Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPHERlON CORPORATION, Defendant.

§ § § §
04CA 63 2 LY §
~ CivilActionNoA
§ COMPLAINT AND § JURY TRIAL DEMAND § §

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to

Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals who were adversely

affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission")

alleges that Defendant, Spherion Corporation ("Spherion"), discriminated against Ms. Huschka, Mr.

Madigan, and a class ofsimilarly situated individuals in violation ofthe Americans with Disabilities

Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section I07(a) ofthe Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.c. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections

706(t)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-

5(0(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a.

l

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 2 of 6
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency ofthe United States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle I ofthe ADA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(l). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Spherion, has continuously been doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Austin, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant, Spherion, has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.c.§ 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701 (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant, Spherion, has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan filed individual charges with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle Iofthe ADA by Defendant Spherion. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. At all relevant times, Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan have been and are qualified persons with a disability and are covered by Title I ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

Plail1liff's Ongmal Complaint

Page 2

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 3 of 6

9. In or about May 2003, Defendant, Spherion, engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Austin, Texas location, in violation ofTitle I ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.c. §§ 12101 et seq.

These practices include the following:

a. Denial of a reasonable accommodation of a known physical limitation in violation of 42 U.S.c. § 121 12(b)(5)(A);

b. Denial of job opportunities to job applicants based on the need to make a reasonable accommodation to the applicants' physical impairments in violation of 42 U.S.c. § 12112(b)(5)(B); and

c. Failing to hire Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals because of their disability, deafness, in violation of 42 U.S.c. § 12112(a).

10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 9 above has been to deprive

Ms. Huschka, Mr. Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals of equal employment

opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir disability.

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were

intentional.

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were done

with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofDorothea Huschka, Eric

Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Spherion, its officers, successors,

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating against any

qualified employees, because of their disability, by: (1) failing to provide reasonable

accommodations; (2) failing to hire based on the need to make a reasonable accommodation; (3)

Plalil/if} 's Orlgmal Complamt

Page 3

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 4 of 6
failing to hire qualified employees because of their disability; and (4) engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability;
B. Order Defendant, Spherion, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects ofits past and present unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to posting notices regarding its compliance with the ADA;
C. Order Defendant, Spherion, to make whole Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and aclass ofsimilarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring ofDorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and said class of similarly situated individuals, or front pay in lieu thereof;
D. Order Defendant, Spherion, to make whole Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 9, including, but not limited to, relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant, Spherion, to make whole Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and aclass ofsimilarly situated individuals, byproviding compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraph 9 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be detennined at trial;

PlalfltIjJ's Onglflal Complaint

Page 4

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 5 of 6
F. Order Defendant, Spherion, to pay Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, and a class of similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraph 9 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~~q~
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

upervisory Trial Attorney I Texas Bar No. 19708300
Page 5

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 6 of 6
'al Attorney Colorado State Bar No. 033240
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7636 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff's Ongmal Complaint

Page 6

 
 • Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY

Document 24

• Filed 03/18/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. SPHERION CORPORATION,
Defendant; and DOROTHEA HUSCHKA and ERIC MADIGAN,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. SPHERION CORPORATION,
Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-CV -632

§

§

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

§

§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

NOW COME Intervenors, Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan, who ask this Court to order

Defendant, Spherion Corporation, to correct unlawful practices and to grant Intervenors full relief,

as outlined below, for the discrimination they have endured.

Preliminary Statement

1. Intervenors adopt and incorporate in its entirety the Complaint filed by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in the original action above.

2. Intervenors also join claims under Texas law as set forth in more detail, below.

• Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY

Document 24

• Filed 03/18/2005

Page 2 of 5

Jurisdiction 3. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Parties

4. Intervenors Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan are deafresidents ofTexas who are

qualified persons with a disability covered by Title I ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq., and

by the Texas law prohibiting disability-based discrimination in employment, Texas Labor Code § 21.001 et. seq. Both are persons aggrieved within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l), which

is incorporated into the Americans with Disabilities Act at 42 U.S.C. §12117(a).

TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 5. Intervenors reincorporate each ofthe foregoing paragraphs as iffully set forth herein.

6. Within one hundred and eighty days of the discrimination they experienced,

Intervenors dual-filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Austin Human Rights Commission and the

E.E.O.C. alleging violations by Defendant of the Texas law prohibiting disability-based

discrimination in employment. On October 20,2004, the Texas Workforce Commission issued each

a notice of his right to file a civil action. Intervenors filed their Motion to Intervene and Complaint

in Intervention within sixty days of the issuance of these notices. All conditions precedent to the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. At all relevant times, Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan have been and are persons

with disabilities, as defined by § 21.002(6) of the Texas Labor Code, and are therefore protected

from discrimination by Texas Labor Code § 21.001 et. seq.

8. At all relevant times, Spherion Corporation is and has been both an employer and an

employment agency, as defined by §21.002(8) and §21.002(9) of the Texas Labor Code.

Complaint In Intervention

2

• Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 24

• Filed 03/18/2005

Page 3 of 5

9. In or about May 2003, Defendant Spherion engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Austin, Texas location, in violation of Texas Labor Code § 21.001 et. seq. These

practices include the following:

a. Failing to or refusing to hire an individual or discriminating in any other

manner against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms,

conditions, or privileges ofemployment because ofdisability, in violation of

Texas Labor Code § 21.051(1);

b. Limiting, segregating, or classifying an applicant for employment in a manner

that would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of any employment

opportunity or adversely affect in any other manner the status ofan employee

because of disability, in violation of Texas Labor Code § 21.051 (2);

c. Failing to or refusing to refer for employment or discriminating in any other

manner against an individual because of disability, in violation of Texas

Labor Code § 21.052(1);

d. Classifying or referring an individual for employment on the basis of

disability, in violation of Texas Labor Code § 21.052(2);

e. Failing or refusing to make a reasonable workplace accommodation to a

known physical or mental limitation ofan otherwise qualified individual with

a disability who is an applicant for employment, in violation of Texas Labor

Code §21.128;

10. As a direct, proximate, and reasonably foreseeable result ofthese practices, both Ms.

Huschka and Mr. Madigan have suffered damages, and are therefore entitled to the full range of

remedies requested below.

Complaint In Intervention

3

• Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY

Document 24

• Filed 03/18/2005

Page 4 of 5

5. Declare that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Texas state law by discriminating against Intervenors in the ways detailed above;
6. Permanently enjoin Defendant from further acts of disability-based discrimination

that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act andlor the Texas state law

prohibiting disability-based discrimination in employment; 7. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities,

and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

practices;

8. Order that Defendant pay reasonable attorney's fees, all expert witness fees, and all

costs incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action as permitted by

federal and state law; and

9. Order that Defendant pay pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by

law, and such additional and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

By: ____~~____~----------__
State Bar No. 24013780 BRIAN EAST State Bar Number 06360800 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 142-S Austin, Texas 78757 (512) 454-4816 (Phone) (512) 302-4936 (Fax)

Complaint In Intervention

5

• Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY

Document 24

• Filed 03/18/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on this day ofDecember, 2004, I sent a true and correct copy ofthe
foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested to:

Judith G. Taylor, Supervisory Trial Attorney Jennie Randall, Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555

Scott McLaughlin Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 700 Louisianna St., Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002

Complaint In Intervention

6

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 29

.. ., .,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TE~ AUG 18 Pt1 5: 03

AUSTIN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

Plaintiff,

§

' . " '~:. ;':TGG',:fH
" r ':jn{J)(rJ~ 'r {r:. x· r',c;,

BY _ _.,'" ... ,.,_. _\L....

.

r {

§

and

§

§

DOROTHEA HUSCHKA AND

§

ERIC MADIGAN,

§ Civil Action No. A-04-CA-632-LY

§

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

§

§

v.

§

§

SPHERION CORPORATION,

§

§

Defendant.

§

------------------------------§

CONSENT DECREE

The parties to this Consent Decree are the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenors, Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan

("Intervenors"), and Defendant, Spherion Corporation ("Spherion"). This Consent Decree

resolves the allegations raised by the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors in the above-referenced

Civil Action No. A-04-CA-632-LY. This Consent Decree shall apply only to Spherion's

location at 900 East Braker Lane in Austin, Texas ("the Braker Lane facility").

The EEOC initiated this lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to correct

alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability, and to provide appropriate

relief to Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan, who were allegedly adversely affected by such

practices. Dorothea Huschka and Eric Madigan intervened in the lawsuit. The EEOC and

Intervenors alleged that Spherion Corporation discriminated against Ms. Huschka, Mr. Madigan,

and a class of similarly situated individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 2 of 29
by (1) failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during the application process, (2) failing to hire Ms. Huschka and Mr. Madigan based on the need to provide a reasonable accommodation, and (3) failing to hire Ms. Huschka and Mr. Madigan because of their disability, deafness.
Spherion expressly denies the validity of any claim and/or cause of action asserted in Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint and Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint-in-Intervention, and Spherion enters into this Consent Decree for the sole purpose of avoiding the expenses associated with this litigation. Spherion further asserts that by entering into this Consent Decree it makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing and makes no admission that its alleged conduct was improper, discriminatory or illegal in any respect. It is also understood that this Consent Decree does not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits and cannot be used as evidence of liability, res judicata, or collateral estoppel in any other proceeding against Spherion, except for the enforcement of this Consent Decree. IT IS ORDERED, ADmDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties, venue is proper, and all administrative prerequisites to the EEOC's filing of this action have been met. The parties stipulate to the Court's jurisdiction.
2. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the EEOC's Complaint and the Complaint-in-Intervention. The EEOC and Intervenors waive further litigation of all issues raised in the above-referenced complaints. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against Spherion.
Consent Decree 2

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 3 of 29
3. The EEOC agrees not to sue Spherion and/or any and all of its divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates with respect to the specific factual allegations contained in the administrative charges filed by Eric Madigan (Charge No. 36A-A3-00374) and Dorothea Huschka (Charge No. 36A-A3-00373) that provided the basis for this litigation ("the Charges"). The EEOC also agrees not to use the Charges as the jurisdictional basis for filing any other lawsuit against Spherion, and not to initiate a Commissioner's charge of discrimination based upon the Charges. The EEOC agrees to conclude its investigation of the Charges.
4. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of its entry with this Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the period of this Decree and may enter such other and further relief as it deems appropriate to ensure implementation and enforcement of its provisions. In the event that any party to this Consent Decree believes that another party has failed to comply with a provision of this Consent Decree, the parties shall first attempt to resolve their differences by good faith negotiations. To that end, either party shall notify the other party in writing via e-mail and first class mail of the particulars of the dispute, the term or terms of the Consent Decree that are involved, and a suggested resolution of the problem. The recipient of the written communication must respond, in writing, to the proposed solution within ten (10) business days. If the dispute has not been resolved within thirty (30) days of the date that notice of the dispute was provided, the party that believes that the Consent Decree has been violated may move the Court to enforce the Consent Decree.
Any court-determined violation of the Consent Decree by Spherion, its agents or assigns shall toll the running of this two-year period as of the date of the violation.
S. During the term of this Consent Decree, Spherion, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are enjoined from
Consent Decree 3

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 4 of 29
engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability. 6. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree by the trial court and
approval by the bankruptcy court, Spherion, in settlement of this dispute, shall pay the sum total of $78,300.00 (SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS), less all legally required deductions and/or withholdings, to be divided as follows:
a. $54,810.00 to Eric Madigan and Advocacy, Inc .. Payment shall be mailed directly to Mr. Madigan's counsel, Lucy Wood, Advocacy, Incorporated, 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 142-S, Austin, Texas 78757;
b. $23,490.00 to the bankruptcy estate of Dorothea Huschka, divided as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. Payment shall be made to the Bankruptcy Trustee Marsha Milligan.
7. A copy of the settlement checks, and any accompanying transmittal documents shall be forwarded to Robert B. Harwin, Associate Regional Attorney, San Antonio Field Office, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78229.
8. Spherion's present reasonable accommodation policy ("Reasonable Accommodation Policy"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall remain in effect for the duration of this Consent Decree. Spherion shall post and keep posted for the duration of this Consent Decree, in a conspicuous place at its facility at 900 East Braker Lane in Austin, Texas, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Reasonable Accommodation Policy, as modified below in Paragraph 9. Spherion shall provide each employee at the Braker Lane facility, including all newly hired employees, a copy of the Reasonable Accommodation Policy, as modified below in Paragraph 9. Within thirty (30)
Consent Decree 4

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 5 of 29
days of the execution of this Decree, Spherion shall forward to the EEOC a letter indicating that the Reasonable Accommodation Policy, as modified below in Paragraph 9, has been posted and distributed.
9. In addition to maintaining and enforcing the reasonable accommodation policy referenced in Paragraph Eight (8), Spherion will modify its Reasonable Accommodation policy, page 17, number 2, to state as follows:
"Applicants with Hearing Impairments" • "Inquire whether the applicant prefers an interpreter in the application
process, and provide an interpreter if requested by the applicant. If an interpreter is requested, you shall make all reasonable efforts to provide an interpreter to assist in the application process as soon as possible." "If the applicant does not request an interpreter, you may put all interview questions, oral tests and instructions in writing and allow the applicant to write answers. Provide extra time to complete tests (unless the test measures speed)." "Spherion will offer interpreters to deaf applicants in training without awaiting a formal request or requiring the applicants who are deaf to wait any longer than hearing applicants to be processed and trained." 10. During the term of this Consent Decree, Spherion shall conduct annual training for all its managers and employees involved in the recruitment and/or training process at the Braker Lane facility on the subject of compliance with federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including specifically ADA provisions prohibiting discrimination based on disability and requiring reasonable accommodation. Training will include: (a) discussion of
Consent Decree 5

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 6 of 29
Spherion's Reasonable Accommodation Policy and its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act; (b) procedures for responding to requests for reasonable accommodation, including the obligation to engage in an interactive process in order to determine what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, including, but not limited to, Spherion's obligations to accommodate individuals who are deaf or have a hearing impairment; (c) procedures for registering complaints of discrimination; (d) procedures for responding to complaints of discrimination; and (e) the penalties for engaging in prohibited discrimination.
11. During each year of the Decree, Spherion will provide no less than four (4) hours of training to all of Spherion's managers and employees involved in the recruitment and/or training process at the Braker Lane facility on the subjects listed in Paragraph Ten (10) above. Spherion agrees that the training will be conducted by Edwin Sullivan of SEYFARTH SHAW or any other attorney with at least three years of experience in labor and employment law. The EEOC shall have the right to approve of any training. The first training session will take place within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Consent Decree. The subsequent training session will take place on or about the first anniversary of the entry of this Consent Decree. All management and employees involved in the recruitment and/or training process at the Braker Lane facility shall both register and attend the training sessions. Any newly-hired or newlypromoted personnel who are assigned or hired after the live training session, or personnel who are otherwise unable to attend the live training session, will undergo the training via a videotape that will contain the same content and subject matter as the live training session. The registry of attendance shall be submitted to the EEOC and retained by Spherion for the duration of this Decree.
Consent Decree 6

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 7 of 29
12. Spherion shall distribute a printed form to all deaf applicants who are known by Spherion to be deaf and who visit Spherion's Braker Lane facility requesting information regarding their preferred method of communication and providing a means for them to request the services of a sign language interpreter in the application and training process. A sample form is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
13. Within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Spherion shall post in a conspicuous place in its Braker Lane facility where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit C to this Consent Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. If the Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Spherion will replace it with a clean copy. Spherion shall certify to the EEOC, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of entry of this Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Spherion shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter Spherion's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this paragraph at any time during normal business hours.
14. Spherion shall provide po stings for job opportunities in ways accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. Specifically, Spherion will provide postings for job opportunities to the office of the Travis County Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Austin Deaf Club, and the Texas School for the Deaf. These materials will be provided to the person in charge of postings in each location, for placement in a location selected by that individual. Advocacy, Inc. shall furnish to Spherion the names and contact information for each such person within two weeks of the entry of this Decree.
The materials will be provided for posting during the term of this Decree and the person in charge of such postings in each location will be asked to maintain the posting throughout the
Consent Decree 7

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 8 of 29

term of the Decree. Spherion will send to Advocacy, Inc. an e-mail version of these materials for

Advocacy, Inc.'s review and re-posting through the "deaf network" and other online services for

the deaf and hard of hearing.

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring Spherion to change any of the

job requirements or eligibility requirements for positions. Spherion shall at all times retain

managerial discretion to select, hire, assign, transfer, train, promote, compensate, discipline or

terminate any applicants or employees in accordance with applicable law.

15. The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the EEOC, Intervenors,

and Spherion, their respective agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, as

to the issues resolved herein.

16. When this Consent Decree requires the submission by Spherion of documents or

other materials to EEOC, such documents or other materials shall be mailed to Robert B.

Harwin, Associate Regional Attorney, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas

78229. All notices required or provided pursuant to this Consent Decree will be sent to

Spherion, care of Gerald Maatman, 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

17. The parties to this Consent Decree shall bear all their own costs and attorney's

fees incurred in this action as of the date of this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, the

cost of interpreters. Furthermore, the parties agree that there is no "prevailing party" in this

action or proceeding.

SO ORDERED

,2006.

Consent Decree 8

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 9 of 29

Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma Bar No. 011782

ROBERT B. HARWIN Associate Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083

~~\~
GERALD MAATMAN, admitted Pro hac vice EDWIN SULLIVAN Texas State Bar No. 24003024 KATE BIRENBAUM Texas State Bar No. 00787087
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 225-2300 Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

mDITHG. TAYLOR Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 19708300
JENNIFER RANDALL Trial Attorney Colorado State Bar No. 033240
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Antonio Field Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7636 Facsimile: (210) 281-7669

Consent Decree 9

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 10 of 29

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

~y\,~~~~~

ROBERT A. CANINO

~A~

Regional Attorney

~ ..... _.

-

Oklahoma Bar No. 011782

~·b~~
ROBERT B. HARWIN

GERALD MAATMAN, admitted Pro hac vice EDWIN SULLIVAN Texas State Bar No. 24003024 KATE BIRENBAUM Texas State Bar No. 00787087
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 225-2300 Facsimile: (713) 225·2340
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

J\E\NIAinAF/E\"f(" '~AL~L tJ1. Q
Trial Attorney Colorado State Bar No. 033240
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Antonio Field Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229·3555 Telephone: (210) 281·7636 Facsimile: (210) 281·7669

Consent Decree 9

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 11 of 29
ADVOCACY, INCORPORATED
7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 142-S Austin, Texas 78757 Telephone: (512) 454-4816 Facsimile: (512) 302-4936 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
Consent Decree 10

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 12 of 29
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 13 of 29

The AmerIcans WIth Disabilities Act (ADA)

The Americans w~h Disabilities Ad (ADA) Is easily the most complex federal law prohibiting
employment discrimination. For this reason, we have devoted a large portion of this
Deskbook to address ADA issues. Every member of an office staff who is Involved with recruiting and testing applicants and filling job orders must review these materials and become familiar with the requirements imposed by the ADA. VVhen further assistance or
clarification is required, contact The Shared Services Contact Center (1..s66-HELP-456, option 2) or the Employment Law Department

Offices in California should take particular care in reviewing this section. The Califomia state
law prohibiting disability discrimination Is similar in some ways to the ADA, but often imposes
more stringent and onerous obligations on employers. For example, for certain conditions,

REV. 03105

9

C 2005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 14 of 29

the Califomia law defines individuals with those conditions as disabled regardless of the severity. In addition, Califomia law requires that employers engage in an Interactive process with individuals who are disabled or are believed to be disabled. This interactive process would be used to determine whether there is a reasonable accommodation that would enable the employee to perform essential job functions. even if the employee does not suggest a specifiC reasonable accommodation. lMIile it may be 8 good idea under the ADA and some state laws to engage in such an interactive process, other laws do not specifically require this. In California, the legislature has created a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive process.

DefInition of Disabllty
Under the ADA. a "disability" is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
a major life activity. lMlile the term "major life activity" is not defined in the ADA, the EEOC has interpreted it to include such things as caring for oneself. performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, leaming, and working. The term "disability" also includes having a history of such an impairment and being regarded as having such an Impairment
VVhether a physical or mental impairment oonstitutes a "disability" under the ADA must be made on a case-by·case basis and depends only on how the impairment affects the individual claiming to be "disabled: Nevertheless, as a good rule of thumb, there are certain physical and mental
oonditions, listed belOIIII. that will usuaUy cause an individual to be considered "disabled.' There are other conditions, also listed below, that may cause an indiVidual to be considered "disabled,'
depending on the severity of the condition.
Because the determination of whether an individual is "disabled" for purposes of the ADA is a legal conclusion that will greatly impact the IndMduafs rights, if you have any questions, you should contact The Shared Services Contact Center (1-866-HELP-456, option 2) or the Employment Law Department for further guidance.
• The following conditions usually render a person disabled regardless of how severe the impairment Is:
(You should always consider making accommodations for these disabilities.)

AIDS & HIV - positive condition Cancer not in remission

Learning disabilities/dyslexia Limb Impairments (unless Slight)

Cerebral Palsy
Diabetes (whether controlled by medication or not) Epilepsy/Seizures

Mobility impairments (unless Slight) Multiple Sclerosis Pregnancy-related complications

Hearing impairment (unless slight) Heart disease

Speech impairments (unless slight) Tuberculosis

Hepatitis

ViSion disorders (unless Slight)

• The following conditions may render a person disabled depending on the severity of the condition:

REV. 03105

10

C 2005. SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 15 of 29

Acrophobia Allergies/Chemical insensitivities Arthritis Asthma Back injuries

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Diabetes Hypertension Skin disorders

If an employee informs you he is "disabled" because he has a particular condition, you may ask the employee for medical Information to determine whether the employee Is disabled. (See later section for guidance on medical inquiries.)
e- Clinically-diagnosed mental conditions, such as the following, may be considered disabilities,
depending on their severity and their effect on the individual claiming to be "disabled";

Manic depression Bipolar affective disorder Anxiety disorders

Post·traumatlc stress disorder Schizophrenia

Stress and depression are normally not "disabilities" since they are situational and usually temporary. However, if an employee requests a leave of absence or other accommodation for stress or depression, you should always request medical information to determine If the person is disabled and whether an ADA accommodation Is appropriate.

IMPORTANT
Because the tenn "disability" Includes being "regarded as" having aphysical or mental
Impalnnentthat substantiaBy limits amajor life activity, aperson who has ahistory of a disablDty (e.g., past cororwy 1rouble, previous back Injury, cancer that has been cur1d or Is in remission) will be considered "disabled" if you totally:deny her employment or alarge class ofjobs blCause of her lnedical history.

Impact of ADA on the Application Process

Spherion must analyze all recruiting methods to make sure that Individuals with disabilities are Included In the recruiting process. It must make office facilities accessible to Individuals with disabilities and provide reasonable accommodation to Individuals with disabilities during the application, Interviewing and testing process. The ADA also prohibits Spherion from
asking Interviewing questions relating to an individual's disabilities.

Recruiting

All Spherlon advertisements should state the following: "EOEIDisabled welcome." All written recruiting materials, such as flyers, and job postlngs should include the language "EOElDlsabled welcome.·
If you post job openings or other recruitment mater1al at off·sIte locations, such as the Employment Security Commission, you should ask the agency to post the materials at a location, which is

REV.03fOS

11

Cl2OO5, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 16 of 29

physically accessible to individuals with disabilities and in a position, which can be viewed by individuals confined to wheelchairs. Similarly. If you are conducting off-site reauiting, you should request assurances of recruiting facilities that thei' premises are accessible to disabled indMduals.
Accessibility of Interviewing Site
If your building or office space Is Inaocessible, you must consider alternative ~ of allowing
individuals in a wheelchair to partiCipate in the application process. For Instance, you may arrange to meet the applicant at a local school, public library, or local organization that provides servicas for the disabled. You will obviously need to take the employment application. and all otherm aterlals necessary to anow the applicant to apply and take necessary assessments.
You should never deny a disabled individual the opportunity to participate in the hiring process due to inaccessibility of your office space. or for any other reason, without first contacting The Shared Services Contact Center (1-S66-HELP-456, option 2).
In order to meet this accommodation reqUirement, all offices must do the follOWing minimum steps:
1. Post the Accommodation Notice given in this resource in all areas used by applicants, such as areas used for Interviewing, testing and orientation.
2. 'MIen an applicant with an obvious disability (e.g., individuals with viSion impainnent, hearing impainnent, or confined to a wheelChair) comes into your Office to apply, do the following:
.. Advise the applicant that our application process includes completion of an employment application, an interview, and taking certain assessments. Explain that assessments include a typing test, pencil and paper test. assessments contained on a computer, and manual dexterity tests and ask if the applicant will need an accommodation during this process due to his or her disability.
.. Discuss any accommodations or assistance the applicant may need during the application, testing and interviewing process.
3. You should also follow the above procedures where an applicant contacts you over the telephone and advises you of a disability.
4. If an applicant requests an accommodation and the need for an accommodation is not apparent, you may request written verification from the applicant's physician, counselor or therapist of the applicant's functional limitations and the need for an accommodation. You should say "Since your need for an accommodation is not apparent, it is our policy to request verification of your need for an accommodation from your physician or physical therapist.•
S. At this stage, do not get Into discussions about the types of accommodations needed to perfonn a certain Job(s). Focus solely on accommodations needed
for Interviewing and testing.
6. A discussion of factors to consider in making accommodation decisions and suggested accommodations for applicants is given in another portion of this guide.

REV. 03105

12

@ 2005. SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 17 of 29

Accommodation Notice
To All Applicants For Employment with SPHERION CORPORATION:
If you need assistance or accommodation during any part of the application, interviewing, or testing process, due to a disability, please notify a SPHERION representative in this office. SPHERION will make reasonable accommodations to assist you in our application, interviewing and testing process. Thank you,
SPHERION CORPORATION

REV. 03/05

13

Cl2005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 18 of 29

Pre-Employment Inquiries

The PM specifically prot1bits arrt ~ in the intelvleMing process, ex'on employment applications, regarding an appIIcanfs apparert or t1dden cisabiities.

Interviewing DON'TS

J: Have you ever been tr~afi'Y'Ofthe f~nditions or diseases? (Followed by

i : ~ ~eated a checklist of various co)lditlons and diseases.)

-~

:t Please
y~earHs.ave y

list a7.....·k. .d. .i,tions
ever been h

or diseases for which you
,....--------...
taHZed? If so, for what con

have ?

in the past three

~ Hav, ou ever been tre d by a psychiatrist or psychologis . If so, for condition?

~ Haye you ever n treat r any mental condition?

\

~'= ~ \ ~ ~th~re any ea related reas you may not be able to perfo\he job ~ which you ave you ad a major i ess in the la ve years?

~~ ~HOW mal days were you a nt from wo because of illness last ye~r?

,

Do you ave any physical de s that prec de you from perfortgi certainl kinds of

wo ? It yes, escrlbe such defects an specific wo ·mitations.
\00 J: you ~ve any disabilities or Imp' ents that y affect your
pDS£.on for w~ you are applying?

,
I rformanbe in the

~ e you ta~ any prescribed drugs?

/

:!: H e you eve been treated for drug addition or holism?

/

:~Sk backg~~~che7crega :!: Ha~ you ever 1i for workers' compensation insu ce?

You may

questio ring reference and

Ing:

:!: dlsabiUty

_ _ _ _..,........,....

":!: illness
>'C workers' compensati~ory

, .........../ //

J: whether a poor attendance ~~ss, accident or disability

Interviewing An Applicant With A Known Disability

If you are interviewing an applicant with a known disability (one which Is apparent or identified to you by the applicant), you should keep in mind the following:
itt Ask the same interviewing questions of disabled applicants that you ask of an applicants,
regardless of disability.
*' If you have a particular assignment in mind for a disabled applicant, and his disabHity
would appear to interfere with job-related functions of the types of aSSignments for
which he will be considered, you may ask the applicant to describe or demonstrate hOw he would perform those functions, even if you do not ask other applicants to provide similar description or demonstration
Example: If an applicant has one ann and you have an aSSignment that involves placing
bulky items on shelves up to six feet high, you may ask the applicant to describe how he
would perfonn this task. If you ask the applicant to demonstrate how he can perfonn the

REV. 03105

14

C 2005, SPHERtON CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 19 of 29

function, you will have to provide any reasonable accommodation necessary for him to conduct the demonstration.
$- You may ask the applicant to demonstrate or explain how the job would be performed
onlv when the applicant's disability appears to interfere wjtb performing iob~related
functions of the assignments for which she is being considered.
Example: If an applicant with one leg is qualified to perform an assignment that involves sorting small parts while seated, you cannot ask her to demonstrate the ability to do this job, unless all applicants under consideration for the aSsignment are required to do so.

.,...- Never ask an applicao1..w1th-a-knewn-9.!:...a...p" parent disability about:
~ the nat oft~-'~~

~ the v oft disa~

\ \

~ £

the
anyp

ndn~on c~ausi,ng t :d-~'.d¥) ~ndImon

~ whether the"~~...!!~~~eave or treatment because of the disability

Impact of ADA on Hiring and Assignment Decisions

The ADA allOINS job-related hiring standards, such as education, skills and work experience. You
do not have to make exceptions for disabled applicants Who do not meet these standards.
However, there are many impermissible reasons for refusi1g to hire disabled applicants. Sphei10n also must take aftirmative steps to eAminate barriers that prevent disabled employees from
performing the essential functions of job assignments.

HIring Crltaria

If a hiring criterion screens out a disabled individual due to his disability, the employer must prove that the standard relates to an "essential function" of the job.
Example: If you require that employees have a car for certain assignments, you must make an exception for a disabled employee who cannot drive because of his disability (e.g., a blind employee); being able to drive to work is not an essential function of any job that does not involve driving abilities.
Example: If you require applicants to complete the application and assessments without assistance, you must make an exception for visually impaired persons. Similar1y, you cannot hold leaming...(jisabled applicants to time limitations of assessments where the ability to perform certain tasks within the time frame is not a critical element of the position. On the other hand, if an assessment does In fact measure an essential function of a particular job (e.g., typing speed), you may hold disabled applicants to this standard.

.Madicallnqulrla.

Due to ADA restrictions on medical examinations and inquiries, Spherion's policy is to prohibit the use of all medical examinations, either p~mployment or pre--asslgnment, for employees unless the office has obtained prior guidance from the Employment Law Department.

REV. 03105

15

C> 2005, SPHERION CORPORAnON

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 20 of 29

Fonner Norrell offices should discontinue the use of the Illness and Injury History Questionnaire previously used for workers' compensation purposes.

Unlawful Reasons for Refusing to Hire Applicants

~ The existence of a' TiftY.Ii the '~Ma- . otherwise qualified.

I: The individual' nabilit ~~~. b functions.

I: Concems a ut fulO wo I compensatlo~ai .

I:

I 'v con~rns at> fut absenteeism\or Ie e of absence

I: The requi ~me~t or cost a ~nable) a mmodation, unless a particular

accommOd~ion \an undue ha ip.

I Concems ab¥ cli.ir(reaction to a di~ed pplicaht or reasonable accommodation.
--- I: The inability to {aI(~ orPasa.an~nt t~~oes not measure essential functions of any assignment or JOb.~ur office br~~ site.

DetermIning Essential Functions of Jab AssIgnments

The ADA requires employers to focus on the "essential functions" of a specific job to
determine whether a disabled person is qualified for the job. You cannot deny a disabled
individual a job because he or she cannot perform functions that are only IDIIl3!D.II to the job.
Thus, when considering disabled individuals for an assignment, you need to identify the essential functions of the particular assignment. Familiarity With the jobs Spherion employees perform for our clients will make this easier.
When a disabled Individual cannot perfonn the essential functions of a job because of
a disability, you must try to find a reasonable accommodation that would enable the
perfonnance of these functions. If the person cannot perfonn the essential functions even with accommodations, the person is not qualified for the Job and you are not required to place the Individual In the job.

1. After you have made a decision to hire a disabled applicant. you should explore with the employee the types of assignments for which she Will be considered and the types of accommodations she will need to perform these aSSignments.
2. You may document the type of accommodations the employee will need. For example, for an Individual In a wheelchair, you should nole "accessibility for wheelchair required." For a heartng-lmpalred employee, you might note "needs instructions in writing".
3. If a disabled applicant performs poorly on one of Spherion's assessments due to disability, you must analyze whether the test measures the "essential functions" of the job. If the assessment does not reflect required skills of a particular job, you should not rely on that score in a placement decision or with respect to that job.
4. You should place an Individual if he or she can perform the essential functions of the job with "reasonable accommodation," and are as qualified as other candidates to perform the essential functions of the job, With reasonable accommodation.

Accommodation decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the person's individual needs, the accommodations avaHable, and the cost of the accommodation.

REV. 03105

16

II:> 2005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 21 of 29

Factors to consider: $- You do not have to provide an accommodation unless the applicant or employee requests one, or the applicant or employee has an apparent disability, which would interfere with the ability to participate in the hiring process or to perform the essential functions of the job.
$- You should always consult the disabled applicant or employee as the first step in considering an accommodation. The disabled individual may be able to suggest a simple change or adjustment based upon previous life or work experience.
$- You do not have to accept or provide the speCific type of accommodation requested
by a disabled applicant or employee. You may explore other accommodations that are le88 costly or less difficult. However, you should give the Individual's request due consideration. $- \Nhen an applicanfs or employee's need for an accommodation is not obvious, you may request written verification (from the individual's physician, counselor, or therapist) of the functional limitations and the need for an accommodation.
$- If the accommodation is not easy to Identify, you should contact an agency or organization in your area that provides services for the disabled, preferably one that deals with the type of disability involved.
'* In deciding whether an accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense, you should contact The Shared Services Contact Center (1-866-HELP-456. option 2).
Suggested Accommodations for Applicants
1. Applicants With Visual Impairments
I) Read the application and any other written materials and assist with writing responses. Alternatively. put all written Information used during the application process on audiotape.
• Administer written tests orally (unless the test measures the ability to read).
*$- Provide extra light. Provide extra time to complete tests (unle88 the test measures speed).
$- Larger screens or magnifiers
2. Applicants With Hearing Impairments $- Put all Interview questions. oral tests and instructions in writing and allow
applicant to write answers. Alternatively, hire an interpreter to assist during the hiring process. (We are required to pay for the interpreter).
• Provide extra time to complete tests (unless the test measures speed).
$- TODrrDY or other machines that allow communication with the hearing impaired.
3. Applicants in lNheelchairs
$- Provide a lowered table. a lap top surface or other eqUipment to make written paperwork and assessments accessible.
4. Applicants with Dyslexia or Other Learning Disabilities
$- Allow opportunity to take written portions of assessments orally (unless the a888Ssment measures the ability to read).

REV. 03(05

17

C 2005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 22 of 29

$: Provide extra time to complete paperwork and tests (unless the test measures speed).
Examples of Reasonable Accommodation on the Job
Below is a list of reasonable accommodations that may be required under the ADA. Some of the accommodations. such as job restructuring and modified work SChedules. will require client involvement and cooperation. The ADA indicates that our clients have some responsibility under the ADA to make accommodations for our employees, as long as the accommodation is not an undue hardship.
'*' Making facilities accessible. As most Spherion clients are subject to the ADA, our
clients should have already removed physical barriers that impede accessibility.
lit Job restructuring. This Involves reallocating or redistributing marginal functions of a
job. You do .!!9.t have to reallocate essential functions. However. you may have
to modify when or how essential functions are done. You cannot reduce a disabled
person's pay simply because you had to reassign marginal functions.
$: Modified work schedules or attendance policies. This may be necessary to accommodate employees who need to receive physical therapy or special medical treatment (e.g. cancer patients, kidney dialysis) or require rest periods (e.g. people with cancer, diabetes or respiratory conditions) or who, because of mobillty impairments, depend on public transportation with special para-transit schedules.
$: Reassignment. If an employee is unable to perform the essential functions of a position, assignment to another position with the same or different client should be considered. You do not have to reassign to a position that would be a promotion nor
do you have to "bump· other employees or create a new job.
$: Providing trainers for mentally deficient employees; providing interpreters for hearing impaired employees for initial on-tha-job orientation or training; providing verbal instructions to visually impaired employees regarding initial on-tha-job orientation or training.
$- Acquisition or modification of equipment and devices. Examples may be available from an agency or organization in your area, which provides services for the disabled, preferably one that deals with the type of disability inVOlved.
Analyzing Safety RIsks
The ADA does not allow you to exclude a disabled person from an assignment simply
because you think the person cannot safely perform the job or would pose a risk of harm to
himself or others. You may exclude a disabled person from a specific job only if you have
objective medical evidence that this particular person would pose a "direct threat" to the
health and safety of himself or others. This standard is very hard to prove and Situations must be evaluated on a ease-by-case basis. The following are the factors you need to consider.
'*' There must be a sIgnificant risk of substantial harm. Significant means a high
probability of harm, not merely speculative. The assessment must be made with respect to the individual and not based on the general type of disability involved.
Example: you cannot assume that a person with epilepsy or heart disease cannot work in a light industrial setting operating machinery or doing heavy lifting. You must examine the abilities and limitations of that partlcularpe rson with medical information provided by the employee and her doctor.

REV. 03105

18

@2005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 23 of 29

fl!- The risk must be specific in relation to the nature of the disability and the particular job. You need to consider the nature and severity of the risk as well as the
likelihood or Imminence of the potential harm.
Example: a person with epilepsy who has lost consciousness from seizures within the
past year may be excluded from a forklift position because the nature and severity of the harm from a seizure while driving a forklift would be grave and the likelihood of a seizure seems great. However, if the person's job Is file clerk or secretary, you would not be able to exclude her from that position because the resulting harm of a seizure would be minimal.
On the other hand, if the employee's epilepsy Is controlled with medication and he has not had a seizure in several years, you cannot exclude him from a forklift position because the likelihood of a seizure is minimal.
* The risk must be current, not speculative. You may not exclude a person based on the speculation that his disability may become more severe, that a person will become unable to perform the job in the future or that the individual will have a future workers' compensation claim or excessive absenteeism.
Example: an employee who has had a back injury or carpal tunnel may not be excluded from a position solely on the premise that the position may worsen his condition over a
period of years or that the employee might be a workers' compensation risk. Similarly,
you cannot exclude an individual with a history of heart disease simply because you don't want to Increase his risk of heart attack in the future
ill- The assessment of risk must be based on objective medical or other factual evidence regarding the particular Individual. This may include: input from the employee, the experience of the employee in previous jobs and doa.mentation from doctors or other health care providers who have treated the employee or who have expertise in the type of disability involVed
:t Do not make-generallzed assumptions about the limitations of certain types Of disabilities; otten our assumptions about certain conditions or diseases are wrong!
fl!- Even if there is a significant risk of harm, you stili must determine whether there is a reasonable accommodation that might reduce or eliminate the risk.
Example: a deaf employee who works as a warehouse picker might present a safety risk because he cannot hear the homs of the forklifts that are mOVing about the warehouse. However, if flashing lights are put on the forklifts, the flashing lights will alert the employee that a forklift is approaching. (This was an actual court case where the employer was held liable for failing to hire a deaf employee because of the above stated fear: the court held that flashing lights would have substantially reduced the perceived risk. However, the court also found that there was not a -high probability" of harm.)
NOTE: For 8 discussion on· safety risks with respect to workers' compensation clailWlts, see the subsequent section entitIad ''Workers'Compensation.
Medlcallnquldes and Exams
ApplicaotS. You may ask questions about a person's disability or Hmltations only after making a conditional Job offer. If you suspect that a disabled applicant may pose a safety risk for the particular job or types of job for which she is applying. you may not make a risk assessment until you have offered the applicant emplovment.

REV. 03105

19

02005, SPHERION CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 24 of 29

If an applicant requests an accommodation during the Interview and testing process and you are not sure if she Is disabled, the ADA allows you to request written verification that the person is disabled and the interviewingltestlng accommodation is needed. However, unless the requested accommodation is onerous, It is easier and safer to provide the interviewingltesting accommodation without requesting any verification.
Current Employees. The ADA pennits employers to make medical inquiries of employees
only if there is a "business necessity" to do so. The follOWing are the most common
circumstances In which medical infonnatlon would be needed:
$- Making accommodation decisions. If a person requests an accommodation or Indicates
that he is disabled, and you are not &ure If the person Is disabled or the accommodation is really needed, medical information may be needed to determine if you must make an
accommodation. Also, medical information may be needed to help you determine v.11at might be an appropriate a(XX)t11modation for a particular disability or condition where the
appropriate accommodation is not otherwise obvious.

NOTE: If a client is considering hiring a Spherion employee on a "pennanert' .basis,
Spherion cannot send the employee for a phnical exa~ However, the client may .askthe employee to take aphysical exam·but only after It has made acOnditional lob
offer to the employee.

$- Direct threat to health and safety. Since the safety risk analysis requires that employers
base risk assessments on objective evidence regarding the particular Individual's abilities
and limitations, medical Inquiries are almost always necessary when excluding an individual from a specific job(s) because of safety concems. A fonn Jetter to doctors is included at the bottom of this page for this purpose. (It ITIJst be tailored to each situation.)

Remember: the "direct threat" standard Is very d!fticult to meat. Thus, do not proceed to
solicit medical information unlest the risk seems subSilntia~ imminent, and is not speculative
or . haaecI on generalized assumptions or fears. Please consult the Employment Law Department for legal advice befolt making any decisions to exdude an applicant or employee
from employment or aspecific job because of asafety risk.

When seeking medical information from doctors or other health care providers, you should
alwavs provide the doctor with a detailed description of the employee's job duties. Since risk
assessments and accommodation decisions must be made with respect to specific jobs or duties, the doctor will not be able to provide accurate information unless he or she understands what the job entails. Provide the doctor with as much speCific information about
the job as possible (e.g., will have to lift more than 2Slbs. for 75% of shift; WIll have to work standing for prolonged periods of time).

[This example concerns a person with epilepsy. Perhaps the employee has told you he suffers from this condition or he has had a recent seizure at work.}

Dear .Doctor:

EMpLOYEE

was recently treated by

HOSPITAL OR

CLINIC for a seizure suffered at wOrk. He/she informed us that the treating physician

believes the seizure may have been caused by a head injury he/she suffered in the past. As

REV. 03105

20

C 2005, SPHERtON CORPORATION

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 25 of 29
hlslher employer. we need additional Information to help us make personnel decisions
regarding hlslher job assIgnment(s). 1. Has the employee suffered seizures in the past year, and If so, how frequently did
they occur? Does the employee have advance wamlng of the seizure(s) or do they occur suddenly and without notice? 2. Does the employee's medical condition preclude him/her from doing the duties on the attached list? If so. identify the duties and the specific physical limitations supporting your decision. Is the employee likely to recovers ufficiently to perform the described duties? If so, what Is the time frame? 3. Is there a medical reason to believe the employee is likely to experience another seizure by performing the described duties? If so, what Is the likelihood it will occur? V\lhat is the time frame within which It Is likely to occur?
4. Is there a medical reason to believe the employee is likely to be suddenly
incapacitated? If so. to what degree could the employee be incapacitated, and what is the likelihoOd this will occur? 5. If work restrictions are needed to prevent a risk of substantial harm to the employee or others, what should we consider in identifying ways to eliminate the need for the restrictions? Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Spherion Manager

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 26 of 29
EXHIBITB

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 27 of 29

SERVICES FOR DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING

Our staff wants to communicate effectively with you. Please fill out this paper and return to a Spherion employee.

1. Do you need a sign language interpreter in order to fill out an application?

YES_ _

NO_ _

If you check "yes," we will arrange for a sign language interpreter, as soon as possible, at no cost to you, in order to assist during your interview and to help you understand the application.

2. Do you need a sign language interpreter help us train you?

YES_ _

NO_ _

If you check "yes" we will arrange for a sign language interpreter to be at your training class, at no cost to you.

3. Will you need any other free services during training?

YES_ _ _NO___ If you answered yes, please explain:

Signature

_ _ _ _ a.m'!p.m.

Date

Time

Do you want a free copy of our reasonable accommodation policy? YES _ _ _ __ NO _ _ _ __

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 28 of 29
EXHIBITC

Case 1:04-cv-00632-LY Document 101 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 29 of 29
NOTICE
The following notice is being posted at the Spherion office at 900 East Braker Lane in Austin, Texas pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between Spherion and the EEOC.
Management of Spherion Corporation wished to emphasize the company's fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operations and in all areas of employment practices, and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, or disability. This policy extends to all terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unlawful for an employer to subject an employee or applicant for employment to discrimination based upon his or her disability. Further, it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including disability discrimination, or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Spherion Corporation respects the right of its employees and applicants for employment to work in an environment free from discrimination. Accordingly, Spherion Corporation reaffirms its commitment to complying with the strictures of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that it is our policy to prohibit all discrimination in hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, discharge or discipline because a qualified individual is disabled.
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000 or TTY 1-800-669-6820. In compliance with federal law, no official at Spherion Corporation will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-00632-LY

CLOSED

Equal Employment v. Spherion Corporation Assigned to: Judge Lee Yeakel Demand: $0 Cause: 42:12117 Employment Discrimination on Basis of Disability

Date Filed: 09/29/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jennifer Randall Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7636 Fax: 210/281-7669 Email: jennifer.randall@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith G. Taylor U.S. EEOC San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredricksburg Rd. Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7673 Fax: 210/281-7669 Email: judith.taylor@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. Harwin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7643 Fax: (210) 281-7669 Email: robert.harwin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report
V. Defendant Spherion Corporation
Intervenor Plaintiff Dorothea Huschka
2 of 10

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin Sullivan Seyfarth Shaw 700 Louisiana Street Suite 3850 Houston, TX 77002 (213) 225-2300 Fax: 713/225-2340 Email: edsullivan@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5965 Fax: (312) 460-7965 Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Robert McLaughlin Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P. JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street - Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002-2911 (713)227-8008 Fax: 713/227-9508 Email: smclaughlin@shb.com TERMINATED: 02/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Brian Dean East Advocacy, Incorporated. 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard Suite 171-E Austin, TX 78757-1024 (512) 454-4816 Fax: 512/302-4936 Email: beast@advocacyinc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

Intervenor Plaintiff Eric Madigan
Movant Dell Products, L.P.

Lucy D. Wood Advocacy, Inc. 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd. Suite 142-S Austin, TX 78757 (512) 454-4816 Fax: 512/302-4936 Email: lwood@advocacyinc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Dean East (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucy D. Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher H. Hahn Vinson & Elkins, LLP 2801 Via Fortuna Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746 (512) 542-8465 Fax: 512/236-3350 Email: chahn@velaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
09/29/2004 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 10/28/2004
12/02/2004

#

Docket Text

Case assigned to Judge Lee Yeakel (tdk) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
1 Complaint filed. Filing Fee: $ wv (Pages: 6) (tdk) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Yeakel (tdk) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
2 Waiver of Service by Spherion Corporation ; Notice and Request Mailed on 10/4/04 ; Answer due on 12/3/04 for Spherion Corporation (mc2) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
3 Motion by Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to intervene (mc2) (Entered: 12/02/2004)

3 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

12/03/2004 12/22/2004 01/12/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 02/11/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/22/2005 02/22/2005 02/24/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005
03/18/2005
03/18/2005 03/18/2005 05/05/2005

4 Answer by Spherion Corporation (mc2) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
5 Answer and affirmative defenses by Spherion Corporation to the complaint in intervention (dm) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
6 Order referring motion to intervene [3-1] to Judge Andrew W. Austin for report and recommendation, signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
7 Notice of filing by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan - joint Rule 26(F) report. (mc2) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
8 Recommendations for scheduling order by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (mc2) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
9 Order setting miscellaneous hearing - initial pretrial conference - for 3:00 2/28/05 signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
10 Report and recommendation of Judge Austin that the District Court grant the motion to intervene [3-1] (mc2) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
Received, Court file from Magistrate Austin; forwarded to Judge Yeakel. (mc2) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
Acknowledgment receipt of Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan magistrate report and recommendations on 2/18/05. (mc2) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
Acknowledgment receipt of Equal Employment magistrate report and recommendations on 2/18/05. (mc2) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
Acknowledgment receipt of Spherion Corporation magistrate report and recommendations on 2/22/05. (mc2) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
11 Minutes of proceedings for initial pretrial conference conducted on 2/28/05 by Judge Yeakel. Court Reporter: Kathy Carroll. (mc2) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
Miscellaneous hearing - initial pretrial conference - held (mc2) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
12 Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 5/13/05 Deadline for filing of all motions 12/30/05 Discovery cutoff 10/28/05 Pretrial conference of attorneys by 10:00 3/31/06, with jury trial month of 4/06; Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 3/18/05, signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
13 Alternate Dispute Resolution Report filed by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, Party(s) agree to Alternate Dispute Resolution (mc2) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
14 Order granting motion to intervene [3-1] accepting report and recommendations [10-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
24 Intervenor's complaint (Pages: 6) (mc2) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
15 Joint motion by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to amend Scheduling order [12-1] (mc2) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

4 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

05/10/2005
06/30/2005 07/01/2005
08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/24/2005 08/30/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 10/17/2005 10/20/2005 12/01/2005 12/07/2005 12/19/2005

16 Order granting joint motion to amend Scheduling order [12-1] [15-1], witnesses/testifying experts/proposed exhibits by plaintiff and intervenor plaintiffs by 7/20/05, defendant's by 8/31/05, signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
17 Joint motion by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to amend Scheduling order [12-1] (mc2) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
18 Order granting joint motion to amend Scheduling order [12-1] [17-1] amending scheduling order deadlines: Deadline for filing of all motions by 2/10/06 ; Discovery deadline on 1/27/06 signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
19 Motion by Spherion Corporation to amend intervenor answer [5-1], answer [4-1] (mc2) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
Received, Defendant's first amended answer..., and first amended answer...to complaint in intervention. (mc2) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
20 Memorandum by Equal Employment in opposition to motion to amend intervenor answer [5-1], answer [4-1] [19-1] (mc2) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
21 Response by Dorothea Huschka in opposition to motion to amend intervenor answer [5-1], answer [4-1] [19-1] (mc2) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
22 Reply by Spherion Corporation to response to motion to amend intervenor answer [5-1], answer [4-1] [19-1] (mc2) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
Letter/Correspondence regarding: vacation for Jennifer Randall, trial attorney (dm) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
23 Order granting motion to amend intervenor answer [5-1], answer [4-1] [19-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
25 First Amended Answer by Spherion Corporation to intervenor complaint [24-1] (mc2) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
26 First Amended answer by Spherion Corporation: answer [4-1] (mc2) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
27 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Equal Employment (td) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
28 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (td) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
29 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Spherion Corporation (mc2) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
30 First amended Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Equal Employment (mc2) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
31 Motion by Spherion Corporation for summary judgment (mc2) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

5 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

12/22/2005 12/27/2005 12/27/2005 12/29/2005
12/29/2005 01/03/2006 01/05/2006 01/05/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/16/2006

32 Agreed Joint motion by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to extend deadline to file responses to defendant's motion for sumjgm (mh) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
33 Motion by Spherion Corporation for leave to exceed page limitations, pursuant to LR CV7(c) (mh) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
34 Motion by Spherion Corporation for protective order pursuant to FRCvP 26(c) and 45(c) (mh) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
35 Order referring motion motion for protective order pursuant to FRCvP 26(c) and 45(c) [34-1], motion for leave to exceed page limitations, pursuant to LR CV7(c) [33-1] to Judge Andrew W. Austin signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
36 Order granting motion for leave to exceed page limitations, pursuant to LR CV7(c) [33-1] signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin (mc2) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
37 Order granting joint motion to extend deadline to file responses to defendant's motion for sumjgm [32-1] until 1/13/06, signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
38 Advisory to the court filed by Equal Employment - extending plaintiff EEOC's deadline to respond to defendant Spherion Corp.'s motion for protection. (mc2) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
39 Advisory to the court filed by Equal Employment - requesting that Court wait until 1/23/06 to rule on defendant's motion for protection. (mc2) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
40 Unopposed Motion by Equal Employment for leave to file - to exceed page limitations (re brief in opposition to defendant Spherion's motion for protection) (mc2) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
41 Memorandum by Equal Employment in opposition to motion for protective order pursuant to FRCvP 26(c) and 45(c) [34-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
42 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Spherion Corporation (mc2) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
43 Order granting motion for leave to file - to exceed page limitations (re brief in opposition to defendant Spherion's motion for protection) [40-1] signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin (mc2) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
44 Memorandum by Equal Employment in opposition to motion for summary judgment [31-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
45 Motion by Dorothea Huschka to substitute real party in interest (Trustee Marsha Milligan) (mc2) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
46 Response by Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan motion for summary judgment [31-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
50 Order denying as moot motion for protective order pursuant to FRCvP 26(c) and 45(c) [34-1] signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin (mc2) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

6 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

01/17/2006 01/23/2006 01/24/2006 01/25/2006
01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/09/2006

47 Amended motion by Dorothea Huschka: amended - to substitute amending motion to substitute real party in interest (Trustee Marsha Milligan) [45-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
48 Notice of filing by Dorothea Huschka - certificate of conference to amended motion to substitute real party in interest. (mc2) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
49 Advisory to the court filed by Equal Employment notifying Court that deposition underlying defendant's motion for protection has been cancelled. (mc2) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
Letter/Correspondence submitted by Spherion Corporation regarding: agreement to extend deadline for defendant to reply to plaintiff's and intervenors' responses to defendant's motion for summary judgment until 1/30/06. Copy to Court. (mc2) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
51 First amended Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (mc2) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
52 Second amended Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Equal Employment (mc2) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
53 Unopposed Motion by Spherion Corporation to substitute attorney (Edwin Sullivan in place of Scott McLaughlin) (mc2) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
54 Response by Spherion Corporation amended motion to substitute [47-1], motion to substitute real party in interest (Trustee Marsha Milligan) [45-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
55 Reply by Spherion Corporation to intervenors' response to motion for summary judgment [31-1] (mc2) Modified on 01/31/2006 (Entered: 01/31/2006)
56 Reply by Spherion Corporation to plaintiff's response to motion for summary judgment [31-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
57 Unopposed Motion by Equal Employment for leave to file sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment (mc2) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
Received, plaintiff's sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment. (mc2) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
58 Order granting motion to substitute attorney (Edwin Sullivan in place of Scott McLaughlin) [53-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
59 Order granting motion for leave to file sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment [57-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
60 Sur reply Brief by Equal Employment regarding: motion for summary judgment [31-1] (mc2) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
61 Unopposed Motion by Dorothea Huschka for leave to file plaintiff-intevenor's reply regarding motion to substitute as sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment (mc2) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

7 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

02/09/2006 02/09/2006
02/24/2006 02/27/2006 02/28/2006 03/07/2006
03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/15/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006
03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006

Received, plaintiff-intevenor's sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment. (mc2) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
62 Reply by Dorothea Huschka to response to amended motion to substitute [47-1], motion to substitute real party in interest (Trustee Marsha Milligan) [45-1] (mc2) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
Pro hac vice fee paid byGerald L. Maatman with Amount: $ 25.00, Receipt # 384557. (mc2) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
63 Motion by Spherion Corporation for Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. to appear pro hac vice (mc2) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
64 Order granting motion for Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. to appear pro hac vice [63-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
65 Joint motion by Equal Employment, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, Dell Products, L.P. for entry of agreed protective order (mc2) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
66 Order referring joint motion for entry of agreed protective order [65-1] to Judge Andrew W. Austin signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
67 Agreed Protective Order granting joint motion for entry of agreed protective order [65-1] signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin (mc2) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
68 Order granting joint motion for entry of agreed protective order [65-1] signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin (mc2) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
69 Order resetting final pretrial conference for 2:00 3/28/06 signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
71 Joint Motion by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan with memorandum in support in limine (mc2) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
72 Unopposed Motion by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan for leave to file - to enlarge page limitation for their brief in support of motion in limine (mc2) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
73 Pretrial disclosures filed by Spherion Corporation (mc2) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
70 Pretrial disclosures filed by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
74 Joint motion by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan for attorney participation in voir dire (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
75 Notice of filing by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan plaintiff-intervenors' proposed voir dire questions. (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
76 Unopposed Motion by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to supplement brief in support of motion in limine (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
77 Supplement filed by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan Re: brief in support of motion in limine [71-1] (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

8 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

03/21/2006
03/23/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006
03/27/2006
03/27/2006
03/27/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 04/07/2006 04/10/2006 04/11/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/18/2006

78 Order granting motion for leave to file - to enlarge page limitation for their brief in support of motion in limine [72-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
79 Motion by Spherion Corporation to compel benefits information pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(2)(B) (mc2) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
80 Objections by Spherion Corporation to plaintiff's and plaintiff-intervenors' exhibits [52-1], [51-1] (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
81 Joint Brief in opposition to defenant's motion in limine by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
82 Joint Objections by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to admissibility of defendant's proposed exhibits [42-1] (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
83 Unopposed Motion by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan to enlarge page limitation for their joint brief in opposition to defendant's motion in limine (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
84 Order granting motion to enlarge page limitation for their joint brief in opposition to defendant's motion in limine [83-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
85 Order granting motion for leave to file plaintiff-intevenor's reply regarding motion to substitute as sur reply brief regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment [61-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
86 Order granting motion to supplement brief in support of motion in limine [76-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
87 Response by Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan motion to compel benefits information pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(2)(B) [79-1] (mh) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
Pretrial conference held. (mh) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
88 Minutes of proceedings for pretrial conference conducted on 3/28/06 by Judge Yeakel. Court Reporter: None (mh) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
89 Reply by Spherion Corporation to response to motion to compel benefits information pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(2)(B) [79-1] (mc2) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
90 Order pretrial conference 9:00 4/14/06 signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (td) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
91 Supplement filed by Equal Employment, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan Re: miscellaneous objection [82-1] (td) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
92 Minutes of proceedings for final pretrial conference conducted on 4/14/06 by Judge Yeakel. Court Reporter: Kathy Carroll. (mc2) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
Final Pretrial conference held in chambers; written order to follow. (mc2) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
93 Order cancelling 4/06 jury trial setting and resetting for month of 7/06, denying motion for summary judgment [31-1] granting joint motion for attorney participation in voir dire [74-1] granting motion to compel benefits information

9 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120720257354459-L_9...

05/24/2006 05/26/2006 07/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/27/2006 07/31/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/24/2006

pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(2)(B) [79-1] signed by Judge Lee Yeakel (mc2) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
94 Joint NOTICE of pending Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
95 ORDER that parties file an agreed motion to dismiss or joint stipulation of dismissal by 7/10/06. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
96 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File consent decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan. (mc2, ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
97 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File consent decree, until 7/28/06, Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (mc2, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
98 MOTION to Continue and advisory to the Court by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan, Dell Products, L.P.. (mc2, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
99 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Continue and that parties file an agreed motion to dismiss or joint stipulation of dismissal by 8/18/06. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (mc2, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
100 Joint MOTION to enter consent decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Spherion Corporation, Dorothea Huschka, Eric Madigan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Orders)(mc2, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
101 CONSENT JUDGMENT - Consent decree . Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (mc2, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
102 Final JUDGMENT and order entering consent decree . Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (mc2, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
Extra copy of defendant's EXHIBITS DESTROYED with permission of Spherion Corporation per courtroom deputy this date. (mc2, ) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/17/2007 08:54:35

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 1:04-cv-00632-LY 0.48

10 of 10

5/17/2007 8:56 AM