, Glenn came forward and specifically noted that the bus involved in the accident could not have been Jerrold's bus.
49. Thereafter, the decline in work that Defendant Cooley was assigning to Glenn became far more dramatic, he was ridiculed, and was given even fewer charters.
50. On November 14, 2001, Glenn filed his Charge of Retaliation based on having supported Caucasian co-workers in their complaints of discrimination and more significantly, for having supported Jerrold in the false charge that Jerrold had failed to report an accident in which he was allegedly involved.
51. When Defendant Cooley became aware that Glenn had filed his EEOC Charge of Discrimination on November 14, 200 I, she decreased his work to the point of constructively discharging him and actually terminated his employ on or about December 6, 2001.
52. Plaintiffs on numerous occasions attempted to address the discrimination with Durham, moving through the hierarchy and finally ending with the corporate offices in Austin, Texas, but Durham has refused to deal with the situation.
7

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 8 of 15
Count I Plaintiff Jerrold Goldberg's Demand for Relief for
Racial Discrimination in Employment In Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Against Defendant Durham Transportation
53. PlaintiffJerrold Goldberg restates andrealleges paragraphs I through 52 as paragraph 53 of this Count I.
54. By virtue ofthe foregoing, Defendant Durham Transportation has subjected Plaintiff Jerrold Goldberg to Discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment based upon his
race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
55. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff Goldberg has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, medical injury, and other damages of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
56. In light of the continued violations and retaliation against Plaintiff Goldberg and others who supported him, Durham's conduct is wilful and malicious warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jerrold Goldberg, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Durham Transportation for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and equitable.
Count II Plaintiff Jerrold Goldberg's Demand for Relief for
Race Based Discrimination In the Making and Performance of Contract
In Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Against Defendant Madeline Cooley
57. PlaintiffJerrold Goldberg restates and realleges paragraphs I through 52 as paragraph 57 of this Count II.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 9 of 15
58. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendant Madeline Cooley has subjected Plaintiff to Discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment contract based upon his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
59. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff Goldberg has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, medical injury and other damages of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
60. In light ofher continued violations and her retaliation against Plaintiff Goldberg and others who supported him, her conduct is wilful and malicious warranting the imposition ofpunitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jerrold Goldberg, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Madeline Cooley for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and equitable.
Count III Plaintiff Jerrold Goldberg's Demand for Relief for
Race Based Discrimination In the Making and Performance of Contract
In Violation of 42 U.S.c. § 1981 Against Defendant Durham Transportation Services
61. PlaintiffJerrold Goldberg restates andrealleges paragraphs I through 52 as paragraph 61 of this Count III.
62. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendant Durham has subjected Plaintiff to Discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment contract based upon his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in that Durham has refused to address the discrimination, thereby approving it.
63. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff Goldberg has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, medical injury and other damages ofboth a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 10 of 15
64. In light of Durham's continued violations and retaliation against Plaintiff Goldberg and others who supported him, its conduct is wilful and malicious warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jerrold Goldberg, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Durham for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in excess of $1,000,000, and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and equitable.
Count IV Plaintiff Jerrold Goldberg's Demand for Relief for Retaliation in Violation of § 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964 Against Defendant Durham Transportation Services
65. PlaintiffJerrold Goldberg restates and realleges paragraphs I through 52 as paragraph 65 of this Count III.
66. By virtue of the foregoing, Durham Transportation has retaliated against Plaintiff Goldberg because he filed a charge ofdiscrimination or otherwise participated in a complaint process in an effort to protect his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in violation of that act.
67. As a result of this violation Plaintiff Goldberg has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, medical injury, loss of his employment with Defendant Durham Transportation and other damages of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
68. The actions of Defendant Durham Transportation in retaliating against Plaintiff Goldberg were taken with malice or with reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jerrold Goldberg, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Durham Transportation for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 11 of 15
Count V Plaintiff Willie Jiles' Demand for Relief for Retaliation in Violation of § 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Against Defendant Durham Transportation Services
69. Plaintiff Willie Jiles restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 52 as paragraph 69 of this Count IV.
70. By virtue ofthe foregoing, Durham Transportation has retaliated against PlaintiffJiles because he supported Jerrold Goldberg and other Caucasian co-workers in their efforts to redress racial discrimination and filed a charge of discrimination or otherwise participated in a complaint process in an effort to protect his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing wlder Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in violation of that act.
71. As a result ofthis violation PlaintiffJiles has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, loss of income and other damages of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
72. The actions ofDefendant Durham Transportation in retaliating against PlaintiffJiles were taken with malice or with reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Willie Jiles, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Durham Transportation for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Count VI Plaintiff Glenn Gentile's Demand for Relieffor Retaliation in Violation of § 704(a) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 Against Defendant Durham Transportation Services
73. Plaintiff Glenn Gentile restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 52 as paragraph 73 of this Count IV.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 12 of 15
:
74. By virtue of the foregoing, Durham Transportation has retaliated against Plaintiff Gentile because he supported Jerrold Goldberg and other Caucasian co-workers in their efforts to redress racial discrimination and filed a charge of discrimination or otherwise participated in a complaint process in an effort to protect his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in violation of that act.
75. As a result of this violation Plaintiff Gentile has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, degradation, lost of his employment with Defendant Durham Transportation and other damages of both a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature.
76. The actions of Defendant Durham Transportation in retaliating against Plaintiff Gentile were taken with malice or with reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Glen Gentile, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Durham Transportation for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY
Respectfully submitted, Jerrold Goldberg, Willie Jiles, and Glenn Gentile
Aaron B. Maduff Atty. No. 06226932 Maduff & Maduff 36 S. Wabash St. Suite 1415 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/236-8877
12

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 13 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS P:I SI C=,'20
(' r' -, (' -" . nft ..:Jd.:J-.l':'; :;::UU

'n::rlrl!'l
L leU

Civil Cover Sheet

FEB 1 9 2[)[)2

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service' of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District of Illinois.

'. :::::"'····;-;···;;;·.;;;····,,;:;·::&:::::::.'::&>.{::::.~::::::-.:..;:>.:..;..:.'X.'::'M:::·;::::w·:9·'''y'V····'··~;;;·M···;;'··W*:::ili~''·'·''···'·
i[plaintiff(s): Jerrold Goldberg, Glenn ibentile, and Willie Jiles

"'iliX::M::::::::::::&§ili'''':;';:;'!;:;W'::iliiliili~x!:§X*;;;X:«:*;;;»''::;;:W':::*;;;%;:':;;'»':::*W':::M;§j
'I
Defendant(s): Durham Transportation, et ali]

d<-;;:.;.:.;...;:;:;...;.O;:;''¥.;.O;:;:«'*:''''.:«.*,.,.,.:-...,.,:.'¥.':,~:;:'='!.~'<':&=O;:;:;ID* ...;:,;:;:;:;:;_.w..:;...'..'K'......m.;."....;:;.o;:;:*Wm-==:

'*=*:.;;:;*":;:;:·»:·»:*»:;=.;;:;:.;;:.·,;:;:,...;:;;;-.w.*:;:;:'»:;:;:;w..:>..:.:>..:>..:.:>.;...h:~......h:;:;....·:;:;:;:;:;:;:;...h'.;.':"..:>/.~d

1:ounty of Residence: Cook

County of Residence:

ji

t;:;"'=..,;,:=:=:::::::"':::.:::;:;."~",:",;:::,:;:;:;:;:;:,»:,,, ..:....»:,-~.i:=-;:;:;w.==·

flaintiffs Atty:

jAaron B. Maduff

Defendant's Atty: i "''''=w.:w.:w.:w.:_:::.::::=::;:;:::;:;~'''::::::::;:;w.:,:.,::;:;:::'1.::::':'';OM:;:;~:'''::;:;::''':':'';O.::;::':'';O».:''':,;,::;:;::,:.,

::«".:,J
'1

'~I

jMaduff & Maduff 136 S, Wabash,

L'! :=="~!7" .z""

JI
~0. 2C. ~ II w:J1

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 14 of 15
·

... !~;.:.;.:«.:.;..o,,;.:.:.;.. .««.:«.:..:.:.:.:-:..:.;.:..:.;.:,.:.:.;.:..:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:«.:«.:«~w.«o:«':'»»:*:*:«·:';':':';':':';':':'»:';':':';':-;#W~M_»:««oo:V:*:*, •..;.*»:««.;.x.;.x·:«·mx.;.x·}x·»:.;.:.»:.;.:w:·:·:.:..:.:..:,..:.;.:.:.»,.v:v:.»:.;.x.;.»;,:,:,:«,;,:-;,:,:,;,xvl

:!vIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

~

jr::~:::~:::::::~:::::::::::~·.:.'.:.:.:~:.:,~:.:.:.::::~::::::::.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.::.:::.J::.:.':.~:::.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::~~::::~:~:~::::~:::~:::::~:::~~::::~~~::JI

Ifany of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input fonn using the Back button in your browser and change it. Once

correct, print this form, sign and date it and submit it with your new civil action. Note: You may need to adjust the font size in your

browser display to make the form print properly.

Revised: 06128/00

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 1 Filed 02/15/02 Page 15 of 15
. In the Matter of
Jerrold Goldberg, Glenn Gentile, al\s! Willie Jiles v. Dwham Transportation, et al

i.' SIGNAT~ .Ne

b

NAAMaEron".~af duff

(A)
/.Ak.
#

FM'actGff & Maduff

STREET ADDRESS
·36 South Wabash Suite 1415
c:l{:lTIAcTaEgIZoIP, IllinoI.s 60603

(:ti'2r236~g877

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
6226932

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

0 YES

TRIALATTORNBY?

0 YES

D NO 0 NO

SIGNATURE

(C)

NAME

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITYISTATEIZIP

• TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATTORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

0 YES 0 YES 0 YES

0 NO 0 NO
0 NO

(B)

"emAT"?).? A
NAME~

JJ

S-

m
."

/' ,,/,':-

A

Deanne S. Medina

FIRM

Maduff & Maduff

STREET ADDRESS
36 South Wabash Suite 1415

Icago, fl~TATEJZIP IllinO•lsn 60603

('3'1'2)'236:8877
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
6273485
MEMBER OF TRIAL nAR?
TRlALA'ITORNEY?
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

D YES 0 YES D YES

SIGNATURE

(D)

NAME
FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITYISTATEIZIP

TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM of ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATTORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES L,,,,J
0 YES D YES

NO L~J
D NO
D NO
J NO [
0 NO D NO

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JERROLD GOLDBERG, KENNETH E. HULTEEN, GLENN GENTILE, and WILLIE JILES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DURHAM TRANSPORTATION d/b/a DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, A SUBSIDIARY OF NATIONAL EXPRESS GROUP; and MADELINE COOLEY, individually,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) No. 02 C 1125 ) ) Judge Milton 1. Shadur ) ) ) )
) APR 0 9 2003
) )

Plaintiffs JERROLD GOLDBERG ("Goldberg'~ and KENNETH E. HULTEEN (''Hulteen''), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Plaintiffs GLENN GENTILE ("Gentile"), and WILLIE JILES ("Jiles"), individually, by their attorneys Futterman & Howard Chtd. and Maduff & Maduff, for their complaint against DURHAM TRANSPORTATION d/b/a DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES ("Durham") and MADELINE COOLEY ("Cooley"), allege and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION I. This action results from racial discrimination in employment occasioned by the acts of Madeline Cooley, Base Manager of Durham School Services, who was responsible for assigning school bus routes, charters, and extra work assignments to Durham drivers, including the named Plaintiffs, from Durham's Skokie, Illinois base. Prior to Cooley's arrival, charters,

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 2 of 21
then on driver seniority. Cooley, an African-American, began upon commencing her duties in July 2001 to reduce and/or eliminate the routes and charters of non-African-American drivers, including Goldberg and Hulteen.
2. When Goldberg and Hulteen objected to Cooley's actions, Jiles and Gentile supported them in that objection. This support extended to supporting Goldberg's filing of a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In retaliation, Cooley began reducing and eliminating bus routes and charters for Jiles and Gentile; began systematically harassing and eliminating bus routes and charters for non-African-American drivers, including Goldberg and Hulteen; and either terminated, or conspired to terminate, Goldberg based on false accusations of an accident. Thereafter, Goldberg, Jiles, and Gentile filed complaints with the EEOC for retaliation. Hulteen also filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging racial discrimination. Hulteen, Jiles, and Gentile were then also terminated or had their charters reduced to a negligible number per month.
3. From the time Cooley assumed her duties at the Skokie Base until it closed in June 2002, non-African-American drivers who expressed support for the seniority and request system in place before Cooley's arrival lost preferable routes and had their charter assignments and so-called "extra work" assignments (paid non-route and non-charter work assigned at the discretion ofthe Base Managers) curtailed dramatically. Cooley upended the seniority and request system of assigning routes, charters, and extra work and replaced it with a system where African-American drivers, regardless of seniority or customer preference, received a SUbstantial majority of desirable routes, charters, and extra work. Cooley, through racial intimidation, also
2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 3 of 21
created a hostile work environment for non-African-American drivers who expressed concern about Cooley's actions as well as African-American drivers who expressed support for them.
4. On information and belief, the Skokie base was closed in about June 2002. THE PARTIES
5. Jerrold Goldberg is a citizen of the state of Illinois, residing within the territorial limits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Goldberg is non-African-American. He is an "employee" for the purposes of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166.
6. Kenneth E. Hulteen is a citizen of the state of Illinois, residing within the territoria11imits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Hulteen is non-African-American. He is an "employee" for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No.1 02-166.
7. Willie Jiles is a citizen of the state of Illinois, residing within the territoria11imits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Jiles is African-American. He is an "employee" for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166.
8. Glenn Gentile is a citizen of the state of Illinois, residing within the territorial limits of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Gentile is African-American. He is an "employee" for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil
3

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 4 of 21
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 US.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166.
9. Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services is a subsidiary of National Express Group and is a corporation licensed and doing business within the territorial limits ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On information and belief, Durham employs more than 500 persons. Durham is an "employer" under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 US.C. §2000e(b), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166. Durham is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employs more than fifteen people.
10. Madeline Cooley alk/a Madeline Conway alk/a Madeline Cooley-Conway (hereafter "Cooley") is an individual who, upon information and belief, lives within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. At all times relevant hereto until about June 2002 when the Skokie base closed, Cooley was Durham's Skokie Base Manager and had responsibility and authority to assign routes, charters, and extra work to drivers. On information and belief, after the Skokie base closed, Cooley began and continues similar responsibilities at Durham's Evanston, Illinois base. Cooley is African-American.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE II. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 US.C. §1331 in that this action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, and Section 1981,42 U.S.C. §1981. This Court also has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28
4

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 5 of 21
U.S.c. §1343(a)(4). Venue is proper in this judicial district under 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f)(3) in that alleged unlawful employment practices were committed in this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(1) and (2) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place here, and in that Durham's Skokie Base is located in this district.
12. All conditions precedent to this action have been fulfilled. On November 7,2001, Goldberg filed a charge of discrimination against Durham with the EEOC Chicago office for racial discrimination in employment. On November 14,2001, Jiles and Gentile filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC's Chicago office for retaliation stemming from their support of Goldberg's attempts to redress his grievances. Goldberg filed a second charge ofretaliation with the EEOC's Chicago office on November 14, 2001. Huiteen filed a charge of discrimination against Durham with the EEOC's Chicago office for racial discrimination in employment in January 2002, and amended his charge in August 2002. Plaintiffs have received their Notices of Right to Sue for all charges filed with the EEOC.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 13. Goldberg and Huiteen bring the allegations set forth in Counts I, II, III, and N below individually and as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting ofthose non-African-American persons employed at Durham's Skokie base at any time between July 2001 and June 2002 who received fewer routes, or charters, and/or extra work assignments because ofDurham and Cooley's discriminatory policies and actions. 14. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) for the following reasons:
5

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 6 of 21
a. The class for whose benefit the action is brought is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.
b. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class involving Defendants' discriminatory behavior toward Plaintiffs. The same discriminatory procedures were used as to school bus route and charter assigmnents at Durham's Skokie Base. For example, Defendants' practice of assigning charters and routes to African-American drivers on the basis of race regardless of their seniority or client preference was consistent for all routes and charters assigned from the Skokie Base. Durham's centralized management approved of all route and charter assignment systems utilized in its various bus bases, including the race-based system implemented by Cooley at the Skokie Base. Other common questions include whether Defendants fostered a racially hostile environment at the Skokie Base, whether Defendants denied Plaintiffs route, charter, and extra work assignments on the basis of race, and to what relief Plaintiffs are entitled.
c. The claims ofthe Plaintiffs are typical ofthe claims of class members. d. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and
have retained counsel competent and experienced in employment discrimination class actions. 15. The class as defined herein is certifiable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The
6

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 7 of 21
same discriminatory promotion practices were used as to all route and charter assignment to nonAfrican-American drivers from the Skokie Base. A class action in this instance is superior to other available methods for the fair and effective adjudication of this controversy.
JURY DEMAND 16. Plaintiffs and the class demand a trial by jury.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 17. Durham is a bus company operating out of bases in Evanston and Chicago, Illinois. From at least 2000 through about June 2002, Durham operated a bus base in Skokie, Illinois. From these bases, on information and belief, Durham has two kinds of business - school routes and charters. On the school routes, drivers are paid a fixed amount per route. On the charter routes, drivers are paid a percentage of the charter fee. Because Durham negotiates each charter fee individually with each client, some charters produce more money than others and, as a result, are worth more to the driver. 18. Cooley was hired by Durham as the Base Manager for its Skokie Base in about July 2001. Prior to the hiring of Cooley, drivers were assigned charters rotating based first upon client requests for a particular driver, and then by moving down a list in order of seniority, based on drivers availability demonstrated through biweekly signups. Upon information and belief, routes and extra work were assigned based on seniority and availability before Cooley assumed her duties. 19. When Cooley was hired, non-African-American drivers began to be denied charter bus runs, daily school bus routes, and extra work assignments to which these drivers were
7

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 8 of 21
entitled by seniority or customer request. The assignments, and wages therefrom, were instead assigned by Cooley to African-American drivers.
20. Under the system in place before Cooley was hired, Goldberg was taking approximately 6.5 charters per week and making approximately $700 per week, which was reduced by two-thirds (%); Hulteen was taking approximately 5 charters per week and making approximately $700 per week which was reduced by two-thirds (%); Jiles was taking approximately 5 charters per week and making approximately $600 per week; and, Gentile was taking approximately 4 charters per week and making approximately $500 per week.
21. Goldberg is a non-African-American individual hired by Durham in about January 1999 as a bus driver and terminated by Durham on or about November 8, 2001. Between January 1999 and July 2001 (when Cooley was hired), Goldberg had a clean record - no disciplinary action had been taken against him for misconduct.
22. Hulteen is a non-African-American individual hired by Durham in approximately January 1996 as a bus driver and terminated by Durham with the closing of the Skokie base in aboutJune 2002. Between January 1996 and July 2001 (when Cooley was hired), Hulteen had a clean record - no disciplinary action had been taken against him for misconduct.
23. Jiles is an African-American male hired by Durham in about January 1999 as a bus driver. Prior to the hiring of Cooley, Jiles received praise from his supervisors and peers for his work performance.
24. Gentile, an African-American male, was hired by Durham in about January 1999 and terminated by Durham on or about December 6, 2001. Gentile's job performance throughout his employment with Defendant was satisfactory.
8

-- -. -" ------.-- .--
,_~._-"<""''-'i~
Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 9 of 21
25. In approximately July 2001, Cooley began denying Goldberg and Hulteen charter bus runs, daily school bus routes, and extra work assignments to which they were entitled by seniority and/or request.
26. In approximately July 2001, Cooley also began denying other non-AfricanAmerican drivers charter bus runs, daily school bus routes, and extra work assignments to which they were entitled by seniority and/or request.
27. When non-African-American drivers, including Goldberg and Hulteen, began to complain about their treatment concerning charter assignments, Cooley began a systematic campaign of verbal harassment against these drivers.
28. On or about August 31, 2001, Goldberg complained to Cooley that he felt he was being subjected to race discrimination concerning the charter assignments.
29. On or about October 2,2001, Cooley suspended Goldberg for objecting to her failure to tell him of available routes. No drivers at the Skokie base had been suspended for this reason prior to the arrival of Cooley.
30. As a result of these actions, on or about November 7, 2001, Goldberg filed his first charge with the EEOC.
31. Beginning on or about October 3,2001, Goldberg was subjected to false accusations of misconduct by Cooley, including an untrue allegation that his bus was involved in an accident which he failed to report in approximately November 2001.
32. Beginning on or about October 3, 2001, Jiles and Gentile began expressing support for the complaints of non-African-American co-workers, including Goldberg, concerning racial discrimination. Immediately thereafter, Cooley and Durham (through its agent Cooley)
9

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 10 of 21
began denying Jiles and Gentile charter bus runs to which they were entitled by seniority or request. Jiles began to receive fewer and less financially remunerative and desirable charter assignments. Gentile was assigned less desirable school bus routes and began to receive lower wages than other African-American employees who did not openly or otherwise support their non-African-American co-workers.
33. After Cooley's arrival, African-American drivers who did not support their nonAfrican-American co-workers in those workers' efforts against race discrimination were not suspended or disciplined as severely as Jiles and Gentile, after engaging in more egregious offenses.
34. Gentile was present at the scene of an accident on November 3,2001 and witnessed a bus hit a vehicle. Because Gentile was familiar with Goldberg's bus, he was able to recognize that the bus involved in the accident was not the bus driven by Goldberg. The bus in the accident had a different shape and number than Goldberg's bus.
35. When Cooley accused Goldberg of having this accident and failing to report it, Gentile came forward and specifically noted that the bus involved in the accident could not have been Goldberg's bus. After coming forward, Gentile was ridiculed, and again suffered a reduction in desired routes and charters.
36. On or about November 14,2001, Gentile filed a charge of retaliation with the EEOC's Chicago office based on Defendants acting against him for having supported his nonAfrican-American co-workers in their complaints of discrimination and, more significantly, for having supported Goldberg in the false charge that Goldberg had failed to report an accident in which he was allegedly involved. When Cooley became aware that Gentile had filed his EEOC
10

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 11 of 21
charge of discrimination, she decreased his work, and actually terminated his employment on or about December 6, 2001.
37. On or about November 14, 2001, Jiles filed a charge of retaliation with the EEOC based on having supported his non-African-American co-workers in their complaints of discrimination and, more significantly, for having supported Goldberg in the false charge that Goldberg had failed to report an accident in which he was allegedly involved. When Cooley became aware that Jiles had filed an EEOC charge, she decreased his work to one charter per week.
38. Goldberg was terminated by Durham on or about November 8, 2001. 39. Hulteen began receiving dramatically fewer assignments for charter runs after Cooley was hired as the Skokie Base Manager. The nnmbers of charters per week he received fell from approximately five per week to one or less per week by January 2002. 40. In January 2002, Hulteen filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging that Cooley regularly treated non-African-American drivers less favorably than AfricanAmerican drivers. 41. After Hulteen filed his complaint with the EEOC, Cooley's hostility toward him increased markedly. After January 2002, on at least two occasions, Cooley subjected Hulteen to disciplinary actions for events that either did not happen or for which he had no responsibility. 42. Plaintiffs have, on numerous occasions, attempted to address the discrimination with Durham, moving through the hierarchy and finally ending with the corporate offices in Austin, Texas, but Durham has refused to address the situation.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 12 of 21
43. Cooley created, and Durham ratified and allowed to perpetuate, an atmosphere at the Skokie Base whereby non-African-American employees were discriminated against solely on the basis ofrace. Afiican-American workers who supported their non-African-American counterparts or who expressed support for the seniority and request system in place before Cooley's arrival also faced a hostile work environment, engineered and perpetuated by Cooley and Durham.
COUNT I
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
AGAINST DEFENDANT DURHAM TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF NON-AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLAINTIFFS 44. Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class restate and allege paragraphs 1-43. 45. By reducing and/or eliminating employment for non-African-American employees, Durham has subjected Goldberg and Hulteen and the Plaintiff class to discrimination in the terms and conditions oftheir employment based upon race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166. 46. Durham engaged in these discriminatory practices intentionally, with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights. 47. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, Goldberg, Hulteen and the Plaintiff class have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other losses.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 13 of 21
48. In light ofthe egregious nature ofthe violations and retaliation against Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class, Durham's conduct is willful and malicious, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class described above, and, if appropriate, authorize proper notice to the class; b. Enter a declaratory judgment, finding and declaring that Durham has discriminated against Goldberg and Hulteen and other similarly situated class members in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e et seq.; c. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class compensatory and other damages in an amount to be determined herein, including post-judgment and pre-judgment interest; d. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class punitive damages; e. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class their costs and attorneys' fees, including expert witness fees; and, f. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class such other relief as is just and proper.
13

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 14 of 21
COUNT II RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN THE MAKING AND PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.c. §1981 AGAINST DEFENDANTS COOLEY AND DURHAM TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF NON-AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLAINTIFFS 49. Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class restate and allege paragraphs 1-43. 50. By reducing and/or eliminating employment for non-African-American employees, Cooley and Durham have subjected Goldberg, Hulteen and the Plaintiff class to discrimination in the terms and conditions of their employment contracts based upon race in violation of 42 U.S.c. §1981. 51. Cooley and Durham have engaged in these discriminatory practices intentionally, with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights. 52. As a result ofthese unlawful employment practices, Goldberg and Hulteen and the Plaintiff class have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other losses. 53. In light of the egregious nature of the violations and retaliation against Goldberg and Hulteen and the Plaintiff class, Defendants' conduct is willful and malicious, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class described above, and, if appropriate, authorize proper notice to the class;
14

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 15 of 21

b. Enter a declaratory judgment, finding and declaring that Cooley and

Durham have discriminated against Goldberg, Huiteen, and other

similarly-situated class members in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981;

c. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class compensatory and other damages

in an amount to be determined herein, including post-judgment and

pre-judgment interest;

d. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class punitive damages;

e. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class their costs and attorneys' fees,

including expert witness fees; and,

f.

Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class such other relief as is just and

proper.

COUNT III RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AGAINST DURHAM TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF NON-AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLAINTIFFS

54. Goldberg, Huiteen, and the Plaintiff class restate and allege paragraphs 1-43.

55. Durham (by and through its agent, Cooley), have continuously harassed Goldberg

and Huiteen and other similarly-situated class members on account of race by creating a racially

hostile work environment for non-African-American employees. Defendant has subjected

Goldberg, Hulteen, and other similarly-situated class members to such harassment in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights

Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166.

56. Defendant has engaged in these harassing practices intentionally, with malice or

reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights.

15

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 16 of 21

57. As a result of these unlawful practices, Goldberg and Hulteen and other similarly-

situated class members have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain,

mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other losses.

58. In light of the egregious violations and retaliation against Goldberg and Hulteen

and other similarly-situated class members, Defendant's conduct is willful and malicious,

warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

a. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the

class described above, and, if appropriate, authorize proper notice to the

class;

b. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that Defendant has

discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII;

c. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class compensatory and other damages

in an amount to be determined herein, including post-judgment and

pre-judgment interest;

d. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class punitive damages;

e. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class their costs and attorneys fees,

including expert witness fees; and,

f.

Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class such other relief as is just and

proper.

16

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 17 of 21
COUNT IV
RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981 AGAINST DEFENDANT DURHAM TRANSPORTATION
AND DEFENDANT COOLEY ON BEHALF OF NON-AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLAINTIFFS 59. Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class reallege paragraphs 1-43. 60. Defendants Cooley (individually) and Durham (by and through its agent, Cooley), have continuously harassed Goldberg and Hulteen and the Plaintiff class on account of race by creating a racially-hostile work environment for non-Afiican-American employees. Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class to such harassment in violation of Section 1981, 42 U.s.C. §1981. 61. Defendants have engaged in these harassing practices intentionally, with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights. 62. As a result of these unlawful practices, Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other losses. 63. In light of the egregious nature ofthe violations and retaliation against Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class, Defendants' conduct is willful and malicious, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Goldberg and Hulteen respectfully request that this Court: a. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the
class described above, and, if appropriate, authorize proper notice to the class;
17

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 18 of 21
b. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that Defendants have discriminated against Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class in violation of Section 1981;
c. Award Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class compensatory and other damages in an amount to be determined herein, including post-judgment and pre-judgment interest;
d. Award Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class punitive damages; e. Award Goldberg, HUlteen, and the Plaintiff class their costs and attorneys
fees, including expert witness fees; and, f. Award Goldberg, Hulteen, and the Plaintiff class such other relief as is just
and proper. COUNT V
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS GOLDBERG, HULTEEN, GENTILE, AND JILES
AGAINST DURHAM TRANSPORTATION 64. Goldberg, Gentile, HUlteen, and Jiles reallege paragraphs 1-12, 16-25, and 27-43. 65. On November 7, 2001, Goldberg'filed a charge of discrimination against Durham with the EEOC Chicago office for racial discrimination in employment. On November 14,2001, Jiles and Gentile filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC's Chicago office for retaliation in supporting Goldberg's attempts to redress his grievances. 66. In January 2002, Hulteen filed a charge of discrimination against Durham with the EEOC's Chicago office for racial discrimination in employment.
18

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 19 of 21
67. Prior to Cooley's arrival at Durham's Skokie base, Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles received satisfactory work perfonnance evaluations from supervisors and peers.
68. In retaliation for his filing an EEOC charge, Goldberg was tenninated on November 8, 2002.
69. Goldberg filed a second EEOC charge alleging retaliation on November 14, 2001. 70. In retaliation for filing an EEOC charge, Gentile received sharply reduced numbers of bus routes and charters after November 14,2001. Gentile was tenninated by Defendants on December 6, 2001. 71. In retaliation for filing an EEOC charge, Jiles was subjected to altered tenns, conditions, and privileges of employment, including decreasing his charters to one per week. 72. Durham was on notice that retaliation charges were pending from other nonAfrican-American drivers when Hulteen filed his EEOC charge alleging racial discrimination. 73. In retaliation for filing an EEOC charge alleging racial discrimination, Hulteen was subjected to altered tenns, conditions, and privileges of employment, including decreasing his charters to one per week. 74. During the period described in this Complaint, Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles were verbally harassed and ridiculed by Durham's agent, Cooley, as well as other Durham staff at the Skokie Base in retaliation for filing EEOC charges. 75. Durham's retaliation against Goldberg, Gentile, Hulteen, and Jiles violates Title VII. Defendant has engaged in these discriminatory practices intentionally, with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights.
19

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 20 of 21
76. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, Plaintiffs have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to: a. Enter a declaratory judgment, finding and declaring that Defendant has discriminated against Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles in violation of Title VII; b. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages, including post-judgment and pre-judgment interest; c. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages; d. Award Plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees, including expert witness fees; and, e. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT VI RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS GOLDBERG, HULTEEN, GENTILE, AND JILES AGAINST DURHAM TRANSPORTATION AND DEFENDANT COOLEY 77. Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles reallege paragraphs 1-12, 16-25, and 27-43. 78. Durham and Cooley's retaliation against Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles
violates Section 1981. Defendants have engaged in these discriminatory practices intentionally, with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' federally-protected rights. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, Plaintiffs have suffered, in addition to the losses identified below, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other losses.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 37 Filed 04/06/03 Page 21 of 21

WHEREFORE, Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles respectfully request the Court to: a. Enter a declaratory judgment, finding and declaring that Defendants have discriminated against Goldberg, Hulteen, Gentile, and Jiles in violation of Section 1981; b. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages, including post-judgment and pre-judgment interest; c. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages; d. Award Plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees, including expert witness fees; and, e. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as is just and proper. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 5, 2003
Aaron B. Maduff Atty. No. 06226932 Janice M. Pintar MADUFF & MADUFF 36 S. Wabash St. Suite 1415 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 236-8877
Ronald 1. Futterman William W. Thomas FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600

(G:\DA\WPDOCS\Goldberg\Pleading\2ndAmdComplaint.wpd]

21

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IILINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

F I LED

JERROLD GOLDBERG, KENNETH E.

)

HULTEEN, GLENN GENTILE, and WILLIE )

JILES,

)

"AR " 1 M

/.

Tl..\i-n,l...,;J

I1dl?- f)/ ~()OJ

)

Plaintiffs,

)

auK,MI8HAEL W. DOBBINS
ij,§, HlIff'fl/'.it e'aIfRT

) No. 02 C 1125

v.

)

) Judge Milton I. Shadur

DURHAM TRANSPORTATION d/b/a

)

DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, A

)

SUBSIDIARY OF NATIONAL EXPRESS )

GROUP; and MADELINE COOLEY,

)

individually,

)

)

Defendants.

)

PARTIES' JOINT MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The parties, by their attorneys, submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their joint

Motion For Final Approval of Settlement of Class Action Settlement:

I. BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION

This class action was brought by a class of former and current non-African American

employees of Defendant Durham Transportation ("Durham"), alleging that Durham and the

supervisor of Durham's Skokie Base, Madeline Cooley ("Cooley"), discriminated against non-

African American drivers in the distribution of routes, charters, and extra work assignments

during Ms. Cooley's tenure at the Skokie Base, from about June 2001 through the Skokie Base's

closure in July 2002. Named Plaintiffs Jerrold Goldberg and Kenneth Hulteen brought

discrimination and racial harassment class claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42

U.S.c. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), Pub. L. No.

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 2 of 9
102-166, and 42 U.S.c. §1981. Named Plaintiffs Goldberg and Hulteen also brought individual retaliation claims under both Title VII and 42 U.S.c. §198\, as did individual Plaintiffs Glenn Genti Ie and Willie Jiles.
On April 8, 2003, this Court certified a Class consisting of all non-African American bus drivers who worked out of Durham's Skokie base between July 2001 and June 2002 who received fewer routes, or fewer charters, and/or fewer extra work assignments because of Durham and Cooley's allegedly discriminatory policies and actions.
On April 29, 2003, this Court directed that Class Counsel send a class notice to Class members. On May 5, 2003, this notice was sent. There were 7 opt-outs; 31 individuals remain in the certified Class. This Court preliminarily approved the settlement on January 7,2005.
II. DISCOVERY EFFORTS The parties have conducted extensive discovery, including written interrogatories, document requests, and depositions of approximately 20 Class members. As the Court is well aware, this has been an exceptionally hard-fought and contentious case. There have been numerous motions to compel filed by both sides. In early 2004, Durham provided paper copies of payroll record data, which Plaintiffs' counsel thoroughly analyzed and investigated. Class Counsel also had numerous meetings and discussions with the named Plaintiffs concerning the class claims and defenses. III. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS The parties began exploring the possibility of settlement in early 2004. After exploring the possibility of settlement without making any progress, the parties agreed to enter into formal mediation in the hope of reaching an agreement. To this end, the parties jointly retained Lisa
2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 3 of 9
Salkovitz Kohn, a private mediator formerly with JAMS with extensive experience in mediating class employment discrimination cases.
The mediation began on October 12 at 9 AM, and lasted until 9 PM that evening. The Class was represented in the mediation by Class Counsel and by all named and indi vidual Plaintiffs. Extensive negotiations during the mediation led to the preliminarily-approved Settlement Agreement, whereby Durham will pay $192,000. For reasons which will be explained further below, all parties believe that the Amended Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the certified Class. A. Summary of the Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement provides that Durham will pay $192,000, broken down as follows: $25,000 for the Class, $40,000 to Jerrold Goldberg in settlement of his individual retaliation claims, $15,000 to Kenneth Hulteen in settlement of his individual retaliation claims, $10,000 apiece to Willie Jiles and Glenn Gentile in settlement of their individual retaliation claims, and $92,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel for fees and costs I. Named and individual Plaintiffs' retaliation claims were not shared by the Class. B. The Balance of the Relevant Factors Demonstrates That The Settlement Is Fair,
Reasonable, Adequate, and in the Best Interest of the Class In determining whether to approve a class action settlement, this Court must determine whether the compromise, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate. [shy v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191,1196 (7lh Cir. 1996). To make this determination, the Court should consider a variety of factors, including (1) the strength of the plaintiffs case, as balanced against the amount I At the time of settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel's lodestar was approximately $180,000.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 4 of 9
offered in settlement; (2) the defendant's ability to pay, (3) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of further litigation; (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement; (5) the presence of collusion in reaching the settlement; and, (6) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of the discovery completed. EEOC v. Hiram Walker & Sons. Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985). C. The Strength of the Plaintiffs' Case, As Compared With The Amounts Offered By
Durham In Settlement The Class Complaint sets forth two theories of race discrimination: (I) intentional discrimination in distribution of extra work assignments, charters, and routes; and (2) racial harassment. Plaintiffs' counsel obtained through discovery anecdotal evidence of racial harassment of Class members, but in their opinion, this anecdotal evidence might not, at the point in time at which discovery was suspended, have been strong enough to withstand a summary judgment motion on the Class-based harassment complaints. Plaintiffs' counsel also believe that there are other difficulties that might be encountered in establishing liability. For example, once Plaintiffs' counsel received the raw payroll record data in paper form, they began to collate that data with an eye toward creating an analyzable database; however, Plaintiffs' counsel estimated that this endeavor, while potentially fruitful, could take several months to complete. Plaintiffs' counsel analyzed the summary payroll record data provided by Durham, and believed that their estimate of Class wide damages (approximately $80,000) was reasonable. However, because Defendants contended that there were many variables not accounted for by Plaintiffs in their analysis, Plaintiffs recognized that their analysis was subject to attack in a number of ways. During the settlement negotiations, Durham provided more specifics
4

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 5 of 9
concerning its challenge to Plaintiffs' interpretation of the payroll records. According to Defendants, when said variables were included, the discrimination in pay based on extra work assignments, routes, and charters for the Class was between $6,000 and $17,000, depending on the mechanism one used to calculate the difference. Of course, Plaintiffs would have vigorously responded to these arguments, but there was a significant risk that a factfinder might acept Defendant's range of damages.
In short, the Class claims depended substantially on analysis of not only payroll records, but also independent variables, not necessarily reflected in the data. Thus, Plaintiffs accepted slightly more than 30 percent of their home-run damage number - a reasonable compromise under the circumstances. D. Comparison of Benefits of Settlement to Uncertain Results at Trial
A trial on the merits would have required a substantial expenditure of resources by all parties, with an uncertain result. Given the contentious history of this litigation, an appeal by the losing party was very likely.
Plaintiffs' initial assessment of Durham's summary payroll record data indicated that the potential Class recovery appeared to be substantially less than Plaintiffs initially anticipated. It appeared that the two named Class representatives had suffered disproportionately greater losses than most Class members in terms of losing routes, extra work assignments, and charter assignments during Ms. Cooley's tenure at the Skokie Base. Therefore, this was a prototypical class case: each Class member suffered damages in an amount that is too small to justify the cost of individual litigation, but still large enough to be significant to each employee. The Settlement Agreement provides Class members with substantial monetary relief. The Settlement is a fair
5

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 6 of 9
compromise which addresses the strengths and weaknesses of both sides' positions. E. Durham's Ability To Pay
This does not appear to be a factor in this case. F. Complexity, Length, and Expense of Further Litigation
Absent the Settlement Agreement, further litigation would have been expensive and complex. At the time settlement negotiations were instigated, there were remaining to be taken approximately 10 non-named Class member depositions, depositions of the named Class representatives and the two non-Class individual Plaintiffs, as well as approximately ten depositions of Durham officials, including a 30(b)(6) deposition (in relation to which Plaintiffs were preparing an extensive Motion to Compel after lengthy negotiations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37), probable additional written discovery, along with potential expert discovery. Should an expert have been employed, the parties would probably have exchanged the reports of their respective analyses of the payroll data, and then conducted expert depositions. This phase of litigation would also have been expensive and would have triggered motions to compel. Durham would probably have filed a motion for summary judgment as to payroll record data. If the case survived such a motion, a trial would have lasted probably at least two weeks, and appeal would have likely followed. G. Amount of Opposition to the SettlementlReaction of Class
On January 7,2005, this Court approved the parties' Joint Motion Requesting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Court's Order, Durham mailed Notice of the Settlement Hearing to all Class members. The Notice contained instructions for filing a written objection to the proposed settlement, setting a deadline of March 9, 2005 for
6

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 7 of 9
filing such objections. On information and belief, no such objections have been filed. If objections surface between now and the Fairness Hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., they will be addressed at the Hearing. H. Presence of Collusion
There is no suggestion in the record or from any person that the parties colluded in reaching this Settlement.
The employment of a professional mediator virtually assures the absence of collusion. Even during the lengthy mediation, the parties' respecti ve counsel conducted their negotiations separately from each other, with the mediator shuttling between them.
Moreover, the Court is aware of the exceptionally contentious nature of this litigation. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was hotly contested, and briefing over that as well as the taking of all Class members' depositions lasted several months. Plaintiffs received the summary payroll record data from Durham only after filing and winning motions to compel.
Ultimately, the parties required the assistance of a professional mediator to help them resolve this case. 1. Opinion of Competent Counsel
The Court is entitled to give consideration to the opinion of competent counsel as to the strength of their own case. [sby, 75 F.2d at 1200. Class Counsel Futterman & Howard, Chartered, has litigated numerous class cases and are well equipped to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present one. Like any settlement, this settlement required concessions by both sides which were necessary to finally resolve the case. Class Counsel firmly believes that this Settlement is in the best interests of the Class.
7

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 8 of 9
J. Stage of the Proceedings and Amount of Discovery Conducted
This Settlement Agreement was reached after more than a year of class and merits discovery, including document review, interrogatories, and eventually the production of payroll data. This factor heavily favors settlement. IV. CONCLUSION
The Settlement Agreement offers substantial relief to the Class for Durham's alleged discrimination, while also offering a prompt resolution to the case. There was a risk, of course, as there always is, that no Class member would have received any relief if the case had gone to trial. On balance, the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class.
8

- - - - - - _ . __.-
Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 103 Filed 03/21/05 Page 9 of 9

Dated this 21st day of March, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,
~----

~$.~~
Attorney for Defendants

MADUFF, MEDINA & MADUFF Aaron Maduff I East Wacker Drive, Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 276-9000 (312) 276-900 I - fax
FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHARTERED Ronald L. Futterman William W. Thomas 122 S. Michigan Avenue, #1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600 (312) 427-1850 - fax

MCMAHON, BERGER, HANNA, UNIHAN, CODY & MCCARTHY James N. Foster, Jr. Geoffrey M. Gilbert Robert D. Younger 2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 (314) 567-7350 (314) 567-5968 - fax
Attorneys for Defendants Durham Transportation and Madeline Cooley

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

G:\DA\Wf'])OCS\G"klh"rj!\Pk~ding\ll"'1l\ ill ,,,pt "rtlnal.'cnkllltl1l WORD,doc

9

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JERROLD GOLDBERG, KENNETH E.

)

HULTEEN, GLENN GENTILE, and

)

WILLIE JILES,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DURHAM TRANSPORTATION d/b/a/

)

DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES,

)

A SUBSIDIARY OF NATIONAL EXPRESS )

GROUP; and MADELINE COOLEY,

)

INDIVIDUALLY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 02 C 1125 Judge Milton I. Shadur Magistrate JUdge Nolan

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action have alleged that Defendants Durham

Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services ("Durham") and Madeline Cooley ("Cooley")

engaged in unlawful discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. ("Title VII"), in their assignment of charters,

routes and extra work to non-Afiican-American employees employed at Durham's Skokie,

Illinois base between July 2001 and June 2002. Defendants Durham and Cooley have denied

Plaintiffs' allegations and affirmatively allege that no discrimination or harassment occurred.

After substantial discovery, the parties participated in a mediation for the purpose of

attempting to settle their disputes. The mediation was successful. Plaintiffs and Defendants

have agreed to a proposed Settlement Agreement as a full settlement of those disputes and this

legal action. On November 6, 2004, the parties jointly filed a motion seeking Court approval of

the proposed Settlement Agreement.

116929.1

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 2 of 14
The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied this Court's Order with respect to mailing the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Notice of Fairness Hearing to all Class Members in a timely manner. The Court further finds that the Class Members have been provided due and sufficient notice of the Proposed Settlement and the Fairness Hearing as required by due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court notes that no objections to the Proposed Settlement have been filed with the Court as of the date of this Order.
A hearing on the parties' Joint Motion seeking Court approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement was conducted by the Court on December 8, 2004. During said hearing the Court instructed the parties to make various changes to the Proposed Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Notice of Fairness Hearing.
On December 23, 2004, the parties filed their Amended Settlement Agreement and Amended Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Notice of Fairness Hearing with the Court. The amended documents accurately incorporated the changes mandated by the Court on December 8, 2004. A copy of the Amended Settlement Agreement as filed is attached to the Parties' Joint Motion as Exhibit 1.
Following review of the entire record in this matter and a hearing on the parties' Joint Motion seeking Court approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement on January 7, 2005, the Court issued its Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement. Within said Order, the Court set deadlines for: (1) mailing the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Notice of Fairness Hearing, as amended on December 23, 2004; and (2) filing objections and responses thereto; and scheduled the Fairness Hearing for March 23, 2005.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 3 of 14
Solely for purposes of the settlement, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed that the settlement of this case should proceed as a Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) class action, as described below, so that this settlement will constitute a final and complete adjudication of the parties' and the Class Members' rights, liabilities, and obligations as set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement, as amended on December 23, 2004.
BASED ON THE ABOVE STIPULATIONS, STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
The parties have conditionally agreed to a proposed Settlement Agreement. It appears to the Court that the proposed Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive arm's-length negotiations between the parties after lengthy and extensive litigation, including very substantial formal and informal discovery and other exchanges of information and discussions. After reviewing the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, in the context of the record in this action and the controlling legal authority, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is sufficiently reasonable, adequate and fair, and consistent with relevant federal and state law. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
I. The proposed Settlement Agreement and the settlement it embodies are hereby FINALLY APPROVED.
2. The Class has been certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). No opt outs shall be allowed from the portions of the Settlement Agreement providing such equitable and declaratory relief. For the purposes of the Settlement Agreement and the monetary relief it provides, the Class has been certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
3

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 4 of 14
23(b)(3) and consists of: all non-African-American bus drivers who worked out of Durham's Skokie base between July 2001 and June 2002 who received fewer routes, or fewer charters, and/or fewer extra work assignments because of Durham and Cooley's, allegedly discriminatory policies and actions, except for those persons who have previously opted out.
3. Should any reviewing court on direct appeal and/or on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States from a direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refuse to approve the Settlement Agreement or require modifications to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and void, inadmissible and unusable in any future proceeding and the Settlement Agreement shall not be considered binding, unless Plaintiffs and Defendants each expressly and voluntarily approve, in writing, to any such modification by this Court or the reviewing court.
4. Should the Settlement Agreement be voided pursuant to its terms, or should the Settlement Agreement for any other reason be terminated, fail to become effective in accordance with its terms, or otherwise not consummated, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and void, inadmissible and unusable in any future proceeding and the Settlement Agreement shall not be considered binding.
5. Settlement Procedures. a. Defendant Durham shall maintain the Settlement Fund for payment of
claims of each Class Member who submits timely and properly completed Claim and Release forms.
b. Defendant Durham, not less than thirty-one (31) days or more than fortyone (41) days following the issuance of this Order, shall prepare and mail to each Class Member, at their last known address, a Class Member Packet containing the following: (l) Class Member
4

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 5 of 14

Proof of Claim Form (attached hereto as Attachment #1); (2) Class Member Agreement and

Release (attached hereto as Attachment #2); (3) Notice of Instructions to Class Members

(attached hereto as Attachment #3); and (4) a postage prepaid return envelope addressed to

Robert D. Younger, McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody & McCarthy, 2730 N. Ballas

Road, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63131. Defendant Durham shall file with this Court and serve

all parties with the appropriate Certification of Mailing said Class Member Packet.

c. Each Class Member shall have up to and including May 3, 2006, in which

to return properly completed Class Member Proof of Claim and Class Member Agreement and

Release forms.

d. Durham shall mail a settlement check to each individual Class Member

who submits a timely and properly completed Class Member Proof of Claim form and a timely

and properly completed Class Member Agreement and Release form within ten (10) days of

receipt of said forms.

e. All unclaimed Funds remaining in the Settlement Fund as of May 16,

2006, shall be donated by Defendant Durham as a charitable contribution to Special Olympics no

later than June 16, 2006. Certification of any such charitable donation shall be filed with this

Court and served on all parties by Defendant Durham.

f.

On or before January 23, 2006, Defendant Durham shall serve on

Plaintiffs' attorneys the information detailed within ~ 26 of the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs' attorneys shall have until February 2, 2006, to request, in writing, that a second Class

Member Packet be sent to each Class Member who has not received a settlement check.

Defendant Durham shall, if requested, mail second Class Member Packets on or before February

15,2006.

5

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 6 of 14

g. Defendant Durham shall make all other payments required by the

Settlement Agreement in a timely manner.

h. Defendant Durham shall pay the costs, if any, of administering the

Settlement Fund, of mailing Class Member Packets and settlement checks necessary to

accomplish full compliance with this Order.

6. It shall be the sole responsibility of each Class Member to notify Class Counsel if

the Class Member changes his or her address. Failure of a Class Member to keep Class Counsel

informed of his or her address may result in his or her request for monetary payment being

denied.

7. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of Plaintiffs' cause of action during the

duration of the implementation of the terms of this Order and the Settlement Agreement in its

entirety solely for the purpose of entering all orders necessary to implement the relief provided

herein and within the Settlement Agreement.

8. Should anyone challenge this Order through appeal or otherwise, all deadlines and

times set forth herein as well as within the Settlement Agreement shall be tolled and shall not

begin to run until the challenge is complete.

9. Pursuant to Rule 41 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all of Plaintiffs' claims,

individual as well as class claims, are hereby dismissed with prejudice each party to bear its own

costs. Attorney fees will be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

n - SO ORDERED, in Chicago, Illinois this

day of March, 2005.

~~~/

Copies to Counsel of Record

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MILTON 1. SHADUR

GIDAIWPDOCS\Goldberg\PleadingIOrder granting final settlement approval DOC

6

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 7 of 14
Attachment 1

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 8 of 14

CLASS MEMBER PROOF OF CLAIM FORM

Comes now _c[n..,am=e"'lL--

, being duly sworn and upon his/her oath, states as

follows:

1. My name is _u[n"'am"-'"-'e!J.l

_

2. My current address is _ _----l.["'ad"'d""r-"es""s!J.l

_

3. I am over the age of 18 and competent to provide the information herein.

4. I am not an African-American.

5. I was employed by Durham Transportation asa bus driver at its Skokie, Illinois

base for some portion of the time period between July 2001 through June 2002.

6. I received the Notice informing me of the class action lawsuit styled Jerrold

Goldberg, et al. v. Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services, et al., Case No. 02 C

1125, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, on or about May 6,2003.

7. I was aware of my right to request that I be excluded from the class and

voluntarily chose to remain in the class.

8. I contend that between July 2001 and June 2002, I received fewer routes, or fewer

charters, and/or fewer extra work assignments (or a combination of those things) because of

Durham and Cooley's allegedly discriminatory policies and actions.

9. I will execute the Class Member Agreement and Release form and I am making a

claim for a portion of the Settlement Fund.

110129.1

ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 9 of 14
I HEREBY SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.

Date

Signature

THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED TO:
Durham School Services c/o McMahou, Berger, Hanna,
Linihan, Cody & McCarthy 2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63131
PRlOR TO [one year from mailin!:) ,2005.
THE SUBMISSION OF LATE FORMS WILL VOID YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR PAYMENT.

ATTACHMENT 1

2

110129.1

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 10 of 14
Attachment 2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 11 of 14

CLASS MEMBER AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

THIS AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ("Agreement") is made and entered into this __

day of

, 200_, by and between

, an individual, on behalf of

herseWhimself, herlhis heirs, successors, assigns, agents, and attorneys (collectively referred to

herein as "Releasor") and Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services, a subsidiary of

National Express Group, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parent or related corporations ("Durham")

and Madeline Cooley ("Cooley") (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants").

WHEREAS, there is presently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, styled Jerrold Goldberg, et ai. v. Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services, et ai., Case No. 02 C 1125;

WHEREAS it is the desire of the parties, among other things, to resolve all claims encompassed in the above-entitled litigation, as well as any and all claims which have been brought or which might have been brought by Releasor.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and the sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. CONSIDERATION.

A. In consideration for this Release, Durham shall pay to Releasor eight hundred six dollars and forty-six cents ($806.46) from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the "Settlement Agreement."

B. In consideration for this Release, Releasor agrees to provide and Durham and Cooley will accept the forbearance defined in Paragraph 2 below.

2. RELEASE. For and in consideration of the foregoing, Releasor does hereby and forever release, acquit, discharge, and hold harmless Durham, together with its past and present officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives, subsidiaries, divisions, successors, assigns, affiliated, related and/or parent corporations, and all past and present officers, directors, agents, shareholders, employees and representatives of each such affiliated, related or parent corporation, and Cooley from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of employment with Durham which are asserted or that could be asserted in the above cause of action, whether known or unknown, which allegedly occurred at any time in the past up to and including the date of execution of this Agreement.

3. CONFIDENTIALITY. Releasor is required to maintain confidentiality of the amount of the sum awarded. Such information may always be provided to Releasor's attorney, tax or financial advisor or members of Releasor's immediate family.

4. NO ADMISSION. Releasor acknowledges that the payment by Durham of the consideration is a settlement of a disputed claim; that neither the payment thereof, nor the

110130. 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 12 of 14

settlement of the Complaint is to be taken nor construed as an admission of guilt or liability on the part of Durham or Cooley or responsibility for alleged wrongdoing of any kind; and that Durham and Cooley deny all liability to Releasor for any claims which he or she may have asserted.
5. FULL AGREEMENT. This Agreement (combined with the Settlement Agreement entered by the parties in the Complaint) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matters hereof and supersedes and replaces any and all other understandings, obligations, representations and/or agreements, whether written or oral, express or implied, between the parties. Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms may be amended, modified or waived except in writing duly executed by the parties hereto.
6. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Illinois.
7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and wherever there is any conflict between any provision of this Agreement and any present or future statute, law, governmental regulation or ordinance contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail, but in such event, the affected provisions of this Agreement shall be curtailed and restricted only to the extent necessary to bring them within legal requirements.
8. REVIEW BY COUNSEL. RELEASOR HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT HE OR SHE HAS READ THIS AGREEMENT; HAS REVIEWED IT WITH COUNSEL OR HAS ELECTED VOLUNTARILY NOT TO DO SO, HAS HAD A REASONABLE PERIOD FOR DELIBERATION AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS AND KNOWlNGLY ACCEPTS ALL OF ITS TERMS.

Name

Date

THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED TO:

Durham School Services c/o McMahon, Berger, Hanna,
Linihan, Cody & McCarthy 2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63131

PRIOR TO

, 200_.

THE SUBMISSION OF LATE FORMS WILL VOID YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR PAYMENT.

ATTACHMENT 2

110130. I

2

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 13 of 14
Attachment 3

Case 1:02-cv-01125 Document 106 Filed 03/23/05 Page 14 of 14
NOTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS The United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Milton I. Shadur, has approved the Class Action Settlement Agreement reached in the matter of Goldberg, et al. v. Durham Transportation d/b/a Durham School Services, et al., Case No. 02 C 1125. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement you are being provided the following documents: I. Class Member Proof of Claim form; and 2. Class Member Agreement and Release form. If you desire to receive your portion of the class action settlement funds, you must complete and return both forms no later than May 3, 2006. Your fully completed forms must be received by Robert D. Younger, McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody & McCarthy, 2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63131, on or before May 3, 2006. A postage paid envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Failure to submit these fully completed forms in a timely manner will void your opportunity for payment. Any questions should be directed to: Class Counsel Aaron B. Maduff, Maduff & Maduff, I E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2122, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 276-9000; or William W. Thomas, Futterman & Howard, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 427-3600.

116939.1

DO NOT DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT ATTACHMENT 3

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 1 of 11
NOLAN
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−01125

Goldberg, et al v. Durham Trans, et al Assigned to: Honorable Milton I. Shadur Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/15/2002 Date Terminated: 03/23/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jerold Goldberg

represented by Aaron Benjamin Maduff Maduff &Maduff, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2050 Chicago, IL 60601 (312)276−9000 Email: docketclerk@madufflaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deanne Snedeker Medina Medina Law 171 S. Oak Park Ave. Oak Park, IL 60302 708−528−1518 Fax: 708−434−0391 Email: dmedina@medinalawonline.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janice M Pintar Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne &Cordes, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue 1705 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412−281−8400 Fax: 412−281−1007 Email: jpintar@stemberfeinstein.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Lee Maduff Maduff &Maduff LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue #2050 Chicago, IL 60601 (312)276−9000 Email: mlmaduff@madufflaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Futterman Futterman Howard Ashley Watkins &Weltman, P.C. 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427−3600 Email: rfutterman@futtermanhoward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William W Thomas Futterman Howard Ashley Watkins

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 2 of 11

&Weltman, P.C. 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427−3600 Email: wthomas@futtermanhoward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Glenn Gentile

represented by Aaron Benjamin Maduff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deanne Snedeker Medina (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janice M Pintar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Lee Maduff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Futterman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William W Thomas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willie Jiles

represented by Aaron Benjamin Maduff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deanne Snedeker Medina (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janice M Pintar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Lee Maduff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Futterman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William W Thomas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth E Hulteen

represented by Michael Lee Maduff (See above for address)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 3 of 11 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Durham Transportaion doing business as Durham School Services

represented by Beau C. Sefton The Kroger Company Law Department 1014 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202−1100 (513) 762−4431 Email: beau.sefton@kroger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey M Gilbert , Jr McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody &McCarthy 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131−3039 (314) 567−7350 Email: gilbert@mcmahonberger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory A Shoemaker McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody &McCarthy 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131−3039 (314) 567−7350 TERMINATED: 06/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N Foster , Jr McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody &McCarthy 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131−3039 (314) 567−7350
John F. Kuenstler Barnes &Thornburg LLP One North Wacker Drive Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 338−5924 Fax: (312) 759−5646 Email: jkuenstler@btlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle M Cain McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody &McCarthy 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131−3039 (314) 567−7350
Robert D. Younger McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody &McCarthy 2730 North Ballas Road

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 4 of 11

Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131−3039 (314) 567−7350 Email: younger@mcmahonberger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Madeline Cooley individually

represented by Geoffrey M Gilbert , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beau C. Sefton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory A Shoemaker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N Foster , Jr (See above for address)

John F. Kuenstler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle M Cain (See above for address)

Date Filed 02/15/2002
02/15/2002 02/22/2002 03/07/2002 03/07/2002 03/12/2002
04/05/2002 04/08/2002 04/08/2002

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Deanne Snedeker Medina, Aaron Benjamin Maduff as attorney(s) for plaintiff (Original and one copy summons(es) issued.) (Documents: (1−1 through 1−3)). (ntf) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 2/15/02 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 107929. (ntf) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Madeline Cooley on 2/19/02. (vmj) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Madeline Cooley by Geoffrey M Gilbert Jr, James N Foster Jr, John F. Kuenstler. (vmj) (Entered: 03/08/2002)
4 MOTION by defendant Madeline Cooley for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 3/12/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow: Agreed motion of defendant Madeline Cooley for an extension of time to 4/8/02 to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint is granted [4−1]. Telephoned notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
8 REASSIGNMENT ORDER of 4/5/02 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Milton I. Shadur pursuant to IOP 13F1. (For further detail see order) Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
6 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Madeline Cooley by Beau C. Sefton. (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
7 ANSWER by defendant Madeline Cooley to complaint [1−1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 5 of 11

04/08/2002 04/10/2002 04/15/2002 04/15/2002
04/25/2002 04/29/2002 04/29/2002 05/20/2002 05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/12/2002 06/13/2002 06/19/2002 06/21/2002 08/14/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/16/2002 11/06/2002 11/07/2002

SUMMONS and one copy issued as to Durham School Services (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 4/10/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing set to 9:00 5/15/02 . Mailed notice (srn) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Durham Trans on 4/8/02. (vmj) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
10 MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: No charge is to be imposed on Cooley for the added time and any expense involved in counsel's preparation and submission of a self−contained Amended Answer (which must be done on or before 4/25/02) and Cooley's counsel shall send her both a copy of this memorandum order and a letter confirming that no charge will be made, with a copy of that letter to be transmitted to this court (for informational purposes and not for filing). (Entered Memorandum Order) Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
11 AMENDED ANSWER by Defendant Madeline Cooley to plaintiffs' complaint [7−1]; Notice. (tlm) (Entered: 05/12/2002)
12 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant Madeline Cooley by Geoffrey M. Gilbert; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
13 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant Madeline Cooley by James N. Foster, Jr.; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 5/20/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing set to 9:00 6/12/02 . Mailed notice (srn) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
14 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Durham Trans by John F. Kuenstler, Beau C. Sefton. (vmj) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
15 ANSWER and defenses by defendant Mierhofer, Inc. d/b/a Durham Trans to plaintiff's complaint [1−1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 6/12/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing reset to 9:00 6/21/02 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
16 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Durham Trans by Geoffrey M Gilbert Jr, James N Foster Jr. (vmj) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
17 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant Durham Trans by Geoffrey M. Gilber, James N. Foster; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 6/21/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 9:00 8/14/02 . No notice (srn) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 8/14/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 9:00 10/16/02 . No notice (srn) (Entered: 08/14/2002)
18 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs' by Ronald L. Futterman, William W Thomas. (vmj) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
19 AMENDED CLASS COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff; adding Kenneth E Hulteen; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
20 MINUTE ORDER of 10/16/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held and continued to 11/13/02. at 9:00 a.m. Simultaneous filings under Rule 23(a)(b) are to be filed on or before 11/6/02. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
21 CROSS−filing under Fed.R.Civ.P.23 in support of maintaining action as a class action (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
22 MOTION by defendants' for leave to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/15/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 6 of 11

11/08/2002 11/13/2002
11/14/2002 11/25/2002 01/22/2003 02/06/2003 03/03/2003
03/19/2003 03/20/2003
04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/05/2003 04/06/2003 04/07/2003 04/08/2003
04/17/2003 04/18/2003

23 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file a reply brief and take discovery or, in the alternative, to strike affidavits; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
24 MINUTE ORDER of 11/13/02 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held and continued to 1/16/03 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants' motion for leave to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages is denied [22−1]. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Defendants' responsive pleading is due on or before 11/25/02. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a reply brief and take discovery or, in the alternative, to strike affidavits is denied as moot [23−1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
25 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs' Jerold Goldberg, Glenn Gentile, Willie Jiles by Janice M Pintar. (vmj) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
26 ANSWER to plaintiffs' amended class complaint by defendants [19−1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 1/22/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing reset to 9:00 2/6/03 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
27 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held and continued to 3/10/03 at 8:45 a.m. Cross filings regarding class actions under Rule 23 are to be filed on or before 3/6/03. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
28 MINUTE ORDER of 3/3/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: On joint oral motion the cross filings are to be submitted on or before 3/20/03. The 3/10/03 status date is vacated and reset to 3/24/03 at 8:45 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
29 UNCONTESTED MOTION by defendants Durham School Services and Madeline Cooley to continue the pending briefing schedule and scheduled status hearing ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
30 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Defendants Durham School Services and Madeline Cooley's motion to continue the pending briefing schedule and scheduled status hearing is granted [29−1]. Defendants' cross filings are due 4/3/03 and the status hearing of 3/24/03 is reset to 4/8/03 at 8:45 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
31 CROSSFILING under FED.R.CIV.P.23 by plaintiffs' in support of maintaining action as a class action (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/04/2003)
32 MOTION by defendants Durham Trans, Madeline Cooley for leave to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
34 MEMORANDUM of law by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
35 MOTION by plaintiff to file second amended complaint ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
37 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [19−1] by plaintiffs'. (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
33 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Defendants motion for leave to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages is granted [32−1]. Telephoned notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
36 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held and continued to 6/16/03 at 8:45 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint is granted [35−1]. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted [31−1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
38 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Durham Trans, Madeline Cooley by Gregory A. Shoemaker, Michelle M Cain (vmj) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
39 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for Durham Trans, Madeline Cooley by Michelle M. Cain; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 04/21/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 7 of 11

04/18/2003 04/18/2003 04/18/2003
04/21/2003 04/23/2003 04/23/2003 04/24/2003 04/28/2003 04/29/2003
05/05/2003 05/05/2003 05/08/2003
05/14/2003
06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003

40 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for Durham Trans, Madeline Cooley by Gregory A. SHoemaker; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
41 EMERGENCY MOTION by plaintiffs to quash 38 subpoenas for depositions of class members and prohibit defendants from contacting class members until class notice opt−out period ends (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
42 MINUTE ORDER of 4/18/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Plaintiff's emergency motion to quash 38 subpoenas for depositions of class members and prohibit defendants from contacting class members until class notice opt−out period ends [41−1] is entered and continued generally. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
43 MOTION by plaintiffs for approval of class notice (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
44 OBJECTIONS by defendants to the proposed class notice [43−1] (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
45 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendants' objections [44−1] to the proposed class notice (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
46 MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Plaintiffs' motion for approval of class notice is granted as modified by this court's oral instructions [43−1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
47 NOTICE of filing of attached Final Agreed Proposed Class Notice, Draft Order by plaintiffs. (vmj) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
48 MINUTE ORDER of 4/29/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: On 4/8/03, this court certified the case as a class action. This court now orders that the proposed class notice shall be issued to all potential class members by plaintiffs' counsel. The "opt−out" period for the class shall be fifty−six days from the date of actual mailing to the class. (Entered Order) Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
49 ANSWER and defenses by defendants to plaintiff's second amended class complaint [37−1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
50 AFFIDAVIT of mailing of class notice by William W. Thomas (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
51 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Plaintiff's motion to quash 38 subpoenas for depositions of class members and prohibit defendants from contacting class members during the opt−out period is granted [41−1]unless prior permission is obtained from this Court. Mailed notice (amb) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
52 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Accordingly, all of the Ads except of Ad 3 are stricken. If defendants have a good faith basis for seeking to reassert any of those Ads (except for Ad 1 and at least the principal part of Ad 2), defense counsel are granted leave to move for such reassertion via an amendment to the present Answer on or before 5/27/03. [Entered Memorandum Order] Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
53 MOTION by defendants' to compel depositions of class members (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
54 MOTION by defendant to extend the opt−out time period ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
55 MOTION by defendant to clarify court order ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
56 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Michael Lee Maduff. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
57 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to deendants motion to extend the opt−out time period [54−1]. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
58 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendants' motion to clarify court order [55−1] (Attachment). (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 8 of 11

06/04/2003 06/04/2003 06/05/2003
06/16/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003
06/26/2003 07/07/2003 07/10/2003 07/14/2003 08/14/2003 08/25/2003 08/27/2003 10/07/2003 10/17/2003 11/06/2003 12/03/2003 01/30/2004 02/06/2004

59 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendants' motion to compel depositions of class members [53−1]. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
60 NOTICE of filing by plaintiffs regarding response [59−1], response [58−1], response [57−1], attorney appearance [56−1]. (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
61 MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Defendants' motion to clarify court order is denied as moot [55−1] on the grounds that persons who have opted out are not "class members". Defendants' motion to extend is denied [54−1]. Defendants' motion to compel depositions of class members is granted [53−1] as modified by this court's oral ruling. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 6/16/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 8:45 8/14/03 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
62 EMERGENCY MOTION by plaintiffs' to quash depositions of class members (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
63 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: For the reasons stated orally in open court, plaintiffs' motion to quash depositions of class members is granted [62−1]. No further depositions will be taken prior to the scheduled opt−out date of 6/30/03. The court reserves the possibility of reexamining decisions either to opt out or not to opt out based on any subsequent developments that may be brought to this court's attention. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
66 LETTER from Gregory A Shoemaker to court dated 6/26/03. (vmj) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
65 MOTION by intervenor Azim Hanieh to intervene and/or amend complaint instanter (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
64 RESPONSE by defendants' to Azim Hanieh's motion to intervene and/or amend complaint instanter (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
67 MINUTE ORDER of 7/14/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Azim Haneih's motion to intervene is denied on mootness grounds. Haneih's motion to amend complaint is denied without prejudice [65−1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 8/14/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Telephonic Status hearing held. Telephonic Status hearing continued to 8:45 10/14/03 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
68 MOTION by plaintiffs for protective order (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
69 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Plaintiff's motion for protective order is denied [68−1] but subject to the limitation on the deposition as stated by the court's oral ruling. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 10/7/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing reset to 8:45 10/17/03. The OCtober 14 status is vacated . Mailed notice (srn) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 10/17/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Telephonic Status hearing held. Telephonic Status hearing continued to 8:45 12/3/03 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
70 NOTICE by Deanne S Medina of change of address, telephone and fax number and firm name; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 12/3/03 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Telephonic Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 8:45 2/12/04 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
71 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff to change briefing schedule and reschedule status hearing ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
72 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Agreed motion to change briefing schedule [71−1] and to reschedule status hearing [71−2] is granted. Parties have to and including 3/5/04 in which to file cross−motions to compel and

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 9 of 11

02/27/2004 02/27/2004 02/27/2004 03/02/2004 03/03/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
03/19/2004
03/29/2004 04/02/2004 04/23/2004
05/03/2004 05/05/2004

responses. A telephonic status hearing is set for 3/16/04 at 8:45 a.m. The February 12 status date is vacated. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
76 MOTION by defendants to compel ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
77 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel interrogatory responses and the production of documents ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
78 APPENDIX filed by plaintiffs to motion to compel interrogatory responses [77−1] and the production of documents [77−2]. (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
73 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff to change briefing schedule ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
74 MINUTE ORDER of 3/3/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Agreed motion to change briefing schedule is granted [73−1]. Responses to cross−motions to compel are to be filed on or before 3/11/04. The 3/16/04 status hearing is reset to 3/22/04 at 8:45 and will be conducted telephonically. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
79 MEMORANDUM by defendants' in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel interrogatory responses [77−1] and the production of documents [77−2]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
80 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in objection to defendants' motion to compel [79−1] (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
75 REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for discovery motions Mailed notice. (srn) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
81 MINUTE ORDER of 3/16/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Defendants' motion to compel and plaintiffs' motion to compel are referred to Magistrate Judge Nolan. The March 22 status date is vacated unless counsel has other matters to address in this action. If a status hearing is needed on March 22, counsel is expected to notify this court's minute clerk promptly. A further status hearing is set for 4/26/04 at 8:45 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
82 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Oral argument on parties motions to compel [77−1] and [76−1] set for 3/30/04 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Michelle Cain for defendant's to participate by telephone. Courtroom deputy will initiate the call. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 3/29/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Oral argument on parties motions to compel [77−1] and [76−1] is re−set for 4/2/04 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
83 MINUTE ORDER of 4/2/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Motion hearing held. Plaintifs' motion to compel [77−1] and defendants' motion to compel [76−1] are entered and continued. Ruling on motions and status hearing set for 5/4/04 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
84 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: For the reasons stated in the attached order, plaintiffs' motion to compel interrogatory responses [77−1] and the production of documents [77−2] is granted to the extent described in this order. Defendants' motion to compel is denied [76−1] with the exception of documentation concerning class members' alleged damages and their efforts to mitigate damages. Status hearing set before Judge Nolan on 5/4/04 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. All matters related to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Terminating the case referral to Hon. Nan R. Nolan (Entered Order) Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 5/3/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing reset to 8:45 5/5/04 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
85 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held and continued to 7/20/04 at 8:45 a.m. Defendant has to and including 5/26/04 in which to complete the delivery of documents in accordance with Magistrate Judge Nolan's order. The next status hearing will be conductd telephonically with counsel

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 10 of 11

07/16/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004 08/03/2004 08/04/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/13/2004
09/28/2004 10/19/2004
12/05/2004 12/08/2004 12/08/2004 12/23/2004 01/07/2005
01/12/2005

responsible for initiating and placing the conference call to chambers at (312) 435−5766. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/16/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing reset to 8:30 7/21/04 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
86 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to compel compliance with discovery; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/21/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Telephonic Status hearing held. Telephonic Status hearing continued to 8:45 8/23/04 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
87 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Durham Trans by Robert D. Younger. (vmj) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
88 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant Durham School Services by Robert D. Younger; Order entered granting leave by Hon. Milton I. Shadur. (vmj) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
89 REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for settlement conference Mailed notice. (srn) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/10/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Telephonic Status hearing held. Telephonic Status hearing continued to 8:45 10/12/04 . Telephoned notice (srn) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
90 MINUTE ORDER of 9/13/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Status hearing set for 9/28/04 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858 for the purpose of scheduling a settlement conference. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with the enclosed standing order before conducting a settlement conference. Parties are to bring dates when both clients and counsel will be available for a settlement conference, which regularly begin at 1:30 p.m. For further details see attached standing order. Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/28/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 10/19/04 . Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
91 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Status hearing held. Counsel reports that the parties have reached a settlement agreement. All matters related to the referral of this action having been concluded, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Terminating the case referral to Hon. Nan R. Nolan Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
93 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs and defendants in support of motion for preliminary approval of settlement of class action [92−1] (rmm) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
92 JOINT MOTION by parties plaintiffs and defendants requesting preliminary approval of proposed settlement agreement (Attachments); Notice (rmm) Modified on 12/10/2004 (Entered: 12/10/2004)
94 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/04 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Filed parties joint motion requesting preliminary approval of proposed settlement agreement [92−1]. Motion entered and continued generally. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
95 NOTICE of filing of Amended Settlement Agreement and Amended Class Notice by plaintiffs (Attachment). (vmj) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
96 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/05 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Parties joint motion requesting preliminary approval of proposed settlement agreement is granted [92−1]. A Fairness hearing is set for 3/23/05 at 9:30 a.m. (Entered Order) No notice (vmj) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
97 NOTICE of proposed settlement of class action and notice of fairness hearing. (vmj) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-1125 As of: 06/18/2010 02:01 PM CDT 11 of 11

01/20/2005 02/17/2005 03/03/2005 03/18/2005 03/21/2005 03/21/2005 03/21/2005 03/23/2005
03/23/2005 05/06/2005

98 CERTIFICATION by defendant Durham Transportaion of mailing notice of proposed settlement of class action and notice of fairness hearing. (vmj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
99 SECOND certification of mailing notice of proposed settlement of class action and notice of fairness hearing by defendant Durham. (Entered: 02/24/2005)
100 THIRD certification of mailing notice of proposed settlement of class action and notice of fairness hearing by defendant Durham Transportaion (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
101 FOURTH certification of mailing notice of proposed settlement of class action and notice of fairness hearing by Defendant Durham Transportaion (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
102 PARTIES' joint motion requesting final approval of proposed class action settlement agreement (Entered: 03/25/2005)
103 PARTIES' joint memorandum in support of motion requesting final approval of proposed class action settlement agreement 102 (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
104 NOTICE of Motion by all parties regarding {102, 103] (Entered: 03/25/2005)
105 MINUTE entry before Judge Milton I. Shadur : Fairness hearing held. Parties' joint motion requesting final approval of proposed class action settlement agreement is granted. Enter Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The proposed Settlement Agreement and the settlement it embodies are hereby finally approved. The class has been certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Pursuant to Rule 41 Federal Rules of Civil Proedure, all of plaintiffs' claims, individual as well as class claims, are hereby dismissed with prejudice each party to bear its own costs. Attorney fees will be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. No notice (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
106 ORDER granting final approval of class action settlement Signed by Judge Milton I. Shadur on 3/23/2005 (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
107 CERTIFICATION of mailing class member packets by defendant, Durham Transportation (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)