IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY LUKE

)

CASE NO.: 1:02 CV 01225

17210 Milburn Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

JUDGE PAUL MATIA

)

and

)

)

KEITH ACEY

)

4296 East 164th Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44128

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

and

)

)

RUDOLPH BUFFINGTON

)

3282 East 143rd Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

and

)

)

MICHAEL ODUM

)

3152 Elisha Lane

)

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

and

)

)

BASHIR RAHMAN

)

2994 Becket road

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 1 of 52

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

and

)

)

DARYL McGINNIS

)

10231 Joan Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44111

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

KENNETH GUYTON

)

2060 Superior Avenue

)

Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

BRUCE WILLIAMS

)

1774 EAST 238TH Street

)

Euclid, Ohio 44117

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

KEVIN ECHOLS

)

3046 Becket Road

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

GRANVILLE WHITE

)

2846 Ludlow Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 2 of 52

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated),

)

)

and

)

)

ASA NEWSOME

)

821 E. 156th Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 4410

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

LAWRENCE MOORE

)

10720 Hathaway Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44108

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

FRED McMICKLE

)

1187 E. 170th St.

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44110

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

RONALD ASKEW

)

18309 Marcella Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44119

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

ANTHONY JACKSON

)

3743 Sumpter Ct.

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 3 of 52

Cleveland, Ohio 44115

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

ALONZO PAYNE

)

1872 East 75th Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44103

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

ANTHONY NICKERSON

)

3126 Becket

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

DALE WOODARD

)

3347 Milverton

)

Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

DARYL WILLIAMS

)

12000 Fairhill, #402

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 4 of 52

)

RICHARD NICKERSON

)

1075 East 74th Street, #3

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44103

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

DAPHNE TYUS

)

14609 Westropp

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44110

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

BERNARD RUSSELL

)

11715 Rutland

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44108

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

EMANUEL WILLIAMS

)

13216 Terminal

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

DAVID AUSTIN

)

4262 East 189th Street

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44122

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 5 of 52

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

SEAN HODGES

)

2897 MLK Blvd.

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44104

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

JAMES CARTWRIGHT

)

2108 Rossmoor

)

Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

DAVID BUTLER

)

2475 E. 127th St.

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

KAREEM HASAN

)

6669 Tupelo

)

Bedford Heights, Ohio 44146

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

MARCUS TURNER

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 6 of 52

2621 N. Moreland #101

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

HERBERT PENNYMAN

)

9710 Empire

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44108

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

TERRENCE WATSON

)

1939 Green

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44121

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

ANTHONY ALFORD

)

9423 Heath Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44104

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

and

)

)

NEVILLE LEE

)

2032 Rossmoor

)

Clevel;and Heights, Ohio 44118

)

(individually and on behalf of others

)

similarly situated)

)

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 7 of 52

and

)

)

JOHN BOYD, JR.

)

9222 Columbia Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44108

)

)

and

)

)

DAMON JOHNSON

)

12621 Britton

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

)

)

Plaintiffs.

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF CLEVELAND

)

c/o Subodh Chandra, Law Director

)

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

)

)

and

)

)

KEVIN GERRITY

)

Chief of Fire Division

)

City of Cleveland

)

Department of Safety, Division of Fire )

1645 Superior Avenue

)

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

)

(in his official capacity)

)

)

and

)

)

BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, INC.

)

1772 State Road

)

Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223-1306

)

)

and

)

)

GERALD BARRETT

)

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 8 of 52

c/o Barrett & Associates, Inc.

)

1772 State Road

)

Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223-1306,

)

)

Defendants.

)

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Race Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1988; Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3), 1988;
Equal Protection, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988 Public Records Destruction, R.C. § 149.351; Spoliation of Evidence;
Race Discrimination, R.C. 4112.02(A); Aiding and Abetting, R.C. § 4112.02(J); Action for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief)
CLASS ACTION, FED. CIV. RULE 23(a) and (b)(3)
JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action by several African-American firefighters of the City of Cleveland Department
of Safety, Fire Division alleging race discrimination in employment, including disparate treatment in promotion, maintaining and promoting a racially hostile environment, race discrimination and retaliation in duty assignments and race discrimination and disparate treatment in disciplinary actions.

II BACKGROUND AND PARTIES
Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 9 of 52

2. All Plaintiffs are black or African-American firefighters of Defendant City of Cleveland, Division of Fire.
3. Currently within Defendant City of Cleveland Fire Division there are approximately 1007 firefighters, including officers. Of this number, slightly over 21% are black or AfricanAmerican. Of the officers, 13.5% are black or African-American.
4. According to the 2000 Census, the city of Cleveland has a total population of 478,403, of which 243,939 (52%) are black or African-American.
5. During the years 1983 through 1995, Defendant City of Cleveland was party to a consent decree entered into as a result of litigation alleging race discrimination in hiring and promotion within the City of Cleveland Fire Division filed in the United States District Court by the labor union representing African-American firefighters. This consent decree expired as to promotion in 1995.
6. The consent decree, in part, required the City of Cleveland to promote equal numbers of candidates of black and African-American firefighters as non-minority candidates to correct a historically established past practice of disparate treatment towards black and AfricanAmerican persons in promotion and hiring.
7. In complying with the consent decree, Defendant City of Cleveland did promote equal number of black and African-American firefighters as non-minorities, but still promoted roughly the same absolute number of non-minority firefighters by simply increasing the total number of promotions to rank during the decree period.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 10 of 52

8. As a result of this practice, the number of ranking officers with Defendant City of Cleveland Fire Division increased over the level that had existed for the years prior to the consent decree.
9. Since the expiration of the consent decree, Defendant City of Cleveland Fire Department has returned to and engaged in practices that have resulted in the disparate treatment of AfricanAmerican firefighters within the Department in the areas of promotion, duty assignments and discipline.
10. Since the expiration of the consent decree, Defendants have administered two (2) promotional examinations prior to 2002: one in 1996 and another in 2000.
11. The promotional examination process administered in 1996 was originally scheduled for 1995, but was delayed at the motion of the Defendant City of Cleveland and the labor union representing the firefighters.
12. There are two Battalions within Defendant City of Cleveland Fire Division, both located on the west side of the city, where no black or African-American officers are assigned at all. In these same two Battalions, there are less than 15 black or African-American firefighters out of in excess of 250 firefighters assigned.
13. Most black or African-American officers are not assigned to suppression units, but are assigned instead predominantly to administrative duties or offices of Defendant City of Cleveland Fire Division.
14. When African-American officers are able to transfer to suppression units, their authority and responsibilities are generally usurped or circumvented by senior authority within the Fire

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 11 of 52

Division, which has resulted in senior ranking black or African-American officers actually reporting to lower ranking non-minority officers. 15. Black and African-American officers are routinely assigned to units within the Fire Division that have become “Traditional Black Assignments,” to the exclusion of assignments that are more lucrative in terms of compensation and experience and can lead to better assignments. 16. There is and has been a racially hostile environment that has been maintained and tolerated within the Division of Fire, becoming so serious on at least one occasion that a fire station had to be temporarily closed to relieve the tensions before they escalated into a situation beyond the control of the administration and Division of Fire officers. 17. Defendant City of Cleveland has perpetrated and maintained a culture of racial discrimination within the Division of Fire dating back at least to the 1996 promotional examinations, including hostile work environment, disparate treatment in assignments, discipline, overtime and acting time. 18. Defendant Barrett and Associates (“B&A”) and Gerald Barrett (“Barrett”) were employed by Defendant City of Cleveland to develop, conduct, and grade the promotional examinations administered in 1996, 2000 and 2002. 19. The service performed by Barrett and B&A was a public function of the City of Cleveland pursuant to R.C § 124.45 and City Ord. No. 290-01, delegated by contract to the private consultant for public purposes. PLAINTIFFS

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 12 of 52

Keith Acey 20. Plaintiff Keith Acey was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department on July 18, 1983. 21. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Acey has accumulated a satisfactory work
record. 22. Plaintiff Acey is currently at the rank of Firefighter First Grade and successfully passed the
promotion examination to the rank of Lieutenant in 1996, where he ranked # 119C. 23. Plaintiff Acey was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 24. Plaintiff Acey successfully passed the Lieutenant promotional examination in 2000, where he
ranked #73. 25. Plaintiff Acey was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 26. Plaintiff Acey underwent the promotional examination for 2002 to the rank of Lieutenant, but
did not pass the examination. Rudolph Buffington 27. Plaintiff Rudolph Buffington was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in March
9, 1998. 28. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Buffington has accumulated a satisfactory
work record. 29. Plaintiff Buffington is currently at the rank of Firefighter First Grade and successfully passed the
promotion examination to the rank of Lieutenant in 2000, where he ranked #145. 30. Plaintiff Buffington was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 13 of 52

31. Plaintiff Buffington underwent the promotional examination in 2002, but did not pass the examination.
Granville White 32. Plaintiff Granville White was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in February
14, 1994. 33. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff White has accumulated a satisfactory work
record. 34. Plaintiff White is currently at the rank of Firefighter First Grade and successfully passed the
promotion examination to the rank of Lieutenant in 1996, where he ranked #103D. 35. Plaintiff White was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 36. Plaintiff White successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
2000, where he ranked #65. 37. Plaintiff White was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 38. Plaintiff White underwent the promotional examination in 2002, but did not pass the
examination. Anthony Luke 39. Plaintiff Anthony Luke was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in February 14,
1994. 40. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Luke has accumulated a satisfactory work
record.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 14 of 52

41. Plaintiff Luke successfully passed the Lieutenant promotional examination in 1996, where he was ranked at #40A, the highest of any African-American of black firefighter for the Lieutenant rank.
42. Plaintiff Luke was promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 43. Plaintiff Luke successfully passed the Captain promotional examination in 2000, where he was
ranked #35, the highest of any black or African-American firefighter for the rank of Captain. 44. Plaintiff Luke was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 45. Plaintiff Luke has successfully passed the 2002 promotional examination for the rank of
Captain, and is ranked at #29. Kevin Echols 46. Plaintiff Kevin Echols was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in May 8, 1989. 47. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Echols has accumulated a satisfactory work
record. 48. Plaintiff Echols successfully passed the promotion examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, where he ranked at #131A. 49. Plaintiff Echols was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 50. Plaintiff Echols successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
2000, and was ranked at #52. 51. Plaintiff Echols was promoted from the 2000 eligibility list in April 2002, immediately prior to
the expiration of that eligibility list.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 15 of 52

52. Per the Civil Service rules, any firefighter who has been promoted must remain in rank for a period of one (1) year before they are eligible to sit for the promotional examination for the next rank.
53. Past practice of the Division of Fire has been to waive the one-year requirement for firefighters seeking promotion to the next rank.
54. The Division of Fire is enforcing the one-year policy, prohibiting him from undergoing the promotional examination process for the rank of Captain in 2002.
Bruce Williams 55. Plaintiff Bruce Williams was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in June 2,
1981. 56. Plaintiff Williams successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Captain in
2000, being ranked #57. 57. Plaintiff Williams was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 58. Plaintiff Williams successfully passed the promotional examination to the rank of Captain in
2002, being ranked #44. 59. Plaintiff Williams was subjected to formal disciplinary action for conduct that Caucasian
firefighters were not, to wit, missing an emergency run with his crew. Michael Odum 60. Plaintiff Michael Odum was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in March
1981.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 16 of 52

61. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Odum has accumulated a satisfactory work record.
62. Plaintiff Odum successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Captain in 1996 and was promoted from that eligibility list in 1997.
63. Plaintiff Odum was a candidate for promotion and took the underwent the promotional examination process in the year 2000.
64. As part of that process, he received from Defendants a copies of his coded answer sheets for the Job Knowledge and In-basket portions of the promotional examination process; the originals were retained by the City of Cleveland.
65. When Plaintiff Odum examined the answer sheets he was given, he noticed that the handwriting on one of the answer sheets was not his even though it bore his name, but another with handwriting not his own.
66. Plaintiff Odum successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Battalion Chief in 2000, being ranked at #24.
67. Plaintiff Odum was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list.. Kenneth Guyton 68. Plaintiff Kenneth Guyton was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in March 8,
1982. 69. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Guyton has accumulated a satisfactory work
record.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 17 of 52

70. Plaintiff Guyton successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Captain in 1996, being ranked at #26.
71. Plaintiff Guyton was promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 72. Plaintiff Guyton successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Battalion Chief
in 2000, being ranked at #21. 73. Plaintiff Guyton was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. Bashir Rahman 74. Plaintiff Bashir Rahman was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Department in June 1973. 75. Throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff Rahman has accumulated a satisfactory work
record. 76. Plaintiff Rahman successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Assistant
Chief in 1996, being ranked #8. 77. Plaintiff Rahman was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 78. Plaintiff Rahman has not undergone the promotional examination process since 1996 due to his
belief that the process is futile for black and African-American firefighters. Daryl McGinnis 79. Plaintiff Daryl McGinnis was first hired by the City of Cleveland Fire Division on April 22,
1985. 80. Plaintiff McGinnis had successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Captain
in 1996, being ranked #37A.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 18 of 52

81. Plaintiff McGinnis was promoted to the rank of Captain from the 1996 eligibility list. 82. Plaintiff McGinnis successfully passed the promotional examination to the rank of Battalion
Chief in 2000, being ranked #6. 83. Plaintiff McGinnis was promoted to the rank of Battalion Chief from the 2000 eligibility list in
April 2002, right before the eligibility period expired.. 84. Per the policy of the Fire Division, any firefighter who has been promoted must remain in rank
for a period of six (6) months before they are eligible for promotion to the next rank. 85. Past practice of the Fire Division has been to waive this eligibility requirement for past
examinations. 86. Fire Division is enforcing the time in rank policy as to McGinnis, and therefore due to the date
of Plaintiff McGinnis’ promotion to Battalion chief, he is ineligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Chief. Fred McMickle 87. Plaintiff Fred McMickle has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of Cleveland. 88. Plaintiff McMickle successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in 2000, being ranked #145A. 89. Plaintiff McMickle was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 90. Plaintiff McMickle successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in 2002, being ranked #2.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 19 of 52

Ronald Askew 91. Plaintiff Ronald Askew has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City
of Cleveland. 92. Plaintiff Askew successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank Lieutenant in
2000, being ranked #129. 93. Plaintiff Askew was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. 94. Plaintiff Askew successfully passed the promotional examination for Lieutenant in 2002, being
ranked #7. Lawrence Moore 95. Plaintiff Lawrence Moore has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the
City of Cleveland. 96. Plaintiff Moore has been subjected to disparate treatment in relation to disciplinary action he
received in relation to a verbal argument he had with a Caucasian co-worker, who was not disciplined in any manner for the same incident. Asa Newsome 97. Plaintiff Lawrence Newsome has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of Cleveland. 98. Plaintiff Newsome was subjected to disparate and retaliatory disciplinary treatment when he complained about lighted fireworks being thrown into the watch area by Caucasian firefighters at the station where he was assigned.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 20 of 52

Bernard Russell 99. Plaintiff Bernard Russell has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City
of Cleveland. 100. Plaintiff Russell successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, being ranked #197C. 101. Plaintiff Russell was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 102. Plaintiff Russell successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
2000, being ranked #119. 103. Plaintiff Russell was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. Daphne Tyus 104. Plaintiff Daphne Tyus has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of
Cleveland. 105. Plaintiff Tyus successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank Lieutenant in 1996,
being ranked at #172C. 106. Plaintiff Tyus was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 107. Plaintiff Tyus underwent the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in 2002, but did
not successfully pass. David Butler 108. Plaintiff Butler has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of
Cleveland.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 21 of 52

109. Plaintiff Butler successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in 1996, being ranked at #113A.
110. Plaintiff Butler was not promoted off the 1996 eligibility list. 111. Plaintiff Butler underwent the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in 2002, but
did not successfully pass. Kariem Hasan 112. Plaintiff Hasan has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of
Cleveland. 113. Plaintiff Hasan successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, being ranked #132. 114. Plaintiff Hasan was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 115. Plaintiff Hasan successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
2000, being ranked at #76. 116. Plaintiff Hasan was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. Emanuel Williams 117. Plaintiff Williams has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of
Cleveland. 118. Plaintiff Williams successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, being ranked at #162. 119. Plaintiff Williams was not promoted from the eligibility list for 1996.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 22 of 52

Sean Hodges 120. Plaintiff Sean Hodges has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City
of Cleveland. 121. Plaintiff Hodges successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, being ranked at #112. 122. Plaintiff Hodges was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. 123. Plaintiff Hodges successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
2000, being ranked at #138. 124. Plaintiff Hodges was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. David Austin 125. Plaintiff Austin has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the City of
Cleveland. 126. Plaintiff Austin successfully passed the 2000 promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant
in 2000, being ranked 136B. 127. Plaintiff Austin was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. James Cartwright 128. Plaintiff James Cartwright has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the
City of Cleveland. 129. Plaintiff Cartwright successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant
in 2000, being ranked #112.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 23 of 52

130. Plaintiff Cartwright was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. Terence Watson 131. Plaintiff Terence Watson has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the
City of Cleveland. 132. Plaintiff Watson successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant in
1996, being ranked #175B. 133. Plaintiff Watson was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. Richard Nickerson 134. Plaintiff Richard Nickerson has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the
City of Cleveland. 135. Plaintiff Nickerson successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant
in 2000, being ranked #150. 136. Plaintiff Nickerson was not promoted from the 2000 eligibility list. Anthony Nickerson 137. Plaintiff Anthony Nickerson has accumulated a satisfactory work record as a firefighter for the
City of Cleveland. 138. Plaintiff Nickerson successfully passed the promotional examination for the rank of Lieutenant
in 1996, being ranked #132C. 139. Plaintiff Nickerson was not promoted from the 1996 eligibility list. Remaining Plainitffs

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 24 of 52

140. All remaining Plaintiffs have experienced the racially hostile environment within Defendant City of Cleveland, Division of Fire.

DEFENDANTS 141. Defendant City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio; the
City of Cleveland Fire Department is a subdivision of the City of Cleveland. 142. Defendant Chief is the Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Cleveland, and according to
the Charter and established practice, is responsible for the creation and administration of policies for the Department, including those relating to the promotional examination process. 143. The City of Cleveland Fire Division is organized by Battalions, which are designate by various geographic sections of the City. There are two (2) Battalions located on the City’s west side, and there are four (4) Battalions located on the City’s east side. Each Battalion is further subdivided into Stations, and there are 4-6 Stations per Battalion. 144. Each station is assigned companies, which are in turn assigned apparatus. 145. The promotional examination process, disciplinary actions and duty assignments are all part of the policies and procedures for the City of Cleveland Safety Forces, Fire Division or under the direction of Defendant City’s Civil Service Commission; all actions taken against or directed to Plaintiffs have been ostensibly pursuant to these policies and procedures. 146. Defendant Barrett & Associates, Inc. (“B&A”) is a company doing business in the State of Ohio which prepares, administers and scores promotional examinations for various

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 25 of 52

municipalities including at all times pertinent herein Defendant City of Cleveland’s Division of Fire promotional examinations for the years 1996, 2000 and 2002. 147. Defendant Gerald Barrett (“Barrett”) is President of Barrett & Associates, Inc., and is responsible for the overall management and operations of the company, including its record maintenance and destruction. 148. Specifically Defendant City of Cleveland employed Barrett and B&A via “emergency ordinances” intended to “employ by contract one or more consultants for the purpose of supplementing the regularly employed staff of the several departments of the City of Cleveland in order to perform a job analysis and to develop, administer and grade promotional examinations for the division of Fire, Department of Public Safety.” (Exhibits 1 (Ord. No. 29001) and 2 (Contract)). 149. At all times pertinent the Defendant City maintained ownership of the job analyses, exam development, prepatory materials, study materials, examinations, answer sheets, grade materials, reports and recommendations, and all other documents and reports pertaining to the promotion of the firefighters pursuant to the examinations conducted on behalf of the City. (Exhibit 2, at 9-10). 150. At all times during the process, Defendants Barrett and B& A retained custody of the City’s promotional records. 151. At all times during the process, Defendant City reserved the right “[t]o effectively verify proposals and all work performed by [Barrett and B&A]” and “to conduct site visits at

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 26 of 52

[Barrett’s and B&A’s] location. (Exhibit 3, City Employment Letter). 152. Defendant City required Barrett and B&A as part of its employment “supplementing” the City
to produce “eligibility lists” detailing grade results, name, address birthdate, and race of each candidate. (Exhibits 2, at 2; 3, at 4). 153. At all times pertinent herein, Barrett and B& A were specifically employed to perform a public function: supplementing the City in its duty to perform promotional tests in accordance with R.C. § 124.45. 154. The records, proposals, examinations, grade sheets, answer sheets, and all other documents generated by B&A in supplementing the City’s promotional functions within the Division of Fire are public records as defined under R.C. § 149.43. 155. The 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations have been the subject of other civil rights litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 156. Defendant Gerald Barrett is an attorney. 157. Defendants Barrett and B&A, per contract, agreed to serve as “expert witnesses” and to assist the City in the production, preparation and maintenance of any employment litigation involving the promotional process. (Exhibit 3 at 4); Defendant Barrett charges $350 per hour to serve as a witness and be involved in litigation preparation on behalf of examinations developed and conducted for the City by B&A. 158. Defendants Barrett and B&A have destroyed all documents relating to the promotional examinations conducted by the City, via B&A, in 1996 and 2000.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 27 of 52

159. Defendant Barrett and B&A conspired with Defendant City in the preparation, administration, grading, and recommendations based upon, the promotional examinations, resulting in discriminatory treatment and disparate impact on African-American and black firefighters.
160. By improperly and, without authorization, destroying public records, B&A and Barrett conspired with Defendant City, and aided and abetted Defendant City’s racially discriminatory practices toward African American and black firefighters.
161. By improperly and, without authorization, destroying public records in its capacity of performing a public function and being pervasively entwined with the Defendant City, Defendants Barrett and B&A acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiffs of their civil rights under the law.
162. By performing being pervasively entwined and performing the public function of conducting the examinations in a discriminatory and disparate manner based on the candidates’ race, Barrett and B&A acted under color of state law to deprive the African- American and black examinees of equal protection under the law.
III. THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS 163. The promotional examination process used by the City of Cleveland Fire Division is used by
policy of the Fire Division and/or Defendant City’s Civil Service Commission and consists of three (3) separate parts: 1) Job Knowledge; 2) In-basket; and 3) Oral Interview. 164. The Job Knowledge test and its answer key are to be kept highly confidential and secure at all times, and are never to be distributed or otherwise disseminated at any time to any individual

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 28 of 52

other than as necessary during the examination period to eligible candidates actually taking the examination. 165. Many of the questions on successive Job Knowledge test examinations are the same or very similar. 166. The answer sheets for the Job Knowledge portion have historically requested not only the social security number and date of birth of the candidate, but includes a box where the candidate is to identify their race. 167. Answer keyed copies of the Job Knowledge examination have been disseminated to nonminority promotional candidates. 168. The In-basket portion of the promotional examination process is subjective and consists of reviewing documents and placing them in a sequence to respond to some questions regarding them. 169. The answer sheets for the In-basket portion request not only the social security number and date of birth of the candidate, but includes a box where the candidate is to identify their race. 170. The oral interview portion of the examination process is subjective and conducted at a different location weeks after the other portions of the process have been completed, scored and the results known to the administrators and senior ranking officials of the Fire Department. 171. The oral interview portion of the promotional examination process is tape recorded, but no black or African-American candidate has ever been permitted to review the tapes of their oral interview when they have requested to do so.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 29 of 52

172. The oral interview portion of the promotional examination process is totally subjective with no objective criteria involved in administration, evaluation and scoring.
173. The Cleveland Civil Service Commission rules do not permit oral promotional examinations for firefighters.
174. The Ohio Revised Code mandates that all promotional examination for firefighters “shall be in writing.”
175. To be considered eligible for any promotion with the Division of Fire, a candidate must already have been promoted to or have attained the immediately subordinate rank; there is no skipping of ranks.

A. 1996 PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION 176. The 1996 promotional examination was administered in July 1996. 177. At the Lieutenant rank there were 248 total candidates, of which 46 were black or African-
American. 178. The highest ranking black or African-American candidate was Plaintiff Luke, who ranked at
number 40A. 179. Of the 46 black or African-American candidates who passed the 1996 promotional
examination for the Lieutenant rank, only 5 were ranked in the top third and 33 were ranked in the bottom half of the eligible candidates. 180. There were 86 candidates who were promoted to the rank of Lieutenant from the 1996

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 30 of 52

promotional examination, of which only 5 were black or African-American. 181. For the 1996 promotional examination for the rank of Captain, out of 89 total candidates only 4
were black or African-American and none ranked higher than number 15. 182. Out of 43 total promotions to the rank of Captain, only 4 were black or African-American. 183. For the 1996 promotional examination for the rank of Battalion Chief, out of 39 total
candidates, 1 was black or African-American, who ranked number 16 and was promoted to the rank of Battalion Chief out of 22 promotions. 184. For the 1996 promotional examination for the rank of Assistant Chief, there were 13 total candidates of which 3 were black or African-American. 185. Paul Stubbs was the highest ranking black or African-American candidate at number 6, and was originally ranked at #5 but was downgraded to #6 after Brent Collins, a Caucasian firefighter, was elevated in rank over him. 186. Stubbs initiated litigation to remedy his being passed over for promotion due to race discrimination and was eventually promoted as settlement of that litigation.

B. 2000 PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION 187. For the year 2000 promotion examination for the rank of Assistant Chief, five (5) candidates
underwent the process. Three (3) candidates passed, including one (1) African-American, Edward Whatley.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 31 of 52

188. At the time of the promotional process in the year 2000, there were 24 Battalion Chiefs, of which only three (3), or 12.5%, were black or African-American.
189. The Caucasian candidates were promoted shortly after they successfully completed the promotional examination process.
190. Whatley was not promoted until immediately before the expiration of the eligibility period in April 2002.
191. After promotion in April 2002, there were seven (7) Assistant Chiefs, of which two (2), or 28.5%, are black or African-American.
192. For the year 2000 promotional examination for the rank of Battalion Chief, 41 candidates underwent the examination process of which 40 passed, of which only four were black or African-American.
193. The top five candidates for the rank of Battalion Chief were Caucasians, who were each promoted shortly after their successful completion of the promotional process.
194. Darryl McGinnis, the sixth eligible candidate and an African-American, was not promoted to the rank of Battalion Chief until the end of the eligibility period in April 2002, upon the promotion of Whatley to the rank of Assistant Chief..
195. After McGinnis’s promotion, there were 30 Battalion Chiefs, of which three (3), or 10% are black or African-American.
196. For the year 2000 promotional examination process for the rank of Captain, 89 candidates passed the examination, of which 11 were black or African-American.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 32 of 52

197. Of the 11 black or African American candidates who passed the examination process, the highest ranking black or African-American candidate was Plaintiff Luke, who ranked at number 34A.
198. 17 persons were promoted to the rank of Captain; none were black or African-American. 199. After the promotions, there were 64 Captains, of which three (3), or 4.8%, are black or
African-American. 200. For the year 2000 promotional examination process for the rank of Lieutenant, 158 candidates
successfully completed the examination process, of which 28 were black or African-American; only two (2) blacks or African-Americans ranked among the top 30. 201. 61 candidates were promoted, of which ten (10) were black or African-American. 202. After these promotions, there were 173 Lieutenants of which 28, or 16%, are black or AfricanAmerican. 203. The disparities in the 1996 promotional examination results between black and AfricanAmerican firefighters and non-minority firefighters is demonstrates a similar pattern as that of the 2000 promotional examination results. 204. Because promotion to successively higher ranks is dependent upon achieving the rank of Lieutenant, black or African-American under-representation at this level adversely affects the ability of black or African-Americans to achieve higher ranks within the City of Cleveland Fire Department and therefore the higher compensation, responsibility and increased pensions attendant with promotion.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 33 of 52

205. From the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations, a total of 242 promotions were made, of which only 22 (9.0%) were black or African-American.

C. 2002 PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION 206. The 2002 promotions examinations for Lieutenant were administered in June 2002; the
examination was administered after this suit was commenced. 207. Approximately 212 firefighters signed up to take the promotional examination to the rank of
Lieutenant, but only 98 actually underwent the examination process. 208. The lack of participation for the 2002 promotional examinations was substantially lower than
that experienced for either the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations, for which 248 and 158 firefighters, respectively underwent the examination process to the rank of Lieutenant. 209. Only 39 candidates successfully passed the 2002 promotional examination, of which 11 were black or African-American. 210. Plaintiff McMickle was highest ranking black or African-American at number 2; Plaintiff Askew ranked at number 7; Plaintiff Hasan ranked at number 18. 211. At the Captain rank, out of 68 total candidates, 11 were black or African-American. 212. The highest ranking black or African-American was #24; Plaintiff Luke ranked at #29.

D. DROP Program
Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 34 of 52

213. The Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) was enacted by the Ohio General Assembly and effective January 1, 2003.
214. The DROP program is a deferred compensation program that allows firefighters to divert their pension contributions to a deferred compensation account instead of their pension plan.
215. In order to remain eligible for the DROP program, an enrolled firefighter must remain within the program for at least 3 years, but no more than 8 years.
216. The DROP program causes a reduction of the number of firefighters leaving the force for retirement because of the eligibility requirements.
217. Because of the DROP, the number of promotional vacancies for the eligibility period of the 2002 promotional examination is expected to be much less than that experienced in either the 1996 or 2000 promotional periods.
218. Should promotions be made from the 2002 promotional examination, irreparable harm will result to the black and African-American firefighters who suffered the effects of discrimination from the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations, as fewer positions will be available for corrective measures.
219. Because of the disparate impact on blacks and African-Americans due to the promotional examinations and/or examination process including the administration of the promotional examinations, black and African-American fire fighters have been and are being denied promotions and the opportunity for promotion within the City of Cleveland Fire Division as enjoyed by Caucasian firefighters, including having fewer black and African-American

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 35 of 52

firefighters at the lower ranks from which to draw eligible and qualified officer candidates. 220. The disparate treatment experienced by black and African-American firefighters from the past
promotional examinations has served to reduce the number of eligible candidates for promotion to higher ranks within the Division of Fire as well as discourage and chill the participation of black and African-American firefighters from participating in the promotional process.

IV. DISCIPLINE 221. The Fire Division has its own disciplinary procedures and disciplinary process that it uses to
reprimand and discipline personnel. 222. The disciplinary process is divided into formal and informal disciplinary processes. 223. Informal discipline is generally handled without involvement of Defendant Chief’s office, and
there are no or few records kept of firefighter discipline handled in this manner. 224. Formal discipline is disciplinary action that is processed through Defendant Chief’s office, and
results in becoming part of the firefighter’s permanent record. 225. Defendant Chief Gerrity has complete authority and discretion in formulating and implementing
disciplinary policies and procedures for the Division of Fire. 226. During the years 1997 through 2000, there were 93 formal disciplinary actions within the Fire
Division. Of those, 49 (52.7%) involved black or African-American firefighters, 41 involved Caucasian firefighters, and 3 involved other minorities. 227. Applied to total population, almost one in four black or African-American firefighters were

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 36 of 52

subjected to formal disciplinary action during the period 1997 through 2000, while only one in sixteen (16) Caucasian firefighters were subjected to formal disciplinary action during the same period. 228. Black and African-American firefighters are subjected to more serious disciplinary actions for conduct that Caucasian firefighters are not subjected to disciplinary actions or who receive lesser discipline. 229. The entire disciplinary process has resulted in a disparate impact upon black and AfricanAmerican firefighters. 230. Specific examples of disparate treatment of black and African-American firefighters in discipline include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Plaintiff Lawrence Moore was involved in an argument with a Caucasian co-worker, yet he was the only firefighter punished and made to submit to a drug screen. Several Caucasian firefighters then made a concerted effort to have Plaintiff Moore re-assigned by having their wives send letter to Defendant Gerrity claiming they were fearful for their husband’s lives due to alleged threats from Plaintiff Moore; (B) Plaintiff Asa Newsome was subjected to racial harassment at his station, culminating when lighted fireworks into the watch area where he was located which exploded next to his head. Newsome immediately went to the kitchen of the station where the other Caucasian members of the station were sitting and complained about the incident. Assistant Chief Brent Collins claimed he did not hear the explosion of the fireworks, but that he could hear Newsome’s complaining about same. After

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 37 of 52

Newsome made several requests for forms of explanation were submitted by Newsome, he was detailed to the Fire Training Academy for “retraining.” No Caucasian firefighters were punished nor was any investigation conducted until other African-American members of the Fire Division continued to complain.
(C) Plaintiff Keith Acey was subjected to harassment by a Caucasian Captain and complained to appropriate administration about the harassment. No investigation was ever conducted regarding the harassment and no action has ever been taken. There have been several instances where Caucasian firefighters have complained about being “harassed” or “threatened” by black or African-American firefighters who were then removed from the unit and re-assigned. (D) On another occasion, a Caucasian firefighter who reported for work obviously impaired due to being under the influence of alcohol was simply taken home by the officer, also Caucasian, who found a replacement to cover for the impaired officer’s absence; no discipline was imposed upon the impaired firefighter, yet without any investigation or reason, an entire firehouse which was predominantly staffed with African-American and black firefighters was forced to undergo drug screens, even though no firefighter was impaired or under the influence and no officer observed any firefighter under the influence of any substance at the time the drug screens were ordered.
(E) On another occasion, a black firefighter was suspended without pay pending an investigation into allegations of theft and when acquitted, the firefighter was demoted and removed from his assignment; a Caucasian firefighter transferred funds from the Fire Prevention house fund into his personal account, yet no official police investigation was ever requested nor was he ever removed from

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 38 of 52

his assignment or demoted. (F) Black and African-American firefighters at two stations reported and filed numerous reports
of racial discrimination and a racially hostile environment at the respective stations. At one station, Defendants City and Gerrity had to actually close the companies assigned to the stations and seek intervention from the Employee Assistance officers to attempt to diffuse the explosive racial tensions; when Caucasian firefighters at another station complained about what they perceived as racial remarks from a black officer, he was removed from his position and re-assigned.
(G) Another black firefighter was re-assigned from his assignment and suspended for one day when he failed to report a DUI charge to Fire Division administration, even though he retained occupational driving privileges; a Caucasian firefighter who had his driver’s license suspended and failed to disclose this fact to his company captain (who was African-American) was not removed until complaints to senior Fire Division administration were made by this company officer; another Caucasian firefighter with at least three DUIs known to Fire Division administration was never subjected to disciplinary action nor removed from his assignment.
(H) A Caucasian Division officer reported to work intoxicated and urinated on the head of another Caucasian firefighter who had refused to engage in racially hostile acts, resulting in a physical altercation between the two resulting in damage to Fire Division property and blood stains in the carpet of the station; other Caucasian firefighters repaired the damage and denied that the incident and altercation ever occurred, despite one of the firefighters having sustained actual physical injuries; no discipline was ever imposed on either Caucasian firefighter.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 39 of 52

(I) Defendant Gerrity sent a memo regarding firehouses with large Caucasian populations where photographs had been taken by other Defendant City employees of various incidents of wrongdoing and rules violations occurring in those stations; despite the photographic evidence, no investigations were ever conducted and no discipline was ever imposed on any of the Caucasian firefighters at the stations.
(J) A Caucasian member of the Fire Investigation Unit was found heavily intoxicated in a bar with his weapon in violation of Division rules , but was never subjected to disciplinary action.
(K) An African-American firefighter was subjected to informal disciplinary action for a rule violation, then also improperly subjected to formal disciplinary action for the same offense. V. ASSIGNMENTS 231. The two Battalions on the west side within the Fire Division have no black or African-American
officers assigned at all. 232. In these same two (2) Battalions, there are only approximately 15 African-American or black
firefighters assigned. 233. When Plaintiff McGinnis was promoted to Captain, over half of his complement, all Caucasian
firefighters, transferred out of his Company. 234. Even though as Captain he is required by policy to sign all transfer requests, Plaintiff McGinnis
had not signed nor even seen the transfer requests for the Caucasian firefighters who transferred. 235. Defendants Gerrity and City of Cleveland have used re-assignment as a disciplinary method

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 40 of 52

against black and African-American firefighters while not re-assigning Caucasian firefighters who had committed the same types of violations or alleged violations. 236. Defendants Gerrity and City of Cleveland have used re-assignment as a retaliatory method against black and African-American firefighters who have complained about racial inequities and disparate treatment within the Fire Division. 237. Defendant Chief Gerrity has complete discretion in making assignments of personnel within the Fire Division.

VI. RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT 238. All Plaintiffs and black and African-American firefighters are subjected to a racially hostile
environment with the Division of Fire, including without limitation, suffering disparate disciplinary treatment, racial harassment, enforced segregation, selective assignment and assignment for retaliatory or discriminatory purposes, subjecting black and African-American firefighters to drug screens and testing without reasonable cause, undermining the authority of black and African-American officers, using a promotional process that discriminates against black and African-American firefighters, and denial of overtime and acting time. 235. Despite numerous complaints by various black and African-American firefighters to the administration within the Division of Fire and the Defendant City of Cleveland, there has been no correction or even an acknowledgment of the current racially disparate treatment or the racially hostile environment within the Division of Fire.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 41 of 52

236. The racial strife has been so serious that it has required the closing of at least one station on an unscheduled emergency basis due to elevated racial tensions at the station house so severe that physical violence was feared imminent by the Fire Division administration.

VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 237. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf
of themselves and a class of employees and former employees of Defendants in the who, within the applicable liability period, have worked as firefighters and are black or African-American. 238. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent. 239. Numerosity. There are approximately 210 black or African-American firefighters currently on the active payroll of Defendant City and an indeterminate number of black and AfricanAmerican firefighters who were actively employed during the pertinent statutory period but have retired or otherwise separated their employment with Defendant City. The number of persons are so numerous that joinder of all the members of the class is impracticable. 240. Commonality. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any actions affecting only individual members of the class, including, without limitation, whether, as alleged herein, whether Defendants have engaged in discriminatory practices in assignment, discipline, promotion, and by creating and maintaining a racially hostile environment towards black and African-American firefighters. 241. Typicality. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 42 of 52

242. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the members of the class. Counsel representing Plaintiffs are competent and experienced in representing plaintiffs in employment litigation.
243. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ,. P 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class. Each member of the class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants discriminatory policies and/or practices directed towards black and AfricanAmerican firefighters.
VIII. JURISDICTION 244. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court over Plaintiffs’ federal claims by virtue of 42 U.S.C.
§1988 and 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question jurisdiction. 245. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court over Plaintiffs’ state law claims by virtue of R.C. 28
U.S.C. §1367, supplemental jurisdiction.
COUNT I Race Discrimination in Employment, 42 U.S.C. §1981 246. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 247. Defendants’ various acts and omissions relating to promotion, the promotional examinations and the promotional process constitute discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 43 of 52

248. Defendants Kevin Gerrity and City of Cleveland’s various acts and omissions relating to assignment, racially hostile environment and disciplinary actions constitute discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

COUNT II Equal Protection, 42 U.S.C. §1983 249. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 250. Defendants’ various acts and omissions relating to promotion, the promotional examinations and the promotional process constitute denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. 251. Defendants Gerrity and City of Cleveland’s various acts and omissions relating to disparate treatment in assignments, maintaining a racially hostile environment, and disparate treatment in disciplinary actions constitute denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

COUNT III Race Discrimination, R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) & 4112.99
Disparate Impact
252. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein.
253. The policies and practices of the Defendants regarding promotion, the promotional and the
promotional process have a disparate impact upon the Plaintiffs and African-American and

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 44 of 52

black firefighters as a class. 254. The policies and practices of Defendants Gerrity and City of Cleveland in disparate or
retaliatory treatment in assignments, disparate disciplinary treatment and promoting and maintaining a racially hostile environment have a disparate impact upon Plaintiffs and AfricanAmerican and black firefighters as a class. 255. Defendants’ various acts and omissions constitute discrimination on the basis of race in violation of R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99.
COUNT IV Race Discrimination, R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) & 4112.99
Disparate Treatment 256. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 257. Defendants’ various acts and omissions regarding promotion, the promotional examination and
the promotional process constitute discrimination on the basis of race in violation of R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99. 258. Defendants’ Gerrity and City of Cleveland’s various acts and omissions regarding disparate or retaliatory treatment in assignments, disparate disciplinary treatment and the promoting and maintaining of a racially hostile environment constitute discrimination on the basis of race in violation of R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

COUNT V

Page 45 of 52

Aiding and Abetting, R.C. §§ 4112.02(J), 4112.99 259. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 260. Defendants’ Barrett and Barrett & Associates Inc. use of a promotional examination and
examination process that does not conform with Ohio law or the City of Cleveland Civil Service rules and results in discrimination on the basis of race by Defendants City and Gerrity constitutes aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of R.C. §§ 4112.02(J) and 4112.99. 261. Defendants’ Gerrity and City of Cleveland’s various acts and omissions regarding authorizing the utilization of a promotional examination and examination process that is not in conformity with Ohio law and the City of Cleveland Civil Service rules and that results in having a discriminatory impact and disparate treatment of black and African-American firefighters by Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates, Inc. constitutes aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of R.C. §§ 4112.02(J) and 4112.99.

COUNT VI Conspiracy, 42 U.S.C. §1985 262. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 263. Defendants’ Barrett and Barrett & Associates Inc. use of a promotional examination and examination process that does not conform with Ohio law or the City of Cleveland Civil

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 46 of 52

Service rules and results in discrimination on the basis of race by Defendants City and Gerrity constitutes conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985. 264. Defendants’ Gerrity and City of Cleveland’s various acts and omissions regarding authorizing the utilization of a promotional examination and examination process that is not in conformity with Ohio law and the City of Cleveland Civil Service rules and that results in having a discriminatory impact and disparate treatment of black and African-American firefighters by Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates, Inc. constitutes conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985.

COUNT VII Destruction of Public Records; R.C. §149.351 265. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 243 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 266. Defendant Barrett & Associates, Inc. was retained by Defendant City to prepare, administer and score the Fire Division promotional examinations for the years 1996, 2000 and 2002. 267. Defendant Gerald Barrett is the President and owner of Defendant Barrett & Associates who at all times pertinent herein controlled and directed the operations of Defendant Barrett & Associates. 268. At all times pertinent herein, Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates were agents of Defendant City in the preparation, administration and scoring of the promotional examinations. 269. As part of the promotion process, Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates prepared

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 47 of 52

documents and records necessary to the promotional examination process for each of the years 1996, 2000 and 2002. 270. On information and belief, the number of documents and records prepared or used by Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates for the 1996 promotional examination exceeds 100,000. 271. On information and belief, the number of documents and records prepared or used by Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates for the 2000 promotional examination exceeds 100,000. 272. The promotional documents and records prepared and/or used by Defendants Barrett and Barrett & Associates are public records as provided by R.C. § 149.43 and by virtue of Defendant City’s continuing ownership and control of them. 273. Without authority or privilege to do so, Defendants Barrett, B&A and the City of Cleveland have destroyed or caused to be destroyed all documents and records associated with both the 1996 and 2000 Fire Division promotional examinations. 274. Plaintiffs did not discover that the 1996 promotional examination public records had been destroyed until August 15, 2002, when in response to a subpoena duces tecum, Defendants informed Plaintiffs that the 1996 promotional examination material had all been destroyed. 275. Plaintiffs did not discover that the 2000 promotional examination public records had been destroyed until September 23, 2002, when Defendants B&A and Barrett notified Plaintiffs, through counsel, that these public records had also been destroyed.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 48 of 52

276. Defendants destruction and/or unauthorized removal of the promotional examination documents for 1996 and 2000 constitute destruction of public records, in violation of R.C. §149.351.
COUNT VII Spoliation of Evidence 277. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 276 of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 278. Defendants’ City of Cleveland’s, Barrett’s and B&A’s destruction of records and documents which are not only germane but essential to the promotional examination process constitutes spoliation of evidence. 279. Defendants were on notice that the documents were disputed, as at least one prior lawsuit by a current Plaintiff (timely re-filed in this action), concerned the development, administration and grading of the 2000 examination and named both Defendant City and Defendant B&A as defendants in that case. 280. Defendants Barrett and B&A also have contracted to serve as “expert witnesses” for the City of Cleveland to testify based on their production and administration of documents and examinations on behalf of the City of Cleveland; such terms of the contract exceed the time period of the contract performance. 281. Defendants conspired and destroyed the documents in violation of the law requiring them to seek Civil Service permission prior to destruction of public documents, constituting unlawful destruction of public records and spoliation of evidence.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 49 of 52

IX. RELIEF SOUGHT 282. Plaintiffs initially seek an injunction preventing the promotion of any firefighters from the June
28, 2002, examination process. 283. Plaintiffs seek promotion of black and African-American firefighters who were subjected to the
1996 or 2000 promotional examination process who successfully passed the examination but who were not promoted at that time. 284. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the promotion of a firefighters from the 2002 promotional examination until adequate remedial and corrective measures have been made to promote and make whole those black and African-American firefighters who were improperly denied promotion from the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations. 285. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction relating to transfers and assignments, or the imposing of any discipline upon any firefighter until implementation of adequate safeguards and review procedures to ensure fairness of the processes. 286. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and R.C. §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99. 287. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction precluding the use of any indicators of race or identity in the promotional testing process. 288. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction precluding the use of any oral examination or unwritten examination as part of the promotional process.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 50 of 52

289. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction barring the use of either Gerald Barrett or Barrett & Associates as a third party testing service or consultant in any future promotional examinations.
290. Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be proved at trial relating to loss of pay resulting from duty assignments and promotions not made for black or African-American firefighters who were eligible for promotion or assignment but not promoted or assigned due to past discriminatory practices.
291. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages as to all Defendants, jointly and severally, for the destruction of public records as provided by R..C. § 149.351, at $1,000 per record.
292. Plaintiffs seek damages as to all Defendants, jointly and severally, for spoliation of evidence. 293. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be
proved at trial. 294. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be proved at trial. 295. Plaintiffs seek their reasonable attorneys fees, costs and any expert fees. 296. Plaintiffs seek any other relief this Court deems necessary and just.

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 51 of 52

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dennis R. Thompson_______ Dennis R. Thompson #0030098 Thompson Law Offices 2719 Manchester Rd. Akron, Ohio 44319 330-753-6874 330-753-7082(Fax) tmpsnlaw@akron.infi.net tmpsnlaw@scb.global.net (As of 12/2002)
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury for each of their claims and causes of action in this complaint.
/s/ Dennis R. Thompson______ Dennis R. Thompson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was sent to Kevin Gibbons, Attorney for Defendants Kevin Gerrity and City of Cleveland, and Thomas Barnard, Attorney for Defendants Barrett & Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett, via electronic filing this 31 day of March, 2003.
/s/ Dennis R. Thompson Dennis R. Thompson

Luke, et al vs.City of Cleveland Third Amended Complaint

Page 52 of 52

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs
- vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants

) Case No. 1:02 CV 1225 ) ) U.S. District Judge Paul R. Matia ) ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ) BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND ) GERALD BARRETT TO THIRD ) AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) Jury Trial Demanded

For their Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”), Defendants Barrett & Associates, Inc. (“B&A”) and Gerald V. Barrett (“Barrett”) state as follows:
1. B&A and Barrett state that the claims in the Complaint speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
3. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.

4. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
5. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
6. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
7. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
8. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
9. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
10. B&A and Barrett admit that the City of Cleveland utilized promotional examinations in calendar years 1996 and 2000. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 2 -

11. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
12. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
13. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
14. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
15. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
16. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
17. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
18. B&A and Barrett admit that B&A contracted with the City of Cleveland to prepare and administer promotional examinations for the Cleveland Fire Department in 1996,
- 3 -

2000, and 2002. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 21. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same 22. B&A and Barrett admit that the City of Cleveland utilized Job Knowledge and In-basket examinations in calendar year 2002. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 23. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 24. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Acey’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 25. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 4 -

26. B&A and Barrett admit that Plaintiff Acey took the 2002 promotional examination that was prepared and administered by B&A and Barrett. B&A and Barrett state that Plaintiff Acey score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
27. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
28. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same
29. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Buffington’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
30. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
31. B&A and Barrett admit that Plaintiff Buffington took the 2002 promotional examination that was prepared and administered by B&A and Barrett. B&A and Barrett state that Plaintiff Buffington’s score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
- 5 -

as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
32. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
33. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
34. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff White’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
35. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
36. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff White’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
37. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 6 -

38. B&A and Barrett admit that Plaintiff White took the 2002 promotional examination that was prepared and administered by B&A and Barrett. B&A and Barrett state that Plaintiff White score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
39. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
40. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
41. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Luke’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
42. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
43. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Luke’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 7 -

44. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
45. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Luke’s score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
46. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
47. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
48. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Echols’ score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
49. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
50. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Echols’ score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or
- 8 -

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
51. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
52. B&A and Barrett state that the rules of the Cleveland Civil Service Commission speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
53. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
54. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
55. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
56. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff B. Williams’ score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 9 -

57. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
58. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff B. Williams’ score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
59. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
60. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 60 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
61. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
62. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Odum’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 62 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
63. B&A and Barrett admit that Plaintiff Odum took the 2000 promotional examination that was prepared and administered by B&A and Barrett. B&A and Barrett are
- 10 -

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
64. B&A and Barrett admit that the City of Cleveland utilized Job Knowledge and In-basket examinations in calendar year 2000. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint.
65. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 66. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Odum’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 67. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 68. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Comp laint, and therefore deny the same. 69. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 69 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 70. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Guyton’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 11 -

71. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
72. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Guyton’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
73. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
74. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
75. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
76. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Rahman’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 76 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
77. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 12 -

78. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
79. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
80. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff McGinnis’ score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 80 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
81. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 81 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
82. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff McGinnis’ score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
83. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
84. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 13 -

85. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 85 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
86. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 86 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
87. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 87 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
88. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff McMinkle’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 88 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
89. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 89 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
90. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff McMinkle’s score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 90 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
91. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 91 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 14 -

92. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Askew’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 92 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
93. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 93 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
94. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Askew’s score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 94 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
95. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 96 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
96. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 96 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
97. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 97 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
98. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 98 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 15 -

99. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 99 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
100. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Russell’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 100 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
101. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 101 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
102. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Russell’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 102 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
103. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 103 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
104. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 104 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
105. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Tyus’ score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or
- 16 -

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 105 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
106. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or informa tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 106 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
107. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Tyus’ score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 107 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
108. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 108 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
109. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Butler’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 109 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
110. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 110 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
111. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Butler’s score on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 111 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 17 -

112. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 112 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
113. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Hasan’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 113 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
114. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 114 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
115. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Hasan’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 115 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
116. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 116 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
117. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 117 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
118. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff E. Williams’ score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or
- 18 -

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 118 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
119. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 119 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
120. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 120 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
121. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Hodges’ score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 121 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
122. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 122 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
123. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Hodges’ score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 123 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
124. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 124 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 19 -

125. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 125 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
126. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Austin’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 126 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
127. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 127 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
128. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 128 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
129. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Cartwright’s score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 129 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
130. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 130 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
131. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 131 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 20 -

132. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff Watson’s score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 132 of the Complaint, and the refore deny the same.
133. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 133 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
134. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 134 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
135. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff R. Nickerson score on the 2000 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 135 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
136. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belie f as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 136 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
137. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 137 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
138. B&A and Barrett state that that Plaintiff A. Nickerson score on the 1996 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or
- 21 -

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 138 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
139. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 139 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
140. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 140 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
141. B&A and Barrett admit the allegations in paragraph 141 of the Complaint. 142. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 142 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 143. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belie f as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 143 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 144. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 144 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 145. B&A and Barrett admit that the City of Cleveland has utilized promotional examinations. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 145 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 22 -

146. B&A admits that it is a company doing business in Ohio; that it has created and administered examinations for many private and public entities; and that it contracted with the City of Cleveland to prepare promotional examinations for calendar years 1996, 2000, and 2002. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 146 of the Complaint.
147. B&A and Barrett admit the allegations in paragraph 147 of the Complaint. 148. B&A and Barrett state that any ordinances passed by the City of Cleveland speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 148 of the Complaint. 149. B&A and Barrett state that the contract documents attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 describe the City of Cleveland’s interest with respect to the promotional examinations prepared by B&A, and those documents speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 149 of the Complaint. 150. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 150 of the Complaint. 151. B&A and Barrett state that the contract documents attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 describe the City of Cleveland’s interest with respect to the promotional examinations prepared by B&A, and those documents speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 151 of the Complaint. 152. B&A and Barrett state that the 2002 contract between B&A and the City of Cleveland speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 152 of the Complaint. 153. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 153 of the Complaint. 154. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 154 of the Complaint.
- 23 -

155. B&A and Barrett admit that Plaintiff Michael Odum initiated a lawsuit in this Court on June 9, 2000, styled Odum v. City of Cleveland, Case No. 1:00 CV 1444; and that this lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on February 22, 2001. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 155 of the Complaint.
156. B&A and Barrett admit the allegations in paragraph 156 of the Complaint. 157. B&A and Barrett state that the contracts between B&A and the City of Cleveland speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 157 of the Complaint. 158. B&A and Barrett admit that certain non-public documents that were generated internally by B&A and Barrett without any oversight or supervision by the City of Cleveland and that related to the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations have been destroyed consistent with B&A’s document retention policy. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 159. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 159 of the Complaint. 160. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 160 of the Complaint. 161. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 161 of the Complaint. 162. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 162 of the Complaint. 163. B&A and Barrett admit that the City of Cleveland has utilized a promotional examination process in 1996, 2000, and 2000, and that B&A has created and administered examinations pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the rema ining allegations in paragraph 163 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 24 -

164. B&A and Barrett admit that the Job Knowledge test and its answer key are highly confidential documents and trade secrets, that the Job Knowledge test is not distributed or otherwise disseminated at any time outside the offices of B&A other than as necessary during the administration of the examination, and that the answer key to the Job Knowledge test is not distributed or otherwise disseminated at any time outside the office of B&A except during the appeals process which does not commence until after the examination has been administered. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 164 of the Complaint.
165. B&A and Barrett admit that successive examinations created by B&A may occasionally contain similar constructs given the similarity of the subject matter with respect to the examinations. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 165 of the Complaint.
166. B&A and Barrett admit that the answer sheets for the Job Knowledge test administered in 2002 requested that applicants disclose their social security number. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 166 of the Complaint.
167. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 167 of the Complaint. 168. B&A and Barrett state that the questions in In-Basket examinations prepared by B&A require test-takers to choose among several alternatives to determine the one best answer. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 168 of the Complaint. 169. B&A and Barrett admit that the answer sheets for the In-Basket test administered in 2002 requested that applicants disclose their social security number. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 169 of the Complaint. 170. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 170 of the Complaint.
- 25 -

171. B&A and Barrett admit that the Oral Exercises are tape-recorded, and further state that it has never permitted any candidate from the City of Cleveland, regardless of his or her race, to review his or her own tape-recorded Oral Exercise. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 171 of the Complaint.
172. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 172 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
173. B&A and Barrett state that the rules of the Cleveland Civil Service Commission speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 173 of the Complaint.
174. B&A and Barrett state that the Ohio Revised Code speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 174 of the Complaint.
175. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 175 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
176. B&A and Barrett admit the allegations in paragraph 176 of the Complaint. 177. B&A and Barrett admit that 248 persons took the 1996 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Lieutenant” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 177 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 26 -

178. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 1996 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 178 of the Complaint.
179. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 1996 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 178 of the Complaint.
180. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 180 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
181. B&A and Barrett admit that 89 persons took the 1996 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Captain” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 181 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
182. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 182 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
183. B&A and Barrett admit that 39 persons took the 1996 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Battalion Chief” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without
- 27 -

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 183 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
184. B&A and Barrett admit that 13 persons took the 1996 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Assistant Chief” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 184 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
185. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 1996 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 178 of the Complaint.
186. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 186 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
187. B&A and Barrett admit that 5 persons took the 2000 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Assistant Chief” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 187 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
188. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 188 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 28 -

189. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 189 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
190. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 190 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
191. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 191 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
192. B&A and Barrett admit that 41 persons took the 2000 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Battalion Chief” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegatio ns in paragraph 192 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
193. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 193 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
194. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 194 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 29 -

195. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 195 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
196. B&A and Barrett admit that 89 persons took the 2000 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Captain” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 196 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
197. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 2000 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 197 of the Complaint.
198. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 198 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
199. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 199 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
200. B&A and Barrett admit that 158 persons took the 2000 promotional examination relating to the rank of “Lieutenant” that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland. B&A and Barrett further state that the test takers’ scores on that examination speak for themselves, and further state that they are without
- 30 -

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 200 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
201. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 201 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
202. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 202 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
203. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 203 of the Complaint.
204. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 204 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
205. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 205 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
206. B&A and Barrett admit the allegations in paragraph 206 of the Complaint. 207. B&A and Barrett state that the roster of test takers on the 2002 promotional examination speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 207 of the Complaint.
- 31 -

208. B&A and Barrett state that the rosters of test takers for the 1996, 2000, and 2002 promotional examinations speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 208 of the Complaint.
209. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 2002 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 209 of the Complaint.
210. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 2002 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 210 of the Complaint.
211. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 2002 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 211 of the Complaint.
212. B&A and Barrett state that the test takers’ scores on the 2002 promotional examination speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 212 of the Complaint.
213. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 213 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
214. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 214 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 32 -

215. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 215 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
216. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 216 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
217. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 217 of the Complaint. 218. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 217 of the Complaint. 219. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 217 of the Complaint. 220. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 217 of the Complaint. 221. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 221 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 222. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 222 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 223. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 223 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 224. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 224 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 33 -

225. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 225 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
226. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 226 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
227. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 227 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
228. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 228 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
229. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 229 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
230. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 230 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
231. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 231 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 34 -

232. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 232 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
233. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 233 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
234. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 234 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
235. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 235 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
236. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 236 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
237. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 237 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
238. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 238 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
239. B&A and Barrett deny that the number of potential members of the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all of them would be impracticable. B&A and
- 35 -

Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 239 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
240. B&A and Barrett deny that there are issues of law and fact common to the putative class that predominate over issues affecting members of the putative class individually. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 240 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
241. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 241 of the Complaint. 242. B&A and Barrett deny that the representatives of the putative class can adequately represent the interests of the members of the putative class. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 242 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 243. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 243 of the Complaint. 244. B&A and Barrett state that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 244 of the Complaint. 245. B&A and Barrett state that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 245 of the Complaint. 246. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 246 of the Complaint. 247. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 247 of the Complaint. 248. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 248 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
- 36 -

249. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 249 of the Complaint.
250. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 250 of the Complaint. 251. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 251 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 252. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 252 of the Complaint. 253. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 253 of the Complaint. 254. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 254 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 255. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 255 of the Complaint. 256. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 256 of the Complaint. 257. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 257 of the Complaint. 258. B&A and Barrett are without knowledge or informa tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 258 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 259. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 259 of the Complaint. 260. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 260 of the Complaint. 261. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 261 of the Complaint.
- 37 -

262. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 262 of the Complaint.
263. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 263 of the Complaint. 264. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 264 of the Complaint. 265. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 265 of the Complaint. 266. B&A admits that it contracted with the City of Cleveland to create, administer, and score examinations during calendar years 1996, 2000, and 2002. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 266 of the Complaint. 267. Barrett admits that he is President of B&A and a shareholder of B&A. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 267 of the Complaint. 268. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 268 of the Complaint. 269. B&A admits that it contracted with the City of Cleveland to create, administer, and score examinations during calendar years 1996, 2000, and 2002. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 269 of the Complaint. 270. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 270 of the Complaint. 271. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 271 of the Complaint. 272. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 272 of the Complaint. 273. B&A states that non-public documents relating to the 1996 and 2000 examinations that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland have been destroyed pursuant to B&A’s document retention policy, and further states that the time of such destruction neither B&A nor Barrett had received any subpoena for such
- 38 -

documents or any notice of an enforcement action with respect to such documents. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 273 of the Complaint.
274. B&A admits that it was served with a subpoena duces tecum in this lawsuit. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 274 of the Complaint.
275. B&A admits that on or about September 23, 2002, its counsel informed counsel for Plaintiffs that non-public documents relating to the 2000 examinations that B&A prepared and administered pursuant to its contract with the City of Cleveland had been destroyed pursuant to B&A’s document retention policy. B&A and Barrett deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 275 of the Complaint.
276. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 276 of the Complaint. 277. B&A and Barrett restate and incorporate by reference their responses to all of the foregoing paragraphs in response to paragraph 277 of the Complaint. 278. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 278 of the Complaint. 279. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 279 of the Complaint. 280. B&A and Barrett state that the contracts between B&A and the City of Cleveland speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegatio ns in paragraph 280 of the Complaint. 281. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 281 of the Complaint. 282. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 282 of the Complaint. 283. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 283 of the Complaint. 284. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 284 of the Complaint. 285. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 285 of the Complaint.
- 39 -

286. B&A and Barrett state that 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.99 speak for themselves. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 286 of the Complaint.
287. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 287 of the Complaint. 288. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 288 of the Complaint. 289. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 289 of the Complaint. 290. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 290 of the Complaint. 291. B&A and Barrett state that R.C. 149.351 speaks for itself. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 291 of the Complaint. 292. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 292 of the Complaint. 293. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 293 of the Complaint. 294. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 294 of the Complaint. 295. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 295 of the Complaint. 296. B&A and Barrett deny the allegations in paragraph 296 of the Complaint. 297. B&A and Barrett deny all remaining allegations in the Complaint that have not been specifically admitted.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 298. The Complaint fails to state a claim against B&A or against Barrett upon which relief may be granted. 299. Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 with respect to the 1996 and 2000 promotional examinations are barred by the statute of limitations. 300. Plaintiffs’ claims under R.C. Chapter 4112 with respect to the 1996 promotional examinations are barred by the statute of limitations.
- 40 -

301. Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain any action under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 149 against B&A or Barrett.
302. Ohio Revised Code Chapter 149 is inapplicable to any documents in the custody of B&A or of Barrett, as such documents are not public records.
303. Any documents destroyed by B&A and/or by Barrett were destroyed in compliance with a lawful document retention policy.
304. To the extent B&A and/or Barrett destroyed any documents, neither B&A nor Barrett had knowledge of any pending or probable litigation relating to such documents, precluding liability for spoliation of evidence.
305. To the extent B&A and/or Barrett destroyed any documents, Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their alleged claims remains unaffected by the destruction of such documents, precluding liability for spoliation of evidence.
306. Plaintiffs’ claims against B&A and Barrett are barred by the doctrine of laches.
307. Plaintiffs’ claims against B&A and Barrett are barred by considerations of equity.
308. Plaintiffs’ claims against B&A and against Barrett are made in bad faith, are wholly frivolous, unwarranted under existing law or by any good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, and the allegations in the Complaint as they pertain to B&A and to Barrett are so devoid of merit that they are wholly unlikely to have any evidentiary support after discovery, entitling B&A and Barrett to an award of attorney fees incurred in defense of the frivolous claims levied against them in the Complaint.
- 41 -

309. B&A and Barrett reserve the right to plead additional affirmative defense (including, without limitation, any res judicata or collateral estoppel) should discovery reveal that such defenses are available and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, B&A and Barrett pray that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and at Plaintiffs’ costs, that judgment be entered in favor of B&A and Barrett on all claims in the Complaint, and that B&A and Barrett be awarded all of its costs, expenses, and attorney fees incurred in defense of this action.
s/Britt J. Rossiter Thomas H. Barnard (0001569) Britt J. Rossiter (0069775) ULMER & BERNE LLP 1300 E. Ninth St., Suite 900 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Tel.: (216) 621-8400 Fax: (216) 621-7488 E- mail: tbarnard@ulmer.com
brossiter@ulmer.com Attorneys for Defendants, Barrett and Associates, Inc. and Gerald V. Barrett
JURY DEMAND B&A and Barrett demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
s/Britt J. Rossiter One of the Attorneys for Defendants, Barrett and Associates, Inc. and Gerald V. Barrett
- 42 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 24, 2002, I filed the foregoing electronically. All parties will receive notice of this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system and may access the document through the Court’s system.
s/Britt J. Rossiter One of the Attorneys for Defendants, Barrett and Associates, Inc. and Gerald V. Barrett
- 43 -

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

ANTHONY LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 1:02 CV 01225 ) ) JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN ) Magistrate Judge Hemann ) ) ) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL ) WITH PREJUDICE )

We, the attorneys for the respective parties, stipulate under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be dismissed with prejudice against the City of Cleveland, Chief of Fire Paul Stubbs, and former Chief of Fire Kevin Gerrity; including the hold on the promotion of all ranks off the 2002 City of Cleveland Division of Fire Promotional Eligibility List. The parties agree to pay their own costs. The Court may enter an order accordingly, notice by the Clerk being waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James S. Gwin Judge James S. Gwin

1/26/07

1

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

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

:

ANTHONY LUKE, et al.,

:

CASE NO. 1:02CV1225

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

vs.

:

OPINION AND ORDER

:

[Resolving Doc. Nos. 115, 339]

CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

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

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 339] on the Motion

for Sanctions of Defendants Gerald Barrett and Barrett & Associates, Inc. [Doc. 115]. The defendants

seek sanctions under Rule 11 because, they argue, the plaintiffs’ claims against them are frivolous. The

plaintiffs oppose the motion [Doc. 329], and the defendants have replied. [Doc. 338]. The Court referred

the defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge Patricia Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc.

207]. After conducting a thorough analysis of the defendants’ motion, on September 23, 2005, Magistrate

Judge Hemann recommended that this Court deny the defendants’ motion. Neither party objects to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those

portions of the Report to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having conducted

its own review of the parties’ briefs on the issue, this Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate

-1-

Case No. 1:02CV1225 Gwin, J. Judge, and adopts the Report and Recommendation as its own.
Therefore, the Court adopts in whole Magistrate Judge Hemann’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference. The Court DENIES the defendants’ motion for sanctions.
Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the defendants’ motion for sanctions. [Doc. 115]. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005

s/

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 503 Filed: 06/21/06 1 of 4. PageID #: 18201

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

ANTHONY LUKE, Plaintiffs,
vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO.: 1:02 CV 01225

)

)

)

)

JUDGE JAMES GWIN

)

Mag. Judge Hemann

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BACK PAY AND FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Plaintiffs, through counsel, move this Court for an order enforcing the settlement agreement reached between and among the Parties on March 22, 2006. To date, Defendant City has failed to promote one Plaintiff to the rank to which it was agreed certain specified Plaintiffs would be promoted. As well, Defendant City is attempting to impose requirements upon these Plaintiffs for whom promotion was agreed that were not required of any of the other firefighters who were promoted in either 1996 or 2000. Moreover, Defendant City has failed to pay any funds to any Plaintiff, even those who received favorable verdicts. It is now almost 90 days after the agreement was reached.
This case was settled between and among the Parties on March 22, 2006. The settlement was read into the record on that date. The City was to draft a settlement agreement – which was
Page 1 of 4

Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 503 Filed: 06/21/06 2 of 4. PageID #: 18202
not prepared until April 24, 2006. In this draft agreement, Defendant City inserted signature for the several bankruptcy Trustees for those Plaintiffs who had at one time or another filed a bankruptcy petition. Many of these bankruptcy petitions had been dismissed for lack of prosecution or other reasons. Others had been fully discharged – one back in 1997. Only 3 Plaintiffs have active bankruptcy cases.
Plaintiffs’ counsel had already been in contact with all the pertinent Trustees, who were made aware of this litigation and the verdicts or possible settlement. Counsel even went so far as to obtain letters from most of the Trustees stating their respective positions as to each of the Plaintiffs under their jurisdiction.1 In almost every case, the Trustees expressed no interest in the proceeds of settlement or verdicts. For those Plaintiffs for which proceeds or a portion of the proceeds is to be paid to the bankruptcy estate, the City has been advised and is aware of the distribution of proceeds, including being given the letters from the respective Trustees. Now, however, the City has stated that it requires from the bankruptcy court accepting the settlements before it will complete the agreement.
To support its position, Defendant has cited one 1988 case from South Dakota: In re Bell & Beckwith, 87 BR 7536. Plaintiffs have responded to this citing for Defendant City numerous decisions rejecting this lone decision, including Stipetich v. First Mount Vernonn Industrial Loan Association (In re Stipetich) 215 BR 679, 682 (D. Pa. 2003)(“such bankruptcy rule notwithstanding, however, much caselaw exists to the effect, indeed perhaps ‘the substantial weight of authority’ indicates that a party can impliedly consent to entry of judgment by the
1 Only one, the office of Trustee Craig Shopneck, refused to provide a courtesy letter. Chief Counsel Phil Lamos expressed that the statute was clear enough already, there was no benefit to the Trustee for providing such a letter and that the Trustee had no interest in the proceeds for any of the identified Plaintiffs. Attorney Lamos offered to discuss this directly with the City and counsel provided his telephone number to th is end.
Page 2 of 4

Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 503 Filed: 06/21/06 3 of 4. PageID #: 18203
bankruptcy court in a non-core related matter”). Plaintiffs also advised Defendant City’s counsel that unless they heard from Defendant
City by Monday, June 19, 2006, they would seek the intervention of this Court. To date, Defendant City has failed to communicate in any manner with Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Defendant City is doing everything it can to continue to delay and frustrate the settlement agreement in this case. Besides the bankruptcy non-issue, it has attempted to impose new requirements for these Plaintiffs to meet before they can be promoted, including requiring a fitness for duty examination. These requirements were never imposed upon any firefighter who was promoted from either the 1996 or 2000 promotion lists, or for that matter, any promotional cycle prior to that. Indeed, one prior promotion was made to a double amputee.
The City also inserted a term permitting it to take another 60 days after signatures to put the agreement into effect – even though City Council has already approved the settlement. It is Plaintiffs contention that the City is engaged in a course of intentional delay by continuing to create obstructions.
Therefore, Plaintiffs move that this Court order the City to make the agreed promotions immediately with back pay from March 22, 2006 – the date the original agreement was reached. Plaintiffs also seek post-judgment interest from March 22, 2006 at the Ohio statutory rate of 5%. To date, this interest would amount to $8,125.00 ($650,000 x 5% = $32,500 annual interest; 90 days = ¼ year, or $8,125). Interest would continue to accrue at the statutory rate until paid in full by the City.
Plaintiffs also request that they be awarded their attorneys fees with respect to this motion and the time consumed attempting to finalize this settlement.
Page 3 of 4

Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 503 Filed: 06/21/06 4 of 4. PageID #: 18204
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dennis R. Thompson Dennis R. Thompson #0030098 Christy B. Bishop #0076100 Thompson & Bishop 2719 Manchester Road Akron, Ohio 44319 330-753-6874 330-753-7082 (facsimile) tmpsnlaw@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing was sent to all counsel of record via ecf electronic notification this 21 day of June, 2006.
/s/ Dennis R. Thompson Dennis R. Thompson
Page 4 of 4

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 434 Filed: 11/10/05 1 of 2. PageID #: 17145

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

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

:

ANTHONY LUKE, ET AL.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

vs.

:

:

CITY OF CLEVELAND, ET AL.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

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

CASE NO. 1:02CV01225 JUDGMENT

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

This action came before the Court for a jury trial. The jury rendered the following verdicts on November 7, 2005:
1) Verdict in favor of Defendant Barrett & Associates, Inc., against plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ Ohio public records claims.
2) Verdict in favor of Defenda nt Barrett & Associates, Inc., and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1983 that Barrett & Associates and Gerald Barrett violated plaintiffs constitutional rights;
3) Verdict for pla intiffs and against Defendant City of Cleveland on plaintiffs’ claim s of disparate impact of discrim ination regarding the 1996 lieutenant and captain prom otional examinations;
4) Verdict for Defendant City of Cleveland and against plaintiffs on pl aintiffs claims of disparate impact of discrimination regarding the 2000 and 2002 lieutenant and captain promotional examinations;
5) Verdict for Defendant City of Cleveland and against Plaintiffs Keith Acey, David Austin,
-1-

Case: 1:02-cv-01225-JG Doc #: 434 Filed: 11/10/05 2 of 2. PageID #: 17146
Case No. 1:02cv01225 Gwin, J. Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Lawrence Moore and Asa Newsom e and Bruce W illiams on plaintiffs’ federal claims of hostile work environment;
6) Verdict for Defendant City of Cleveland and against Plaintiffs Bruce Williams and David Austin on plaintiffs state law claims of hostile work environment;
7) Verdict for plaintiffs against Defendant City of Cleveland on plaintiffs’ state law claims of hostile work environment as follows: damages for Keith Acey in the amount of $35,000, damages for Anthony Luke in the amount of $30,000, damages for Daryl McGinnis in the amount of $41,000, damages for Lawrence Moore in the amount of $5,000 and damages for Asa Newsome in the amount of $95,000.
Judgment is entered as set forth above with tehCourt retaining jurisdiction to enter judgment as to plaintiffs’ claim s of dispa rate impact of discrimination regarding the 1996 lieutenant and captain promotional examinations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2005

s/

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

 
 Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 2245187 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
Anthony LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:02CV1225. | Aug. 22, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Christy B. Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson , Thompson Law Offices, Akron, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Britt J. Rossiter, Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Ulmer & Berne, Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Law Office of Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Kevin J. Gibbons, Leslye M. Huff, Theodora M. Monegan, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
GWIN, J.
[Resolving Doc. No. 60]
*1 Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Gerald V. Barrett and Barrett & Associates (collectively, the “Barrett Defendants”). [Doc. 60]. Plaintiffs Anthony Luke, et al., oppose the defendants’ motion. [Doc. 89]. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
I. Background
A. Barrett & Associates Barrett & Associates (“B & A”) is a privately-held Ohio corporation which provides employment consulting services. B & A assists its clients in developing job selection and promotion practices. B & A services both private and public entities. Gerald Barrett serves as B & A’s president and is its principal shareholder.

Clients often retain B & A to develop tests to determine whether to offer promotions to individual employees. B & A personnel custom-design the tests without influence from the clients. B & A views the tests as confidential materials whose disclosure could put B & A at a competitive disadvantage with competitors.
B & A maintains a record retention policy for documents relating to its testing materials, including the tests and answer sheets. Under this policy, B & A destroys the documents after one year unless B & A receives notice of a legal proceeding involving the documents.
B. Cleveland Fire Department Examinations The City of Cleveland retained B & A to prepare, administer, and score promotion examinations for the Cleveland Fire Department for the years 1996 and 2000. B & A personnel administered the 1996 examinations between July 13 and September 2, 1996. B & A released the test results near January 22, 1997. B & A administered the 2000 examinations between January 8 and February 6, 2002, and provided test results near February 29, 2000. Near June 6, 2002, the City retained B & A to prepare, administer, and score the Cleveland Fire Department’s 2002 promotion exams.
In early June 2002, B & A was in the process of relocating to a new office building. The defendants contend that as of June 1, 2002, they did not have notice of any pending litigation involving the 1996 and 2002 promotion examinations. During B & A’s move to its new facility, company personnel destroyed documents greater than one year old consistent with the document retention policy. The parties offer no evidence as to what specific types of documents B & A destroyed.
The plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this lawsuit on June 26, 2002. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. The first complaint named the City of Cleveland and Cleveland Fire Chief Kevin Gerity as defendants, but did not name Barrett or his company. The complaint generally sought to prevent the administration of the 2002 promotion examination as administered by B & A. On July 26, 2002, the plaintiffs subpoenaed B & A and requested documents relating to the 1996, 2000, and 2002 promotion examinations. B & A had already destroyed the 1996 and 2000 documents in conformity with the retention policy. B & A produced documents relating to the 2002 examinations.
*2 The defendants contend that B & A retained all documents relating to exam preparation, administration, and scoring. The City did not have access to or control
1

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

over the purely internal documents. The only documents B & A ever provided to the City were copies of employees’ answer sheets, copies of the tests, and other specific documents identified in the 1996, 2000, and 2002 contracts. B & A retained all other documents relating to the exams.
On September 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding B & A and Gerald Barrett as named defendants. [Doc. 29]. On March 31, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding additional claims against the defendants. [Doc. 75]. The amended complaint charges the Barrett Defendants with: (1) race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) disparate impact race Discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev.Code §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99; (4) disparate treatment race discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev.Code §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99; (5) aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev.Code §§ 412.02(J) and 4112.99; (6) conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (7) destruction of public records in violation of Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351; and (8) spoliation of evidence.
The Barrett Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or alternatively for summary judgment, on January 31, 2003. [Doc. 60]. On February 19, 2003, Judge Matia entered an order giving notice to the parties that he would treat the defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 61]. Judge Matia also filed an order extending the deadline for the plaintiff’s brief opposing summary judgment to allow the plaintiffs to conduct discovery germane to the issues raised in the defendants’ motion. [Doc. 80]. On April 11, 2003, the Barrett Defendants filed a supplement to their summary judgment motion addressing the newly-raised conspiracy claim. [Doc. 82].
On June 3, 2005, the Clerk of Courts reassigned the case to this Court.

Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, 150 F.3d 594, 597 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). In deciding whether the moving party has met this burden, a court must view the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). However, “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
*3 Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a triable issue. Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). It is not sufficient for the nonmoving party merely to show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. See id. Additionally, the Court has no duty to “search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.” Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir.1989).
A factual dispute precludes summary judgment only if it is material, that is, if it relates to a matter essential to adjudication. The dispute must concern facts that, under the substantive law governing the issue, might affect the outcome of the suit. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The factual dispute also must be genuine. The facts must be such that if proven at trial a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248. “The disputed issue does not have to be resolved conclusively in favor of the non-moving party, but that party is required to present significant probative evidence which makes it necessary to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the dispute at trial.” 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir.1987) (citing First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence submitted shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In seeking summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353, 358 (6th Cir.2001). A fact is material if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit.

III. Analysis
The Barrett Defendants make the following arguments in their motion for summary judgment: (1) the plaintiffs’ section 1981 and 1983 claims are time-barred and the plaintiffs cannot meet the legal requirements for such claims; (2) the plaintiffs’ section 1985 conspiracy claim fails because the plaintiffs do not show that the Barrett Defendants agreed to deprive anyone of their civil rights; (3) the Barrett Defendants are not “employers” for purposes of claims under Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.02(A); (4) the plaintiffs do not offer evidence that the Barrett Defendants aided and abetted discrimination under Ohio
2

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Rev.Code § 4112.02(J); (5) the destroyed internal documents relating to the 1996 and 2000 exams were not subject to the Ohio Public Records Act; and (6) the spoliation claim fails because there was no pending litigation involving the documents at the time of their destruction. The plaintiffs disagree with the Barrett Defendants on each point.
A. Section 1981 And 1983 Claims As discussed below, the Court grants summary judgment to the defendants on all section 1981 and section 1983 claims, with one exception: the Court denies summary judgment as to the section 1983 disparate treatment claim arising out of the 2002 promotion examination.
1. Statute Of Limitations The Barrett Defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ section 1981 and 1983 claims based on the 1996 and 2000 examinations are time-barred. Responding, the plaintiffs say that they have alleged sufficient facts to show a continuing violation, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. The Court agrees with the defendants.
*4 Ohio’s statute of limitations for actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or 1983 is two years. Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1158 (6th Cir.1991). The Barrett Defendants provided the results of the 1996 exams no later than January 22, 1997. The plaintiffs thus had to file their section 1981 and 1983 claims related to the 1996 exams by January 22, 1999. Similarly, the Barrett Defendants provided the results of the 2000 exams by February 29, 2000. The plaintiffs needed to file the claims arising out of the 2000 exams by March 1, 2002. The plaintiffs did not file their lawsuit until June 26, 2002, and so their section 1981 and 1983 claims against the Barrett Defendants were not timely.
Where the plaintiffs demonstrate a continuing violation, the statute of limitations is expanded to reach back to the first date of the violation. Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 268-69 (6th Cir.2003). A continuing violation “requires continued action and not simply continuing harm or ‘passive inaction.” ’ Moss v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 98 Fed. Appx. 393, 396 (6th Cir.2004).
“[W]hen an employee seeks redress for discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation, the continuing violation doctrine may not be invoked to allow recovery for acts that occurred outside the filing period.” Sharpe, 319 F.3d at 267. Terminations and failures to promote are discrete acts of discrimination, and thus not subject to the continuing violation doctrine. Id. Rather, the continuing violation doctrine applies where the plaintiffs offer evidence that “some form of intentional discrimination

against the class of which plaintiff was a member was the company’s standard operating procedure.” EEOC v. Penton Indus. Publ’g Co., 851 F.2d 835, 848 (6th Cir.1988).
The plaintiffs argue that they “have alleged sufficient acts to show a continuing violation under §§ 1981[and] 1983....” [Doc. 89 at 16]. Specifically, the plaintiffs say that their conspiracy allegations against the Barrett Defendants suffice to show a continuing violation. Id. As discussed below, the plaintiffs wholly fail to meet their burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to show evidence of a conspiracy between the Barrett Defendants and the City. The mere allegation of a conspiracy does not suffice to toll the statute of limitations.
At most, the plaintiffs offer only evidence that the Barrett Associates prepared and administered promotion examinations on particular days, and not that these defendants conspired to further a pattern of discrimination by the City. There is no evidence that the Barrett Defendants had a “longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination” requiring tolling of the statute of limitations. Sharpe, 319 F.3d at 269.
The plaintiffs’ section 1981 and 1983 claims relating to the 1996 and 2000 examinations are time-barred.
2. Availability of Disparate Impact Claim Under Section 1981 And 1983 The Barrett Defendants argue that sections 1981 and 1983 do not permit relief based on disparate impact discrimination. The plaintiffs do not argue otherwise, but only say that their disparate impact claims arise out of Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.99, not section 1981 or 1983.
*5 The Court agrees that sections 1981 and 1983 do not extend to disparate impact claims. See General Bldg. Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 383 n. 8, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) ( section 1981 claims); Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 260, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (section 1983 equal protection claims). To the extent the plaintiffs base their section 1981 and 1983 claims on a disparate impact theory, those claims fail as a matter of law.
3. Contractual Relationship For Section 1981 Claim The Barrett Defendants argue that the section 1981 claim fails because the plaintiffs do not offer any evidence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and these defendants. The plaintiffs respond that the section 1981 claim survives because the defendants interfered with their right to contract. As between these arguments, the
3

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Court agrees with the defendants.
The plaintiffs say that the Barrett Defendants are subject to section 1981 because they interfered with the plaintiffs’ employment contracts. Section 1981 prohibits discriminatory interference with the making and enforcement of contracts. 42 U.S.C. § 1981. This prohibition extends to third parties’ interference with contracts of employment. See Reddy v. Good Samaritan Hosp. and Health Ctr., 137 F.Supp.2d 948, 965 n. 25 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (“In protecting the right to make contracts, section 1981 proscribes not only discrimination by the contracting party at the contract-formation stage but also discriminatory interference by a third party with the right to make contracts.”) (quoting Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hosp., 765 F.Supp. 461, 471 (E.D.Ill.1991)). The parties agree that the interference must be intentional. See Doc. 89 at 21 (citing Olumuyiwa v. Harvard Protection Servs., Inc., No. 98cv5110, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6364, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2000)).
In this case, the plaintiffs do not present any direct evidence that the Barrett Defendants intentionally interfered with their contracts of employment. Instead, the plaintiffs rely on inference, asserting that “it can easily be inferred that Barrett acted intentionally to interfere with Plaintiffs’ right to contract and be free from discriminatory interference and animus by a third party,” and “the inference lies that Barrett served as a quasi-employer for the purposes of promotional aspects of Plaintiffs’ employment.” [Doc. 89 at 16]. Flimsy inferences are no substitute for the probative evidence the plaintiffs must present. See 60 Ivy St. Corp., 822 F.2d at 1435. The plaintiffs’ section 1981 claim fails.
4. Acting Under Color Of State Law For Section 1983 Claim. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs fail to show they acted under color of state law for purposes of the section 1983 claim. The plaintiffs respond that the defendants acted under color of state law as a co-conspirator with the City and through their involvement with the promotion process. The Court agrees with the plaintiffs that the Barrett Defendants performed a public function through their involvement in the administrative process.

(2) the government delegated a public function to the private actor, (3) the government exercises “coercive power” over the actor’s conduct, (4) the government provides “significant encouragement,” and (5) where the government and the private actor substantially intertwine. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 296, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001).
Here, the hiring and promotion of firefighters is a governmental function. See Ohio Rev.Code. §§ 124.45-124.49 (defining requirements for promotion of firefighters). In 2002, the City delegated its authority to administer the promotion of firefighters to private actors through a special ordinance:
Whereas, this ordinance constitutes an emergency measure providing for the usual daily operation of a municipal department; now, therefore [b]e it ordained by the Council of the City of Cleveland that the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized to employ by contract one or more consultants for the purpose of supplementing the regularly employed staff of the several departments of the City of Cleveland in order to perform a job analysis and to develop, administer, and grade promotional examinations for the Division of Fire, Department of Public Safety.
Cleveland Ord. No. 290-01 (2002) [Doc. 89 Ex. 1]. The contract between the City and the Barrett Defendants used similar language reflecting the defendants’ supplementary role in the promotion process.
In light of the special ordinance and the contract between the City and the Barrett Defendants, the Court finds an issue of material fact as to whether the defendants acted under color of state law. The Court thus denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the section 1983 disparate treatment claim arising out of the 2002 promotion examination.

*6 The plaintiffs say that the Barrett Defendants served as state actors by performing a public function. To show that the defendants acted under color of state law by performing a public function, the plaintiffs must show that the City delegated traditionally governmental powers or functions to the defendants. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). State action exists in a variety of circumstances, including where: (1) a private actor is a “willful participant in a joint activity with the State or its agents,”

B. Section 1985 Conspiracy Claim The plaintiffs also charge the Barrett Defendants with conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Section 1985 generally prohibits conspiracies to deprive persons of their rights under the Constitution and federal law. See Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550, 560 (6th Cir.2000). The defendants say the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim fails because they offer no evidence that the Barrett
4

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Defendants entered into a conspiracy. The plaintiffs respond by saying they sufficiently alleged a conspiracy. The Barrett Defendants also allege this claim is not timely. The Court agrees with the defendants.
1. Statute Of Limitations *7 Like claims under section 1981 and 1983, section 1985 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Walker v. Lakewood, 742 F.Supp. 429, 430-31 (N.D.Ohio 1990). Just as the section 1981 and 1983 claims regarding the 1996 and 2000 promotion examinations are time-barred, so is the section 1985 claim relating to those examinations.
2. Evidence Of Agreement Even if the plaintiffs’ section 1985 claim were not largely time-barred, it would fail because the plaintiffs offer no evidence of a conspiracy. “The essence of a conspiracy is ‘an agreement to commit an unlawful act.” ’ United States v. Jimenez, 537 U.S. 270, 274, 123 S.Ct. 819, 154 L.Ed.2d 744 (2003) (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975)). Further, “courts will not accept mere allegations of conspiracy; there must be some showing of facts to support the conspiracy.” O’Hara v. Mattix, 255 F.Supp. 540, 542 (W.D.Mich.1966).
There is no evidence of an agreement between the City and the Barrett Defendants to discriminate. Instead of offering evidence to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiffs impermissibly rely on the allegations from their complaint. [Doc. 89 at 18-20]. The mere fact that the City retained the Barrett Defendants to administer the promotion exams does indicate that the defendants agreed to discriminate against African Americans. Without any evidence of a conspiracy, the Court grants summary judgment to the defendants on the section 1985 claim.
C. State Law Discrimination Claims
1. Section 4112.02(A) The plaintiffs make a state law employment discrimination claim against the Barrett Defendants under Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.02(A). The defendants argue that they do not qualify as employers for purposes of the state statute. The plaintiffs respond that Ohio applies a broad definition of “employer” that extends to the defendants. The Court agrees with the defendants.
Section 4112.02(A) of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race and other protected classifications. For purposes of the statute,

the term “employer” extends to “any political subdivision of the state” and “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer.” Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.01(A)(2). The plaintiffs say the Barrett Defendants qualify as an employer because they acted in the interest of the City.
“[T]he Ohio Legislature intended for section 4112.02 to be liberally construed.” Eyerman v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc., 967 F.2d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1992). Although the statute is to be liberally construed, Ohio’s courts have found limits to the definition of “employer.” Although agents qualify as employers, independent contractors are not employers under the statute. An “independent contractor” is someone who carries on an independent business, in the course of which he undertakes to accomplish some result or do some piece of work, for another, and retaining discretion in the choice of the means and methods. Independent contractors become responsible for results and are not subject to the control, or right to control, of the means used. Title First Agency, Inc. v. Xpress Closing Serv., Inc., No. 03AP-179, 2004 WL 98639, at *3 (Ohio Ct.App. Jan. 22, 2004).
*8 In this case, the contract between the City and the Barrett Defendants identified B & A as an independent contractor. The plaintiff offers no evidence that B & A did not qualify as an independent contractor-they point to no evidence that the City “retained control of, or the right to control, the mode and manner of doing the work contracted.” Berge v. Columbus Community Cable Access, 136 Ohio App.3d 281, 301, 736 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Ct.App.1999). Alternatively, “[i]f the employer retained control but is interested merely in the ultimate result to be accomplished, the relationship is that of independent contractor.” Id. In light of the evidence presented, B & A was an independent contractor, and excluded from the definition of employer.
In determining whether the Barrett Defendants were employers, the Court also considers their “power to employ, retain, and dismiss the employee at issue.” Id. See also Foran v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 17 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 478 N.E.2d 998 (1985) (noting that “Ohio Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the question to answer when identifying the employer is to identify who exercises day-to-day control over the employee”). Although the Barrett Defendants may have played a significant role in the promotion process, there is no question that they did not exercise day-to-day control over the firefighters. They did not employ, retain, or dismiss the firefighters. Those powers remained with the City.
Because the Barrett Defendants do not qualify as employers, the Court grants summary judgment to the defendants on the section 4112.02(A) claims.
5

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2. Section 4112.02(J) The plaintiffs allege that the Barrett Defendants are liable for aiding and abetting the City in committing employment discrimination. Such aiding and abetting would violate section 4112.02(J) of the Ohio Revised Code. In response, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs offer no evidence of intent. The plaintiffs do not respond to the defendants’ argument. The Court agrees with the defendants.
Section 4112.02(J) makes it unlawful for any person to aid, abet, incite, coerce, or compel the doing of any act of employment discrimination. Although Ohio’s anti-discrimination statute does not define “aiding and abetting,” Ohio’s courts generally define “aid” as “to assist” and “abet” as “to incite or encourage.” Horstman v. Farris, 132 Ohio App.3d 514, 527, 725 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio Ct.App.1999). Decisions from Ohio’s state and federal courts offer only scant analysis of section 4112.02(J). Ohio’s courts generally construe aiding and abetting as an intentional act: “[O]ne is not an aider and abetter unless he knowingly does something which he ought not to do ... which assists or tends in some way to affect the doing of the thing which the law forbids.” State v. Stepp, 117 Ohio App.3d 561, 568, 690 N.E.2d 1342 (Ohio Ct.App.1997). “Mere association with the principal is not enough.” Horstman v. Farris, 132 Ohio App.3d 514, 527, 725 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio Ct.App.1999) (citation omitted).
*9 Here, the plaintiffs offer no evidence that the Barrett Defendants aided and abetted any unlawful act. The City contracted with the Barrett Defendants to prepare and administer promotion examinations, but there is no indication that the Barrett Defendants knowingly assisted in committing alleged acts of discrimination. The Court thus grants summary judgment to the defendants on the aiding and abetting claim.
D. Destruction Of Public Records The plaintiffs allege that the Barrett Defendants violated Ohio’s public records laws when they destroyed various unidentified documents relating to the 1996 and 2000 promotion examinations. The defendants destroyed the documents in early June 2002, pursuant to B & A’s document retention policy. The defendants argue that they are not subject to the Public Records Act with respect to internal documents not turned over to the City. The plaintiffs disagree. The Court agrees with the plaintiffs.
Ohio has adopted a strong policy favoring public access to public records. Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43. Fundamental to this policy is the promotion of open government. State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 398, 732 N.E.2d 373 (2000); State ex rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ. 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, 680 N.E.2d 956

(1997). Requests for exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the public records custodian, and the custodian bears the burden to establish the applicability of an exception. State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth, 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 519, 678 N.E.2d 1388 (1997)
The Ohio Revised Code provides a public cause of action to those aggrieved by the destruction of public records:
(A) All records are the property of the public office concerned and shall not be removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred, or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law or under the rules adopted by the records commissions....
Ohio Rev.Code § 149.351(A).
The term “public record” includes “any document, ... or item, ... created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions....” Ohio Rev.Code § 149.011(G). A plaintiff in a public records action may secure injunctive relief or statutory damages for each destroyed record, plus attorneys’ fees. Id. The purpose of the Ohio Public Records Act is “to expose government activity to public scrutiny, which is absolutely essential to the proper working of a democracy.” State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Network, Inc. v. Petro, 80 Ohio St.3d 261, 264, 685 N.E.2d 1223 (1997) (citation omitted).
A private entity can be held liable under the Public Records Act where: (1) the private entity prepared the records “to carry out a public office’s responsibilities;” (2) the public office was “able to monitor the private entity’s performance; and (3) the public office had “access to the records for this purpose.” State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 49 Ohio St.3d 37, 39, 550 N.E.2d 464 (1990).
*10 The Barrett Defendants do not dispute that they prepared the records in the scope of developing, administering, and grading the promotion exams. The defendants thus meet the first Mazzaro requirement.
There is a question of fact as to whether the defendants met the monitoring requirement. The defendants say there is no evidence that the City controlled or monitored the preparation, administration, and scoring of the exams. [Doc. 60 Ex. B ¶ 10]. However, it is not necessary that the City actually monitored the Barrett Defendants, but only that the City could have monitored the Barrett Defendants. Mazzaro, 49 Ohio St.3d at 39, 550 N.E.2d 464 (“Here, the Auditor either did or could have used [the
6

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

third party’s] records in furtherance of its responsibility”). The plaintiffs point out that in its letter requesting proposals from consultants, including B & A, the City stated: “To effectively verify proposals and all work performed by the consultant, the Civil Service Commission reserves the right to conduct site visits at the consultant’s location.” [Doc. 89 at 7]. The final agreement between the City and the Barrett Defendants expressly incorporated the terms of the solicitation letter. [Doc. 60 Ex. A at 6]. In light of the contract language, the Court cannot say that the City lacked the authority to monitor the Barrett Defendants.
Under Mazzaro, to qualify a private entity for liability under the Public Records Act, a plaintiff must also show that the public office had “access to the records.” Mazzaro, 49 Ohio St.3d at 39, 550 N.E.2d 464. (1990). In this case, material issues exist whether the City retained access to the records of Barrett. The agreement Barrett entered with the City incorporated the City’s October 11, 2001, Request for Proposal. Among the contract terms agreed to, Barrett agreed:
To effectively verify proposals and all work performed by the consultant, the Civil Service Commission reserves the right to conduct site visits at the consultant’s location.
[Doc. 89, Ex. 3]. In addition, Barrett’s contract with the City provided that, upon termination, “all records, documents, materials and wording papers prepared as part of the work under this Agreement shall become and remain the property of the City.” The Court finds material issue as to the third Mazzaro element.
Because the Barrett Defendants do not dispute that they performed a public function, and because there is an issue of material as to the City’s ability to monitor the defendants and access to documents, the Court denies summary judgment on the public records claim.
E. Spoliation Of Evidence The Barrett Defendants also seek summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ spoliation of evidence claim. The plaintiffs base their spoliation claim on the destruction of documents relating to the 1996 and 2000 promotion examinations. In response, the defendants say they destroyed the documents pursuant to a document retention policy, and that they had no knowledge of any pending or probable litigation involving the documents at the time of destruction. The plaintiffs say litigation involving a challenge to test results should have put the defendants on notice to maintain the documents. The Court agrees with the defendants.

*11 To survive summary judgment as to a spoliation claim, a plaintiff must present evidence of the following elements: (1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff; (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that litigation exists or is probable; (3) willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff’s case; (4) disruption of the plaintiff’s case; and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s acts. Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993). Spoliation is an intentional tort-Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence. White v. Ford Motor Co., 142 Ohio App.3d 384, 388, 755 N.E.2d 954 (Ohio Ct.App.2001).
The defendants say there was no pending or probable litigation at the time they destroyed the documents in June 2002. In his declaration, Defendant Barrett says his firm destroyed the documents in conformity with a one-year document retention policy when B & A moved to new offices. [Doc. 60 Ex. B ¶¶ 13-14].
To counter this, the plaintiffs point to a separate lawsuit that Plaintiff Michael Odum filed on June 9, 2000. He sued both the City and the Barrett Defendants. [Doc. 89 at 10]. In that case, Odum v. City of Cleveland, No. 00-1444 (N.D.Ohio), Odum made claims under section 1981 and 1983, and alleged that someone altered his answers to the February 2000 promotion examination. The plaintiffs say Odum’s earlier lawsuit put the Barrett Defendants on notice that they needed to retain all documents relating to the exams. However, Odum voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit without prejudice on February 22, 2001. Under Ohio’s Saving Statute, Odum had one year after February 22, 2001, within which to re-file his action. He never refiled it. The two-year statute of limitations on Odum’s federal claims expired before the Barrett Defendants destroyed the disputed documents in June 2002. As a result, the Odum lawsuit did not put the defendants on notice of potential litigation relating to the 1996 and 2000 examinations.
The plaintiffs also say that they made a FOIA request for documents relating to the 1996 and 2000 exams in March 2002, and that this request put the defendants on notice of probable litigation. But the plaintiffs offer no evidence of any such FOIA request, relying instead on their attorneys’ assertions. Such unsupported assertions are insufficient to avoid summary judgment.
Because there is no evidence that the Barrett Defendants had notice of probable or pending litigation involving the 1996 and 2000 exams, the Court grants summary judgment to the defendants on the spoliation claim.

7

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court denies summary judgment with respect to (1) the section 1983 disparate treatment claim arising out of the 2002 promotion examination, and (2) the claim of destruction of public records. The Court

grants summary judgment to the Barrett Defendants on all other claims.
*12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

8

 
 Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 2245239 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
Anthony LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:02CV1225. | Aug. 25, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Christy B. Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson , Thompson Law Office, Akron, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Kevin J. Gibbons, Leslye M. Huff, Theodora M. Monegan, Department of Law, Britt J. Rossiter, Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Ulmer & Berne, Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Law Office of Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
GWIN, J.
[Resolving Doc. No. 164, 227]
*1 Before the Court is the “Motion to Strike and to Exclude Expert Witness of Barrett & Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett, and City of Cleveland,” filed by Plaintiffs Anthony Luke, et al. [Docs. 164, 176]. Defendants the City of Cleveland, Barrett & Associates, and Gerald Barrett oppose the motion. [Docs. 169, 170, 202]. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to strike. The Court also DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to refer their motion to strike to Magistrate Judge Hemann. [Doc. 227].
I. Background
In this suit, various individual firefighters sue the City of Cleveland and others for alleged discriminatory practices relating to the Cleveland Fire Department’s promotion examinations in 1996, 2000, and 2002. The Clerk of

Courts originally assigned this matter to Judge Paul Matia. Although the plaintiffs filed their complaint in June 2002, Judge Matia never set a trial date or a deadline specifically for expert discovery. Judge Matia originally ordered the parties to complete discovery by April 21, 2003. Judge Matia extended the discovery deadline several times at the plaintiffs’ request. [Docs. 96, 98, 103, 121, 132]. On December 9, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline until February 15, 2005. [Doc. 136]. Judge Matia granted the plaintiffs’ motion on December 28, 2004. [Doc. 145]. On May 2, 2005, Judge Matia extended the discovery deadline until June 30, 2005, again at the plaintiffs’ request. [Doc. 182].
The City retained Dr. Norman Henderson as an expert witness. Dr. Henderson submitted a report to the plaintiffs near February 15, 2005. Defendant Gerald Barrett seeks to offer expert testimony on behalf of the Barrett Defendants. Near February 17, 2005, the plaintiffs received an expert report from Defendant Barrett. The defendants apparently offer Barrett and Henderson as experts on the content of the promotion examinations. In October 2003, the plaintiffs retained Dr. Robert Johnson as a statistical expert to provide a disparate impact analysis of the examination results.
The plaintiffs say that (1) the defendants never identified Barrett or Henderson as experts in this case, (2) the defendants falsely stated that documents relating to the 1996 and 2002 were destroyed, (3) the Barrett Defendants are guilty of “undeniable dilatoriness in discovery,” and (4) the reports are based on unverifiable information. [Doc. 176 at 1-2]. The plaintiffs seek an order preventing the City from using Dr. Henderson as an expert in this matter.
II. Legal Standard
When the trial court does not set discovery deadlines, the default deadlines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), a party must disclose the identity of its proposed experts and reports of their opinions and supporting data “at least 90 days before the trial date or the date the case is to be ready for trial.” A party must disclose rebuttal experts within 30 days after the other party’s expert disclosure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C). A party must make other pretrial disclosures, including the identities of trial witnesses and exhibits, at least 30 days before trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3).
*2 If a party fails to make the required disclosures under Rule 26(a), the Court may strike the materials or order other appropriate sanctions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c). Whether to strike expert testimony lies within the discretion of the
1

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

trial court. UAW v. Aguirre, 410 F.3d 297, 304 (6th Cir.2005).
III. Analysis
The Court will not strike the Henderson and Barrett reports as untimely. At the plaintiffs’ request, Judge Matia extended the discovery deadline until February 15, 2005. [Doc. 145]. The defendants’ expert submissions met that deadline. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e). Judge Matia later extended the deadline to June 30, 2005, again at the plaintiffs’ request. [Doc. 182].
The expert submissions were also well within the default discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial date in this matter is October 24, 2005. The defendants disclosed the identities of their experts and their reports in mid-February 2005. The submissions thus complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(C).

circumstance, it strains credulity to argue that the timing of the defendants’ disclosures prevented the plaintiffs from securing their own content expert.
The plaintiffs also suggest that they suffered prejudice by hiring a statistical expert in 2003 based on the lack of testing data and documents available at that time. The Court disagrees. In the plaintiffs’s words, their statistical expert offered “incontrovertible conclusions” regarding the “compelling disparities” in the testing results. [Doc. 176 at 9, 10]. The plaintiffs will surely rely on such materials in making their disparate impact claim.
The plaintiffs offer scant support for their suggestion that the defendants’ experts based their opinions on unverifiable data. Regardless, the plaintiffs have had access to that data since November 2004, and have had plenty of time to depose Barrett and Henderson. If Barrett and Henderson’s opinions are untrustworthy or unverifiable, the plaintiffs can raise that issue in a properly supported motion in limine before trial.

In their motion to strike, the plaintiffs object that Barrett and Henderson base their opinions on information that the Barrett Defendants did not produce until November 2004. [Doc. 164 at 3]. The plaintiffs suggest that the timing made it impossible for them to identify their own exam content expert. The Court disagrees. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), the plaintiffs had until 30 days after the defendant submitted their expert reports to offer a rebuttal expert. Under Judge Matia’s May 2, 2005 order, the plaintiffs arguably could have waited until June 30, 2005 to produce expert discovery on the content issue. The plaintiffs thus had approximately seven months between the time the Barrett Defendants disclosed the testing materials and the final discovery deadline. Under that

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to strike. [Doc. 164]. The Court also DENIES the plaintiffs’ request to transfer the motion to strike to Magistrate Judge Hemann as moot. [Doc. 227].
*3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

2

 
 Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 625827 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
Anthony LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:02CV1225. | March 8, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Christy B. Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson , Thompson & Bishop, Akron, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Amy E. Marquit Renwald, William M. Menzalora, Kevin J. Gibbons, L. Stewart Hastings, Jr., Theodora M. Monegan, City of Cleveland, Department of Law, Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Barton A. Bixenstine, Britt J. Rossiter, Michelle R. Arendt, Ulmer & Berne, John B. Gibbons, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
GWIN, J.
[Resolving Doc. Nos. 443, 471]
*1 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 471] on the Motion for Attorney Fees and Related Expenses of Defendants Gerald Barrett and Barrett & Associates, Inc. [Doc. 443]. The defendants move for an order that the plaintiffs reimburse them for attorney fees and other litigation expenses because, they argue, the plaintiffs’ claims against them were frivolous and unreasonable. The plaintiffs oppose the motion [Doc. 456], and the defendants have replied. [Doc. 461]. The Court referred the defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge Patricia Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 454]. After conducting a thorough analysis of the defendants’ motion, on February 9, 2006, Magistrate Judge Hemann recommended that this Court deny the

defendants’ motion. The defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and DENIES the defendants’ motion for fees.
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of the Report to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s application of Balmer v. HCA, Inc. ., 423 F.3d 606 (6th Cir.2005), and also her interpretation of the plaintiffs’ offer to re-file their claims in state court.
The defendants’ objections are off-base. The Magistrate Judge properly cited Balmer for the proposition that where plaintiffs assert at least one non-frivolous claim, defendants are ineligible for fee-shifting under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Court agrees that the plaintiffs’ claims were not so frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation as to merit an award of attorneys’ fees. See N.E. v. Hedges, 391 F.3d 832, 836 (6th Cir.2004). The Court notes the jury found that the 1996 lieutenant and captain promotional examinations that Dr. Barrett developed did not test relevant job knowledge. [Doc. 430 at 1, 2]. This provides further support for a finding that the plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Barrett were not so baseless as to necessitate an award of litigation expenses.
The Magistrate Judge’s reference to the plaintiffs’ February 2005 offer to re-file the lawsuit in state court does not alter the Court’s opinion one way or another. [Doc. 471 at 7]. The fact remains that the plaintiffs’ conduct does not merit an award of fees.
Having conducted its own de novo review, this Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. The Court denies the defendants’ motion for attorney fees and related expenses.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the defendants’ motion for attorney fees and related expenses. [Doc. 443].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

1

 
 Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 3311511 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
Anthony LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:02-CV-01225. | Nov. 13, 2006.
Opinion

GWIN, J.

ORDER & OPINION

[Resolving Doc. Nos. 503, 515]
*1 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Hemann’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement agreement, back pay and for post judgment interest. [Doc. 515.]
On July 22, 2006, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Hemann under Local Rule 72.1 for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 504.] On June 13, 2006, Magistrate Judge Hemann filed a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended this Court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by Plaintiffs, grant Plaintiffs’ request for post judgment interest, but deny the Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.
The Defendants objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, asserting that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous, arguing (1) the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against the City, including workers’ compensation claims; and (2) Plaintiffs Butler and Acey are required to take and pass a physical examination before they can be promoted.
For the reasons provided below, this Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hemann’s Report and Recommendation. Thus, this Court enforces the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by Plaintiffs, grants Plaintiffs’ request for post judgment interest, but denies the Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees.

I. Background
On November 8, 2005, Plaintiffs won a jury verdict for disparate impact discrimination and hostile environment claims. Following trial both parties met in chambers and reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement are evidenced by the transcript of the settlement statements placed on the record. The relevant portions of that transcript are as follows:
THE COURT: Under the parties settlement, certain of the Plaintiffs in this case have previously suffered or previously achieved certain promotions, and there’s been an agreement that the seniority date for those promotion would be backdated to the end of the 1996 list. There are certain other Plaintiffs who have not obtained promotions and those parties would obtain promotions. Their seniority would date from the-at the end of the 2000 list. All these parties would give up any additional claims with regard to it. There would be a settlement involving three individuals: Mr. Odum and Mr. Guyton and Mr. Luke.
* * * * * *
The only other two conditions would be that the Plaintiffs in this case would dismiss all claims as against the City and would dismiss this case with prejudice. Mr. Odum also had a separate lawsuit and he would also execute a release as against the City on that lawsuit.
* * * * * *
MR. HASTINGS: And Mr. White has a separate claim. We also-
MR. THOMPSON: I don’t think he does. He’s not on the appeal
MR. GIBBONS: A grievance for discipline
MR. HASTINGS: Grievance for discipline and EEO.
* * * * * *
THE COURT: ... And I would ask-and the claims-Plaintiffs would dismiss all the other claims with prejudice.
MR. THOMPSON: We have a release on the record?
*2 THE COURT: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Where he’s releasing the
1

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

grievance that he has, Granville White, and he’s agreeing to release that grievance.
* * * * * *
MR. HASTINGS: ... And as we’ve always indicated, there are three of the potential lieutenants who have other issues, medical fitness and one under criminal indictment. And obviously whatever we do is contingent upon those being resolved.
THE COURT: Okay. I thought that was part of the discussion earlier.
MR. THOMPSON: First we heard of it. We just-if, for example, Darryl Williams-
THE COURT: Let’s just go off the record.
(Discussion held off the record)
THE COURT: Lets Conclude.
The City has raised the issue there are three people, who, for disability or other reasons, are not currently working, and that they would have to meet the current requirements to retake a position with the fire department before they would qualify for the-for this promotion. But once they have obtained that, under conditions that now exist, they would qualify.
See [Doc. 504 (citing Transcript at 9-12).]
On June 21, 2006, months after negotiations and settlement, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement, back pay and post judgment interest. Subsequent to discussions with both parties, Magistrate Judge Hemann filed a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended this Court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by Plaintiffs, grant Plaintiffs’ request for post judgment interest, but deny the request for attorneys’ fees.

“[A] settlement agreement entered into between the parties in the presence of the court constitutes a binding contract, even though it is not reduced to writing ...” Spercel v. Sterling Indus ., Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 40 (1972). Courts generally give effect to the parties’ expressed intentions in a contract, whereas intentions not directly expressed in the contract are deemed to have no existence. Aultman Hospital Ass’n v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 (1989).
III. Analysis
The City contends that Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against the City, including workers’ compensation claims. Plaintiffs, however, argue that Odum merely agreed to dismiss his pending complaint, while White agreed to dismiss his pending grievance, EEOC charge, and all claims in the instant lawsuit.
The plain language of the transcript of the settlement statements illustrates that Plaintiff is correct regarding the scope of the dismissal of claims. The City’s reliance on the phrase “all other claims” in the transcript cannot be construed to include workers’ compensation claims or claims outside of the instant lawsuit. This is especially true because the City explicitly enumerated two other specific actions that they wanted dismissed along with the instant lawsuit. Moreover, at no time did the City raise the issue of workers’ compensation claims, or for that matter, any claims other than the two involving Odum and White and the instant suit.
*3 The City also asserts that Plaintiffs Acey and Butler must pass fitness-for-duty tests before they can be promoted. Plaintiffs counter that they are currently working, there is no requirement that an individual pass a physical examination before being promoted, and that the terms of the settlement clearly did not require such an exam.

II. Legal Standard
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of the Report to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within ten days of service. Failure to object within that time waives a party’s right to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981).

The transcript never mentions or requires Plaintiffs to pass fitness-for-duty tests before they can be promoted. Instead, the transcript indicates that those who are “not currently working ... would have to meet the current requirements to retake a position with the fire department before they would qualify for the-for this promotion.” [Doc. 504 (citing Transcript at 9-12).] It is undisputed that both Acey and Butler have “retaken a position with the fire department.” Nowhere in the transcript of the settlement statements does it say that Plaintiffs are required to retake active front-line fire duty, or even retake the same position they had before in order to qualify for a promotion. Plaintiffs were simply required to retake a position with the fire department, and it is undisputed that Plaintiffs currently hold positions with the
2

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

fire department.
The City further argues that Plaintiffs are on temporary/light duty and no one has ever been promoted while assigned to that type of duty. There is nothing in the record, however, that indicates Plaintiffs could not be promoted from a temporary/light duty position. In addition, the City contends it is the “past practice of the Division of Fire” that “only personnel deemed fit for regular/full duty have been promoted.” The City, however, fails to reference any section in their collective bargaining agreement or elsewhere, stating that a person cannot be promoted while on temporary/light duty. Therefore, since the City and Plaintiffs previously agreed as to how the promotions would proceed, they are bound by the plain language of the transcript of the settlement statements. Plaintiffs have qualified for the promotion because they have retaken a position with the fire department.

IV. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, this Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Hemann’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this Court enforces the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by Plaintiffs, grants Plaintiffs’ request for post judgment interest, but denies the Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HEMANN, Magistrate J.
Pending before the court on referral is plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Judgment. The motion is opposed by the City of Cleveland (“City”). For the reasons set forth below, the magistrate judge recommends that the court grant plaintiffs’ motion.1

1

The magistrate judge attempted to resolve this matter

by working with the parties after reviewing the

transcript. The attempts were not successful.

I.

Initially the parties disagreed on three points: 1) whether a bankruptcy court order was necessary prior to distribution of funds to individuals who were or are involved in bankruptcy proceedings; 2) whether plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims pending against the City, including workers compensation claims; and 3) whether plaintiffs Butler and Acey were required to take and pass a physical examination before they could be promoted. The bankruptcy issue has been resolved. The City will rely upon the representations of the trustee for each individual bankrupt. If the trustee indicates that monetary damages must be included in the bankrupt estate, the plaintiff must proceed as required in bankruptcy court. If the trustee indicates the contrary, the monetary damages may be paid to the plaintiff directly.
*4 The City contends that plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against the City, including workers compensation claims. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Odum agreed to dismiss the complaint he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Mr. White agreed to dismiss a pending grievance, period.
This court must rely upon the plain language of the transcript of the settlement statements placed on the record before Judge Gwin. The relevant portions of the transcript are as follows:
THE COURT: Under the parties settlement, certain of the Plaintiffs in this case have previously suffered or previously achieved certain promotions, and there’s been an agreement that the seniority date for those promotions would be backdated to the end of the 1996 list. There are certain other Plaintiffs who have not obtained promotions and those parties would obtain promotions. Their seniority would date from the-at the end of the 2000 list. All these parties would give up any additional claims with regard to it. There would be a settlement involving three individuals; Mr. Odum and Mr. Guyton and Mr. Luke.
* * * * * *
The only other two conditions would be that the Plaintiffs in this case would dismiss all claims as against the City and would dismiss this case with prejudice. Mr. Odum also had a separate lawsuit and he would also execute a release as against the city on that lawsuit.
* * * * * *
MR. HASTINGS: And Mr. White has a separate claim. We also-
MR. THOMPSON: I don’t think he does. He’s not on the appeal.

3

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

MR. GIBBONS: A grievance for discipline.
MR. HASTINGS: Grievance for discipline and EEO.
* * * * * *
THE COURT: ... And I would ask-and the claims-Plaintiffs would dismiss all the other claims with prejudice.
MR. THOMPSON: We have that release on the record?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Where he’s releasing the grievance that he has, Granville White, and he’s agreeing to release that grievance.
Transcript of proceedings March 6, 2004 (emphasis added). Mssrs. Odum and White agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement when asked by their counsel.2

2

Counsel agreed that the settlement of the case would

moot White’s EEO action.

At no time the City raise the issue of workers compensation claims or any claims other than the two involving Odum and White. Certainly no other plaintiffs agreed to dismiss any specific claims except those asserted in this federal case. The City’s reliance on “all other claims” cannot be construed to include workers compensation or other claims outside of this lawsuit, especially when counsel for the City focused on two specific actions involving two specific plaintiffs. Thus the magistrate judge concludes that plaintiffs’ position with respect to the scope of the dismissal of claims is correct.
Finally the City asserts that plaintiffs Acey and Butler must take and pass fitness for duty tests before being promoted. Plaintiffs reply that Acey and Butler are currently working, that there is no requirement that an individual take and pass a physical examination before being promoted, and that the terms of the settlement were clear as to these two individual.
*5 The City submitted to the court a sur-reply brief in which it argued that no individual on transitional/light duty, the duty to which Acey and Butler are currently assigned, has ever been promoted. Moreover, the City contends that “[a]ny member of the Division of Fire who has a preexisting medical condition is subject to a fitness for duty or independent medical examination according to the collective bargaining agreement.” The “past practice of the Division of Fire,” according to the City, “is that only personnel deemed fit for regular/full duty have been promoted.”3 The portion of the collective bargaining

agreement submitted in support of the City’s position reads as follows:

3

The City previously asserted in a telephone conference

that this court is without jurisdiction to take a position

contrary to the collective bargaining agreement and to

enforce the settlement in the manner proposed by the

plaintiffs. It does not take that position in its sur-reply

brief.

The City may require periodic examinations to determine the continued extent of incapacity and when an employee may be returned to normal duty. While both the City and the Union acknowledge that there are no permanent restricted duty assignments available, the Safety Department may, at its option, designate certain assignments as temporary restricted duty assignments from time to time to which an eligible employee may be assigned. The assignments of said employees is the sole responsibility of the Employer based upon the medical bureau’s examination results. (Emphasis added by City.) The following relevant discussion occurred on the record.
MR. HASTINGS: ... And as we’ve always indicated, there are three of the potential lieutenants who have other issues, medical fitness and one under criminal indictment. And obviously whatever we do is contingent upon those being resolved.
THE COURT: Okay. I thought that was part of the discussion earlier.
MR. THOMPSON: First we heard of it. We just-if, for example, Darryl Williams-
THE COURT: Let’s just go off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: Let’s conclude.
The City has raised the issue there are three people, who, for disability or other reasons, are not currently working, and that they would have to meet the current requirements to retake a position with the fire department before they would qualify for the-for this promotion. But once they have obtained that, under conditions that now exist, they would qualify.
MR. THOMPSON: Dave, you’re okay with that, Dave Butler?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Keith Acey.
4

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

MR. ACEY: I don’t think I’m one of those people.
* * * * * *
THE COURT: In any case, if you are, you would be subject to that. If you’re not, you’re not.
Plaintiffs contend that the court’s use of “retake a position,” a term of art in the setting of the fire department, was agreed to by the City. There is no dispute that Acey and Butler are currently working in temporary/light duty positions. There is also no dispute that there is no requirement cited in the collective bargaining agreement for an individual to take and pass a fitness for duty examination prior to being promoted. The City maintains, however, that past practice should dictate here and require Acey and Butler to pass such an examination before they can be promoted.
*6 This court sees no requirement in the portion of the collective bargaining agreement consistent with the position taken by the City. Moreover, a settlement agreement can, and often does, require action consistent with past practice. It appears that Acey and Butler have “retaken a position” with the department and thus must have qualified to do so prior to assuming their positions.

The City did not make clear on the record that Acey and Butler could not be promoted from a temporary/light duty position and have not made any argument as to why they cannot be promoted other than “it hasn’t been done before.” The City and the fire department representatives having agreed to the court’s characterization of how the promotions of Acey and Butler would proceed, the magistrate judge concludes that they are bound by that characterization.
II.
For the above stated reasons, the magistrate judge recommends that the court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by plaintiffs. The magistrate judge further recommends that the court grant plaintiffs’ request for postjudgment interest but deny the request for attorneys’ fees.
	  

5

 
 Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 43759 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
Anthony LUKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
No. 102-CV-1225. | Jan. 5, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Christy B. Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson , Thompson & Bishop, Akron, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Amy E. Marquit Renwald, William M. Menzalora, Kevin J. Gibbons, L. Stewart Hastings, Jr., Theodora M. Monegan, City of Cleveland, Department of Law, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
Opinion

GWIN, J.

ORDER & OPINION

[Resolving Doc. No. 525]
*1 On October 20, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Back Pay From Settlement Date. [Doc. 525.] On November 6, 2006, Defendant City of Cleveland opposed this motion. [Doc. 526.] On November 14, 2006, this Court referred the issue of back pay to Magistrate Judge Hemann under Local Rule 72.1 for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 528.] On December 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Hemann filed a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended this Court grant the Plaintiffs’ motion. [Doc. 529.] Defendant has filed no objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Hemann found that Defendant delayed promotion and pay increases for months by taking positions contrary to the plain language of the settlement agreement. Back pay is an equitable remedy designed as restitution that permits Plaintiffs to be compensated for the unnecessary delay in the instant case. Likewise, Magistrate Judge Hemann found that this was not a good faith dispute, but an attempt to change agreed upon terms. Public policy dictates that back pay should be

awarded to the plaintiffs in order to prevent parties to a settlement from manipulating payment responsibilities with impunity.
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within ten days of service. Failure to object within that time waives a party’s right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt the Magistrate Judge’s report without review. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the parties’ briefs on the issue, this Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court adopts in whole Magistrate Judge Hemann’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Back Pay From Settlement Date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HEMANN, Magistrate J.
Pending before the magistrate judge on referral from Judge Gwin is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Back Pay From Settlement Date. Plaintiffs seek backpay from March 14, 2006, the date upon which settlement was entered on the docket by Judge Gwin. Defendant City of Cleveland opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the magistrate judge recommends that the court grant the motion.
I.
It is inconceivable to this court that seven months after counsel and their clients entered into a settlement agreement plaintiffs 1) have not been promoted, 2) have not received ANY settlement proceeds to which the City of Cleveland agreed, and 3) have not been paid the judgments awarded plaintiffs in their individual trials.
1

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

After the settlement was entered on the record on March 14, the City spent over a month drafting a written settlement agreement. Plaintiffs complained repeatedly about terms of the agreement to which they contended they had not agreed. On June 21 plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. That motion was subsequently referred to the undersigned, who held several telephone conferences with the parties in an attempt to resolve the impasse. The City would not move from its position, arguing that implementing the agreement as plaintiffs insisted would violate the governing collective bargaining agreement.
*2 On July 21 this court issued a Report and Recommendation on the pending motion to enforce. In it the court looked to the clear, unambiguous language of the transcript of the settlement statement presented on the record before Judge Gwin. Based on that record, the court recommended that the settlement be enforced in accordance with the terms advocated on behalf of plaintiffs. The City filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, submitting a large number of exhibits never before referenced and irrelevant given the commitments made orally in court.
On November 13, 2006 Judge Gwin issued an Order & Opinion adopting in full the Report and Recommendation. Judge Gwin, citing Ohio law, stated, “Courts generally give effect to the parties’ expressed intentions in a contract, whereas intentions not directly expressed in the contract are deemed to have no existence.” Judge Gwin agreed with this court that the plain language of the transcript of the settlement statements supported plaintiffs’ position with respect to each of the contested issues. He found defendant bound by statements made by their counsel on the record.

II.

Defendant is correct that plaintiffs have not cited any specific law in support of a post-settlement award of backpay. There are, however, strong arguments to support such an award here. First, backpay is an equitable remedy designed as restitution for the persons injured by the defendant. As the Sixth Circuit said in Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1332-33 (6th Cir.1988),

The equitable remedies awarded

under both section 1983 and Title

VII have the goal of making

persons whole for injuries suffered

on account of unlawful

employment

discrimination.

Backpay is presumptively favored

as a make-whole remedy and,

absent exceptional circumstances,

should be awarded to successful

employment

discrimination

plaintiffs. The back pay award

should completely redress the

economic injury the plaintiff has

suffered as a result of

discrimination. It should include

the salary, including any raises,

which plaintiff would have

received but for the discrimination,

as well as sick leave, vacation pay,

pension benefits and other fringe

benefits [he] would have received

but for the discrimination.

(Citations omitted). Here defendant delayed promotion and pay increases for months by taking positions that were contrary to plain language of an agreement entered before Judge Gwin in open court after lengthy settlement negotiations. Equity requires that plaintiffs be compensated for the unnecessary delay.

Second, public policy argues for awarding backpay under the facts of this case. The plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefit of their bargain since March 14. Defendant should not be able to profit from its delay technique. It has been able to avoid paying plaintiffs their increased wages simply by imposing additional terms on the agreement. To allow such action would permit any party to a settlement to manipulate payment responsibilities with impunity. While this court recognizes that a good faith dispute can arise and cause delay in executing terms of an agreement, this was not a good faith dispute but an attempt to change agreed upon terms.

*3 Lest defendant argue that it had no other choice given its position, the court points out that the issues in dispute were discrete. The City could have promoted all plaintiffs except Mssrs. Acey and Butler, thereby mitigating its damages substantially. Furthermore, the issue of whether all plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims or a few plaintiffs agreed to dismiss pending claims was totally separate from the agreement to make promotions. There was no need to deny promotions while awaiting a court decision on that narrow point.

For the reasons stated above, the magistrate judge recommends that plaintiffs’ motion for backpay be granted.

	  

2

Luke v. City of Cleveland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007) 3

 
 Cat03, Hemann, Protect, Standard, Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−01225−JG

Luke et al v. City of Cleveland et al Assigned to: Judge James S. Gwin Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights Plaintiff Anthony Luke
Plaintiff Keith Acey
Plaintiff Rudolph Buffington
Plaintiff Michael Odum

Date Filed: 06/26/2002 Date Terminated: 03/14/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Christy B. Bishop Thompson &Bishop 2719 Manchester Road Akron, OH 44319 330−753−6874 Fax: 330−753−7082 Email: tmpsnlaw@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson Thompson &Bishop 2719 Manchester Road Akron, OH 44319 330−753−6874 Fax: 330−753−7082 Email: tmpsnlaw@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson

Plaintiff Bashir Rahman TERMINATED: 05/02/2005
Plaintiff Daryl McGinnis
Plaintiff Kenneth Guyton
Plaintiff Bruce Williams
Plaintiff Kevin Echols
Plaintiff Granville White

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2005
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2005
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Lawrence Moore
Plaintiff Asa Newsome
V. Defendant City of Cleveland

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy E. Marquit−Renwald City of Cleveland Department of Law Ste. 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−664−2800 Email: amarquitrenwald@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslye M. Huff 1st Floor 4403 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 216−391−44833 Fax: 216−391−4634 Email: HUFF−LAW−JUSTICE@sbcuc.net TERMINATED: 08/18/2003
William M. Menzalora City of Cleveland Department of Law Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−664−4285 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: wmenzalora@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin J. Gibbons

Defendant Kevin Gerrity Chief of Fire Division, City of Cleveland in his official capacity now known as Paul Stubbs
Defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc.

City of Cleveland Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114−1077 216−664−2809 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: kgibbons@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L. Stewart Hastings, Jr. City of Cleveland Department of Law Ste. 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−664−2665 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: lshastings@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodora M. Monegan City of Cleveland Department of Law Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−664−4507 Fax: 216−664−2663 Email: tmonegan@city.cleveland.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy E. Marquit−Renwald (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L. Stewart Hastings, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslye M. Huff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/2003
William M. Menzalora (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin J. Gibbons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodora M. Monegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas H. Barnard, Jr. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart − Cleveland Ste. 4130 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 216−241−6100

Defendant Gerald Barrett
Defendant/Intervenor William Marconi

Fax: 216−357−4733 Email: tom.barnard@ogletreedeakins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barton A. Bixenstine Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart − Cleveland Ste. 4130 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 216−274−6913 Fax: 216−357−4733 Email: bart.bixenstine@ogletreedeakins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Britt J. Rossiter Zashin &Rich − Cleveland 4th Floor 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 216−696−4441 Fax: 216−696−1618 Email: bjr@zrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R. Arendt INVALID ADDRESS − Ulmer &Berne − Cleveland 1100 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113 216−583−7056 Fax: 216−583−7057 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas H. Barnard, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barton A. Bixenstine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Britt J. Rossiter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R. Arendt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons 2000 Standard Bldg. 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 216−978−2033 Fax: 216−363−6075 Email: jgibbons4@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant/Intervenor Louis Hahn
Defendant/Intervenor Joseph Simone
Defendant/Intervenor Patrick Corrigan
Defendant/Intervenor Eric Burchak
Defendant/Intervenor Darrell Starnik

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Brian Luther
3rd Pty Defendant Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters
3rd Pty Defendant Sean DeCrane

represented by John B. Gibbons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. Law Office of Joseph W. Diemert 1360 SOM Center Road Cleveland, OH 44124 440−442−6800 Fax: 440−442−0825 Email: jwdiemert@diemertlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # 06/26/2002

Docket Text
1 Complaint with jury demand (2 summons and Magistrate Consent Forms issued) against City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Filed by Keith Acey, Rudolph

06/26/2002 06/26/2002 06/26/2002
06/27/2002 06/27/2002 07/11/2002
07/17/2002 07/22/2002 07/23/2002 07/24/2002 07/29/2002 07/29/2002 08/05/2002 08/12/2002

Buffington, Kevin Echols, Kenneth Guyton, Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Michael Odum, Bashir Rahman, Granville White, Bruce Williams. Filing fee paid; receipt number 512560. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(P, G) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
2 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Hemann. (P, G) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
3 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System. (P, G) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
4 Motion for temporary restraining order with memorandum, filed by Keith Acey, Rudolph Buffington, Kevin Echols, Kenneth Guyton, Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Michael Odum, Bashir Rahman, Granville White, Bruce Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B−Keyed Copy of Examination# 3 Exhibit C−Affidavit# 4 Exhibit D−Barrett &Associates Biographical Information Sheet# 5 Exhibit E−Barrett and Associates# 6 Exhibit F−Exam# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H−Determination)(Related document(s) 1 ) (P, G) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
5 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Matia on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Hearing held and argument heard. Order to follow. (Related Doc 4 ) (Ralph Hink, Law Clerk) (K, V) Modified text on 6/28/2002 (M, J A). (Entered: 06/27/2002)
6 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; The parties are given leave of Court to conduct formal discovery; Status Conference set for 8/27/2002 at 1:30 p.m.(Related Doc. 4 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
7 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order with case management conference to be held on 8/22/2002 at 11:30 AM (check with court for location) Chief Judge Paul R. Matia.(I, B)(All COUNSEL AND PARTIES ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD THIS ENTRY AS FILED IN ERROR. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL NOT BE HELD THIS DATE. STATUS CONFERENCE REMAINS SET FOR 1:30 P.M. ON 8/27/02). Modified text 7/11/2002 (C, K A). (Entered: 07/11/2002)
8 Third Party Motion to intervene as a party defendant filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
9 Answer to Complaint with Jury Demand and Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for Injunctive Relief (Related Doc # 1 ) filed by all defendants. (Monegan, Theodora) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
10 Notice of Service of Discovery upon Defendant City of Cleveland filed by Anthony Luke. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
11 Motion for leave to file first amended complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed First Amended Complaint)(Related document(s) 1 ) (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
12 Order rescheduling status conference from 8/27/02 at 1:30 p.m. to 8/28/02 at 1:30 p.m. Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (I, B) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
13 Subpoena Returned; served upon Barrett &Associates, Inc. by Joseph Loew on July 26, 2002 filed by Anthony Luke. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
14 Opposition to Association of Fire Fighters Local 93's motion to intervene (Related Motion(s) 8 ) filed by Anthony Luke. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 8/6/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 08/05/2002)
15 Response (Related Motion(s) 8 ) to Plaintiffs' Opposition of Motion to Intervene filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 08/12/2002)

08/12/2002
08/12/2002 08/21/2002 08/21/2002 08/23/2002 08/30/2002 09/05/2002 09/10/2002 09/11/2002
09/21/2002 09/21/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002
09/30/2002 10/01/2002
10/01/2002

16 Supplement to Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Intervene, Amended Certificate of Service filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Related document(s) 15 ) (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
17 Order signed on 8/12/2002 Denying The Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93's Motion to intervene as a party. (Related Doc # 8 ) Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (I, B) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
18 Motion to show cause for failure to respond to subpoena filed by Anthony Luke. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena to Barrett % Associates, Inc.)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
19 Supplemental Motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint filed by Anthony Luke. (Attachments: # 1 Revised First Amended Complaint)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
20 Order signed on 8/23/2002 Denying as moot Motion for leave (Related Doc # 11 )This motion was superseded by motion Doc. 19. Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (I, B) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
21 Nuc Pro Tunc (as of 8/26/02)Order canceling Status Conference set 8/28/02 and rescheduling it for 10/2/02 at 1:30 p.m. Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (I, B) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
22 Third Party Motion to intervene as a party defendant filed by Sean DeCrane. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) Modified on 9/6/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 09/05/2002)
23 Third Party Motion for relief from order filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
24 Order Granting Plaintiffs' unopposed First Revised Motion for leave to file amended complaint; Plaintiffs to serve and file the revised first amended complaint by 9/25/2002.(Related Doc. 19 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
25 Motion to strike LOcal 93 motion for relief from judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 23 ) (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/21/2002)
26 Opposition (Related Motion(s) 22 ) ro motion to intervene by Sean DeCrane filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/21/2002)
27 First Amended complaint against all defendants. Filed by Anthony Luke. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
28 Notice of filing corrected first amended complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
29 First Amended complaint − corrected against all defendants. Filed by Anthony Luke. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
30 Response (Related Motion(s) 22 ) to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Sean DeCrane. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
31 Brief in Opposition (Related Motion(s) 25 ) to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Local 93's Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) Modified on 9/30/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 09/27/2002)
32 Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected First Amended Complaint filed by all defendants. (Monegan, Theodora) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
33 Motion to quash Subpoena or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit A − Declaration of Gerald Barrett# 4 Exhibit B − Subpoena# 5 Exhibit C − Letter# 6 Exhibit D − Letter)(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
34 Address Change Notice of Plaintiffs' counsel by Dennis R. Thompson filed by on behalf of Keith Acey. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/01/2002)

10/02/2002 10/02/2002 10/02/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002
10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/21/2002 10/21/2002
11/13/2002
11/27/2002 12/04/2002 12/04/2002 12/04/2002 12/06/2002

35 Reply (Related Motion(s) 25 ) in support of motiion to strike Union's Rule 60(b) motion filed by Keith Acey. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 10/3/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 10/02/2002)
36 Affidavit/Declaration (Corrected) of Gerald V. Barrett filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
37 Affidavit/Declaration (Corrected) of Gerald V. Barrett (refiling of #36, document would not open) filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Related document(s) 33 &36 ) (C, B) Modified text on 10/3/2002 (C, B). (Entered: 10/03/2002)
38 Protective Order re: confidential information (Related Doc. 33 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
39 Marginal Order Denying as Moot Plaintiffs' Motion for show cause order (Related Doc. 18 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
40 Case Management Plan. This case is assigned to the Complex case management track; Discovery due by 4/21/2003; Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 1/10/2003; Dispositive Motions due by 5/21/2003, with status hearing to be held on 12/5/2002 at 1:30 PM at Chambers 19A, Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
41 Order entering action into Electronic Filing System, Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
42 Memorandum of Opinion and Order Denying Local 93's Motion for relief from order pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Related Docs. 23 , 25 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
43 Answer to Corrected First Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Related document(s) 29 ) (Rossiter, Britt) Modified text on 10/22/2002 (M, J A). (Entered: 10/21/2002)
44 Order directing defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc. to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena issued by the plaintiffs no later than 10/31/02; defendant City of Cleveland is to respond to all written discovery propounded to it by 10/23/02. Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (I, B) Modified text on 10/22/2002 (M, J A). (Entered: 10/21/2002)
45 Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Unreported case (Barnes)# 3 Unreported Case (Alexander)# 4 Unreported Case (Moss)# 5 Unreported Case (Walker)# 6 Unreported Case (Underfer)# 7 Unreported Case (Brown))(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
46 Notice of Service of Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum of Law in Support Thererof filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
47 Attorney Appearance by Leslye M. Huff filed by on behalf of City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Huff, Leslye) Modified on 12/5/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 12/04/2002)
48 Attorney Appearance by Kevin J. Gibbons filed by on behalf of City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified on 12/5/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 12/04/2002)
49 Second Motion to amend complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Complaint Exhibit 1# 3 Complaint Exhibit 2# 4 Complaint Exhibit 3)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
50 Marginal Order signed on 12/6/2002 Granting Without Opposition Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint instanter (Related Doc. 49 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 12/06/2002)

12/06/2002
12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/26/2002 12/26/2002 12/26/2002 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/31/2003
02/19/2003 02/19/2003
03/11/2003

51 Second Amended complaint With Jury Demand against all defendants. Filed by Lawrence Moore, Asa Newsome, Keith Acey, Rudolph Buffington, Kevin Echols, Kenneth Guyton, Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Michael Odum, Bashir Rahman, Granville White, Bruce Williams. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(B, D) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
52 Marginal Order signed on 12/6/2002 Denying as moot Defendants City of Cleveland and Chief Kevin Gerrity's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected First Amended Complaint (Related Doc. 32 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
53 Marginal Order signed on 12/6/2002 Denying as moot Defendants Barrett &Associates' and Gerald Barrett's Motion for judgment on the pleadings (Related Doc. 45 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
54 Answer to Second Amended Complaint with jury demand (Related Doc # 51 ) filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Rossiter, Britt) Modified on 12/26/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 12/26/2002)
55 Motion for leave to File Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Instanter, filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading Answer of Defendants City of Cleveland and Fire Chief Kevin Gerrity)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
56 Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Request for Injunctive Relief filed by City of Cleveland. (Related document(s) 51 ) (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
57 Order signed on 1/24/2003 Granting, without opposition, Motion for leave to file answer to second amended complaint(Related Doc # 55 )(Chief Judge Paul R. Matia)(E, S) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
58 Answer to Second Amended Complaint with jury demand filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Related document(s) 27 , 29 , 1 , 51 ) (E, S) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
59 Notice of status conference to be held on 2/18/2003 at 10:30 AM at Chambers 19A (E, S) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
60 Motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Exhibit A − First Declaration of Gerald Barrett# 3 Exhibit B − Second Declaration of Gerald Barrett# 4 Exhibit C − Odum Dismissal# 5 Unreported Case − Alexander# 6 Unreported case − Barnes# 7 Unreported case − Brown# 8 Unreported case − Moss# 9 Unreported case − United Black Firefighters# 10 Unreported case − Walker)(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
61 Order. The Court will treat the Defendants, Barrett &Associates and Gerald V. Barrett's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment as a motion for summary judgment (Related document 60 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
62 Order. Plaintiffs to file a memorandum in opposition to defendants, Barrett &Associates and Gerald V. Barrett's motion for summary judgment by 3/21/2003; By 3/20/2003, lead counsel of record for plaintiffs and defendants, City of Cleveland and Fire Chief Kevin Gerrity, each to provide the Court and opposing counsel with a brief indicating the points and authorities on which they rely in support of their respective positions regarding the 2002 promotional examination (Related document( 60 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia.(B, D) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
63 Rule 56(f) Motion and Affidavit for enlargement of time to respond to defendants' Barrett and Barrett &Associates motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, to dismiss or deny defendants' motion to be refiled after completion of discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Thompson Affidavit# 2)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 3/12/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/20/2003 03/21/2003 03/21/2003 03/21/2003 03/26/2003 03/27/2003 03/28/2003 03/28/2003
03/31/2003 03/31/2003 03/31/2003 03/31/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003
04/02/2003 04/02/2003

64 Motion for order To Release Hold on Promotional Exams filed by City of Cleveland. (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
65 Notice of Hearing scheduling a Status Conference on 4/8/2003 at 4:15 p.m in Chambers 19A. (R, J) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
66 Motion for extension of time to file brief relating to 2002 promotional examination filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
67 Exhibit(s) to motion to release hold placed on 2002 Firefighter Promotional Exams filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8)(Related document(s) 64 ) (S, R) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
68 Letter signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia admonishing counsel for defendants City of Cleveland and Fire Chief Kevin Gerrity to file all further documents electronically. (R, J) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
69 Address Change Notice of E−Mail Address by Dennis R. Thompson filed by on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
70 Opposition (Related Motion(s) 63 ) to Plaintiffs' "Rule 56(f) motion and affidant for enlargment of time" filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Rossiter, Britt) Modified on 3/31/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 03/28/2003)
71 Points and Authorities With Respect to the 2002 Promotional Exam filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Summary 1996, 2000 Promotions# 2 Exhibit B − Wollman Case Summary# 3 Exhibit C − Wollman Complaint# 4 Exhibit D − DROP Overview# 5 Exhibit E − DROP Detailed Description# 6 Exhibit F − Lieutenant Ranking 1996# 7 Exhibit G − Captain Ranking 1996# 8 Exhibit H − B. Chief Ranking 1996# 9 Exhibit I − A.Chief Ranking 1996# 10 Exhibit J − Lieutenant Ranking 2000# 11 Exhibit K − Captain Ranking 2000# 12 Exhibit L − B.Chief Ranking 2000# 13 Exhibit M − A.Chief Ranking 2000)(Related document(s) 62 ) (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 3/31/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 03/28/2003)
72 Marginal Order signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/31/2003 denying Sean DeCrane's motion to intervene as a party defendant (Related Doc # 22 ). (R, J) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
73 Marginal Order signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/31/2003 granting Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time until 3/28/03 to file brief regarding the 2002 promotional examination (Related Doc # 66 ). (R, J) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
74 Notice of Filing Additional Exhibit Re: 2002 Promotional Exam Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N − Order Re: Wollman Case)(Related document(s) 62 ) (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
75 Third Amended complaint against all defendants. Filed by Kevin Echols, Kevin Gerity, Kenneth Guyton, Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Lawrence Moore, Asa Newsome, Michael Odum, Bashir Rahman, Granville White, Bruce Williams. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
76 Motion to strike "Third Amended Complaint" filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Related document(s) 75 ) (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
77 Response (Related Motion(s) 76 ) to Defendant Barrett's Motion to Strike Third Amended Complaint or in the alternative, Motion for Leave to File filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − City's Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 4/2/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/01/2003)
78 Notice of Service of Interrogatories, Admissions, and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Barrett, et al filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
79 Reply (Related Motion(s) 63 ) to Defendant Barrett's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Subpoena

04/09/2003
04/09/2003 04/11/2003 04/14/2003
04/21/2003 04/23/2003 04/24/2003 04/24/2003 04/24/2003 04/24/2003
04/24/2003 04/25/2003 04/30/2003 05/06/2003

Duces Tecum − July 2002)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
80 Marginal Order signed on 4/9/2003 Granting Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion for extension of time; Plaintiffs to file a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants, Barrett &Associates and Gerald V. Barrett's Motion for Summary Judgment by 4/22/2003 (Related Docs. 63 , 60 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
81 Marginal Order signed on 4/9/2003 Withdrawing Motion to release hold placed on 2002 firefighter promotional exams; The Court will treat Doc. 64 as a brief filed in compliance with the Order entered on 2/19/03 (Related Docs. 64 , 62 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
82 Supplement to Defendant Gerald Barrett and Barrett &Associates' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
83 Order signed on 4/14/2003. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the third amended complaint, which is deemed filed as of 4/14/2003; Defendants Gerald V. Barrett and Barrett &Associates, Inc.'s Motion to strike the third amended complaint is denied as moot (Related Docs. 75 , 76 , 77 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
84 Reply Brief to Plaintiff's points and authorities concerning the 2002 Promotional Exam filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s) 74 ) (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified on 4/22/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/21/2003)
85 Motion to enlarge time to respond to defendant Barrett's motion for Summary Judgment Response filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 4/24/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/23/2003)
86 Answer to Third Amended Complaint with jury demand (Related Doc # 75 ) filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Rossiter, Britt) Modified on 4/24/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/24/2003)
87 Answer to Third Amended Complaint with jury demand (Related Doc # 75 ) filed by City of Cleveland. (Related document(s) 75 ) (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified on 4/25/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/24/2003)
88 Third Brief in Opposition to plaintiffs' request for Injunctive Relief filed by City of Cleveland. (Related document(s) 75 ) (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified on 4/25/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/24/2003)
89 Response (Related Motion(s) 60 ) to Defendant Barrett's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Ord. No. 290−01# 2 Exhibit 2 − Agreement City &Barrett# 3 Exhibit 3 − City's Request for Proposal# 4 Exhibit Barrett Proposal# 5 Exhibit 5 − Expert Witness Fee Schedule# 6 Exhibit 6 − Barrett vitae# 7 Exhibit 7 − Chapter 167(b))(Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 4/25/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/24/2003)
90 Suggestion of Lack of Jurisdiction Over Records Claim filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 4/25/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/24/2003)
91 Marginal Order signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 4/25/2003 granting Plaintiffs' motion for an enlargement of three days to respond to Defendant Barrett's motion for summary judgment (Related Doc # 85 ). (R, J) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
92 Reply Memorandum (Related Motion(s) 60 ) in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Rossiter, Britt) Modified on 5/1/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 04/30/2003)
93 Motion for leave to file surrebuttal instanter filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 05/06/2003)

05/09/2003 05/14/2003 05/14/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/24/2003 06/30/2003 07/11/2003 08/05/2003 08/05/2003 08/14/2003 08/18/2003 08/20/2003 09/02/2003
09/02/2003
09/03/2003 09/17/2003 09/22/2003

94 Motion to strike Plaintiffs' "Suggestion of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
95 Opposition (Related Motion(s) 94 ) to Defendant Barrett's Motion to Strike Suggestion of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
96 Motion for extension of time to complete discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
97 Marginal Order signed on 6/12/2003 Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to file surrebuttal (Related Doc. 93 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
98 Order signed on 6/12/2003 Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to enlarge time to complete discovery; Discovery cutoff is extended until 8/19/2003 (Related Doc. 96 ), Chief Judge Paul R. Matia. (B, D) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
99 Attorney Appearance of Christy B. Bishop by Dennis R. Thompson filed by on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
100 Motion for leave to file manually motion to intervene filed by William Marconi, Louis Hahn, Joseph Simone, Patrick Corrigan, Eric Burchak, Darrell Starnik. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Intervene)(S, R) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
101 Notice of Supplemental Exhibits in opposition to summary judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Dr. Robert Johnson)(Related document(s) 89 ) (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
102 Joint Status Report of the Parties filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
103 Joint Motion for extension of time to complete discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
104 Notice of Supplemental Controlling Authority filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Anthony v. BTR)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
105 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by City of Cleveland. (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
106 Motion to intervene as an additional party defendant pursuant to FRCP 24(A)(2) filed by Brian Luther. (Attachments: # 1)(Gibbons, John) Modified on 8/21/2003 (S, R). (Entered: 08/20/2003)
107 Supplemental Notice of Additional Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Barrett's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Barrett's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Related document(s) 89 ) (Bishop, Christy)(DOCUMENT STRICKEN ON 3/26/2004). Modified on 3/26/2004 to include statement regarding stricken document) (S, B). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
108 Motion to strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Notice Of Filing Supplemental Exhibit In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendants Barrett, et al.'s Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Unreported decision (Ford Motor Co))(Related document(s) 107 ) (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
109 Motion for extension of time to Respond to Motion of Brian Luther to Intervene as a Party filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 106 ) (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
110 Notice of Service of Settlement Proposal filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
111 Response (Related Motion(s) 106 ) to Motion to Intervene as a Party filed by Brian Luther filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Unrep. Case − Johnson v. City of Memphis)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/22/2003)

09/22/2003 09/26/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/15/2003 10/20/2003 10/29/2003 03/23/2004 03/23/2004
03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004
03/29/2004 05/13/2004
07/29/2004

112 Response (Related Motion(s) 108 ) to Defendant Barrett's Motion to Strike Supplemental SJ Exhibit filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
113 Notice of Filing "Exhibit 1" inadvertently omitted from Plaintiffs' Response to Motion by Brian Luther to Intervene filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Opposition to Motion by Brian Luther to Intervene)(Related document(s) 111 ) (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
114 Reply (Related Motion(s) 108 ) in Support of Defendant Gerald Barrett and Barrett &Associates' Motion to Strike filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
115 Motion for sanctions filed by Gerald Barrett, Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Unreported Case (Kallok))(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
116 Motion for extension of time to Respond to Barrett's Motion for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 115 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
117 Status Report filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
118 Notice of Service of Defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc.. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
119 Order granting motion of individual Cleveland firefighters Darrell Starnik, Eric Burchak, Patrick Corrigan, Joseph Simone, Louis Hahn and William Marconi for leave to file manually a motion to intervene (Related Doc # 100 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/23/04.(R, J) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
120 Motion to intervene pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24(A)(2) filed by Eric Burchak, Patrick Corrigan, Louis Hahn, William Marconi, Joseph Simone and Darrell Starnik. (Attachments: #(1) Brief in Support #(2) Affidavit of Darrell Starnik #(3) Affidavit of Eric Burchak #(4) Affidavit of William Marconi #(5) Affidavit of Joseph Simeone #(6) Affidavit of Louis Hahn #(7) Affidavit of Patrick Corrigan).(R, J) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
121 Marginal Order granting plaintiffs and defendant City of Cleveland's motion for extension of time of time until 11/30/03 to complete discovery (Related Doc # 103 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/23/04.(R, J) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
122 Marginal Order granting plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to respond to the latest motion to intervene until 9/22/03 (Related Doc # 109 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/23/04.(R, J) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
123 Marginal Order granting plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to respond to defendant Barrett's motion for sanctions (Related Doc # 116 ). Signed by Judge Chief Paul R. Matia on 3/26/2004.(S, B) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
124 Order granting defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald V. Barrett's motion to strike (Related Doc # 108 ). Plaintiffs' notice of filing supplemental exhibit (Doc # 107 ), filed on September 2, 2003 is STRICKEN FROM THE FILE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). It Is So Ordered. Signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/26/04.(S, B) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
125 Order denying Brian Luther's motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)(Related Doc # 106 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 3/29/04.(R, J) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
126 Order denying individual Cleveland Fire Fighters Darrell Starnik, Eric Burchak, Patrick Corrigan, Joseph Simone, Louis Hahn and William Marconi's Motion to intervene as a party. (Related Doc # 120 ). Signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 5/13/04. (E, S) Corrected document added on 5/13/2004 (R, J). (Entered: 05/13/2004)
127 Notice of Hearing scheduling a Status Conference for 9/8/2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Chambers 19A before Hon. Paul R. Matia. (R, J) (Entered: 07/29/2004)

07/30/2004 08/03/2004 08/20/2004 08/31/2004 09/14/2004 11/19/2004
12/06/2004 12/09/2004
12/09/2004 12/13/2004 12/13/2004
12/14/2004 12/17/2004
12/17/2004 12/17/2004 12/27/2004 12/27/2004

128 Motion to continue Status Conference filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 127 . (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
129 Order granting Motion to continue Status Conference(Related Doc # 128 ). Status Conference reset for 9/13/2004 at 4:00 p.m.. Signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 8/03/2004.(S, B) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
130 Notice of counsel's firm name cange to "Thompson &Bishop" filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/20/2004)
131 Interim Status Report filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
132 Order extending discovery cutoff until 12/31/2004, and extending dispositive motion deadline until 2/28/2005. Signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 9/14/2004. (S, B) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
133 Motion to compel discovery filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Affidavit Certification of good faith efforts# 3 Exhibit A: e−mail service of discovery request# 4 Exhibit B: Letter requesting response to discovery request# 5 Exhibit C: Second letter requesting response to discovery request# 6 Exhibit D: Third letter requesting response to discovery request)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
134 Notice of Substitution of Counsel removing attorney William M. Menzalora and adding attorney L. Stewart Hastings, Jr. filed by on behalf of City of Cleveland. (Hastings, Jr., L.) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
135 Motion for protective order from having to respond to Defendant's Interrogaotris and requests for Production of Documents filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 133 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 0 Defendant' City of Cleveland's Interrogatories to Certain Plaintiffs# 2 Appendix Security Insurance v. Trademark Insurance)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified, attachment, unable to read, attorney notified by email on 12/10/2004 (E, P). (Entered: 12/09/2004)
136 Motion for extension of Discovery Cut−off until February 15, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
137 Response to Motion to compel discovery filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 133 . (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
138 Motion for Separate Trials filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Unreported decision − Mlinaric# 3 Unreported decision − Reid# 4 Unreported decision − United Black Firefighters)(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
139 Motion for settlement conference filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
140 Response to Motion to compel discovery, Motion for protective order from having to respond to Defendant's Interrogaotris and requests for Production of Documents filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 133 , 135 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
141 Response to Motion for extension of Discovery Cut−off until February 15, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 136 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
142 Order granting Motion to compel discovery (Related Doc # 133 ), denying Motion for protective order (Related Doc # 135 ). Signed by Chief Judge Paul R. Matia on 12/17/2004.(S, B) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
143 Notice of Service of complete expert report and curriculum vitae on 12/20/04 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 12/28/2004 (E, P). (Entered: 12/27/2004)
144 Initial Disclosures filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 12/27/2004)

12/28/2004 12/30/2004 01/03/2005 01/10/2005 01/10/2005 01/12/2005
01/24/2005 01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 01/27/2005
01/28/2005 02/10/2005 02/10/2005 02/11/2005

145 Order granting 136 plaintiffs' motion to enlarge discovery cutoff. Discovery is extended until 2/15/2005 and the Dispositive Motion deadline is extended to 4/15/2005. Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 12/28/2004.(issued on 12/28/2004)(B, B) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
146 Motion for Order to Permit Counsel to Attend Depositions filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. Related document(s) 145 . (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
147 Notice of Service of Documents Responsive to request for Production of Documents on 12/22/04 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 1/4/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 01/03/2005)
148 Motion for extension of time to respond to motion for trial bifurcation filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 138 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 1/14/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 01/10/2005)
149 Motion for extension of to oppose Union's "Motion to Attend Depositions" until 1/26/2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 146 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
150 Order referring 139 Motion for settlement conference filed by Anthony Luke, Keith Acey, Rudolph Buffington, Michael Odum, Bashir Rahman, Daryl McGinnis, Kenneth Guyton, Bruce Williams, Kevin Echols, Granville White, Asa Newsome, Lawrence Moore, to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Patricia A. Hemann. Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 1/12/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
151 Motion for Order to Permit Counsel for Cleveland Fire Fighters Local 93 to Attend Settlement Conference filed by Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internation Association of Fire Fighters. (Diemert, Jr., Joseph) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
152 Marginal Order granting 149 : plaintiffs' motion for time until 1/26/2005 to oppose Union's motion to attend deposition . Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 1/25/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
153 Opposition to Motion for Order to Permit Counsel to Attend Depositions and Plaintiffs' Request for Costs filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 146 . (Attachments: # 1 Jackson v. Willy# 2 Abulaila v. Runyon)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
154 Opposition to Motion for Order to Permit Counsel for Cleveland Fire Fighters Local 93 to Attend Settlement Conference filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 151 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
155 Motion for sanctions filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dr. Johnson Document# 2 Exhibit Court's Order Compelling Discovery# 3 Exhibit Letter from Defense Counsel# 4 Exhibit Dr. Johnson Depo Transcript# 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures# 6 Exhibit Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel# 7 Exhibit case − Allianz Ins. Co.# 8 Exhibit case − Directory Dividends, Inc.)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
156 Minutes of proceedings. Telephone conference held re Settlement before Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Counsel to appear 2/7 and 2/8 to work on settlement. Court will be available to assist. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
157 Motion for extension of Response to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions until February 25, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 155 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
158 Motion to dismiss Defendants Barrett &Associates, INc. and Gerald Barrett, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 41(A) filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 7/16/05 to term motion as withdrawn. (Related Doc. 225 , 205 ) (M, G). (Entered: 02/10/2005)
159 Response to Motion to dismiss Defendants Barrett &Associates, INc. and Gerald Barrett, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 41(A) filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 158 . (Rossiter, Britt)

02/14/2005 02/15/2005 02/15/2005 02/17/2005 02/18/2005
02/23/2005 02/28/2005 03/02/2005
03/02/2005
03/03/2005 03/07/2005 03/16/2005 03/18/2005 03/29/2005 03/30/2005 04/06/2005 04/13/2005

(Entered: 02/11/2005)
160 Minutes of proceedings. Settlement Conference held 2/7 ; 2/8 and 2/14/2005 before Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Case cannot be resolved without attendance of Mayor at conferences. Referral terminated. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
161 Motion for extension of Discovery, 2/15/05 until 4/15/05 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
162 Motion to dismiss Bashir Rahman pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, without prejudice filed by Bashir Rahman. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
163 Notice of Filing of Supplemental Exhibit filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Dr. Barrett's Rule 26 Report)Related document(s) 60 , 92 , 115 , 159 . (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
166 Minutes of proceedings. Discovery dispute by telephone held on 2/18/2005 before Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to outstanding discovery form defendant, Barrett &Associates and to produce expert reports no later than 3/4/2005. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
164 Motion to strike expert reports &exclude experts, with leave to file brief in support by March 31, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
165 Notice of Suggestion On Record filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
167 Motion for extension of Provide Supplemental Expert Report until 14 days after requested information provided filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter to Thomas Barnard re: electronic data, February 21, 05# 2 Exhibit B − Letter to Thomas Barnard re: SPSS files, 1996 and 2000 examinations)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
168 Motion for extension of Response to Defendant City of Cleveland's Motion for Sanctions &Defendant Barrett's "Response/Motion" to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Barrett until March 11, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 155 , 157 , 159 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
169 Response to Motion to strike expert reports &exclude experts, with leave to file brief in support by March 31, 2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 164 . (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
170 Response to Motion to strike expert reports &exclude experts, with leave to file brief in support by March 31, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 164 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
171 Interim Status Report filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
172 Initial Disclosures filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
173 Address Change Notice by Britt J. Rossiter filed by on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
174 Notice of Substitution of Counsel removing attorney Rossiter and adding attorney Michelle R. Arendt filed by on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
175 Motion for extension of Dispositive Motion until June 3, 2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
176 Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Feb. 23 Motion to Exclude Evidence filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 164 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Agreement City &Barrett# 2 Exhibit 2 − Barrett Memo to City − 7−2002# 3 Exhibit 3 − Barnard Letter to Thompson re Barrett docs − 9−23−2002# 4 Exhibit 4 − Barrett's first Mention of Sanctions# 5 Exhibit 5 − Barrett's Responses to P's Request for Admissions# 6 Exhibit 6 − Letter Rossiter − Service of Admissions

04/18/2005
04/21/2005 04/29/2005 04/29/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005
05/02/2005
05/02/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005 05/11/2005

Responses# 7 Exhibit 7 − Letter re "new discovery" 10−25−2004# 8 Exhibit 9 − Barrett's Responses to Interrogatory Requests − 10−2003# 9 Exhibit 10 − Ltr − Gibbons to Thompson re Henderson "Expert" Report − 2−15−2005) (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
177 Notice of Filing additional Evidentiary Exhibits in Support of Brief In Support of Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Emmett Jordan# 2 Exhibit 11 − Barrett's Responses to Request for Production)Related document(s) 176 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
178 Response to Motion for sanctions by defendant City of Cleveland filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 155 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 4/27/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 04/21/2005)
179 MarginalOrder denying as moot plaintiff's motion for settlement conference (Related Doc # 139 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 4/29/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
180 MarginalOrder denying as moot Motion to permit counsel for Cleveland Firefighters' Local 93 to attend settlement conference (Related Doc # 151 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 4/29/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
181 MarginalOrder granting 157 plaintiff's motion for extension of response to defendant's motion for sanctions . Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 5/02/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
182 MarginalOrder granting 161 plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery. Extension granted until 6/30/2005. Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 5/02/.2005.(S, B) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
183 MarginalOrder granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Bashir Rahman (Related Doc # 162 ). Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 5/02/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
184 MarginalOrder granting 168 plaintiffs' motion for extension of response to defendant City of Cleveland's motion for sanctions and defendant Barrett's response/motion. Granted until April 21, 2005. Signed by Judge Paul R. Matia on 5/02/2005.(S, B) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
185 Motion for extension of time until May 11, 2005 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion to Exclude Expert filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 176 , 177 . (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
186 Motion for extension of dispositive motion until August 31, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 182 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
187 Motion to dismiss Marcus Turner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(A) filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
188 Motion for extension of deadline to reply to Ps' opposition to Ds' motion for sanctions until May 20, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 155 , 178 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
189 Motion for extension of deadline to respond to Ps' motion to strike/exclude evidence until May 20, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 176 , 177 , 164 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
190 Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion to Exclude Expert of Defendants filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Barrett Declaration# 2 Exhibit B − Declaration in Response to Motion to Exclude# 3 Exhibit C − Luke Deposition Pages# 4 Exhibit D − July 15, 2003 Fax# 5 Exhibit E − November 22, 2004 Letter) (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 05/11/2005)

05/12/2005
05/20/2005 05/20/2005 05/23/2005 05/25/2005 06/02/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005
06/14/2005

191 Reply to response to Motion to dismiss Defendants Barrett &Associates, INc. and Gerald Barrett, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 41(A) filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 158 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − First Letter to Commission Officer Willson (Ne Lackey)# 2 Exhibit 2 − Second Letter to Commission Officer Wilson (Nee Lackey)# 3 Exhibit 3 − Letter of Firefighter Expressing Suspicion of 1996 Examination)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
192 Motion for extension of Deadline to reply to Ps' opposition to Ds' motion for sanctions until June 3, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 155 , 178 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
193 Motion for extension of deadline to respond to Ps' motion to strike/exclude experts until June 3, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 176 , 177 , 164 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
194 Motion for extension of Reply to Barrett's Opposition to Motion to Exclude until 06/06/05 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 176 , 190 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
195 Motion for extension of Dispositive Motion until August 31, 2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
196 Motion for extension of Deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' brief in support of their motion to strike and exclude experts until until June 17, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 176 , 189 , 177 , 164 , 193 , 170 . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Steve Chicatelli, Exhibit 1)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
197 Opposition to Motion for extension of Dispositive Motion until August 31, 2005 and Opposition to the filing of a second dispositive motion, the first having been filed in 2003 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 195 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Barrett's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 56f 2003)(Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 6/6/2005 (P, G). (Entered: 06/03/2005)
198 Motion for extension of deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion for sanctions until June 17, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 188 , 178 , 192 , 181 , 168 , 155 , 184 , 157 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
199 Notice of reassigning case to Judge James S. Gwin pursuant to the protocol adopted by this Court for reassignment of the docket of Judge Paul R. Matia.(H, D) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
200 Opposition to Motion for extension of Deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' brief in support of their motion to strike and exclude experts until June 17, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 196 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 6/14/2005 (P, G). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
201 Reply to Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to City's Motion for Sanctions filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 178 , 155 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: 1996 City Contract with Barrett# 2 Exhibit B: 2000 City Contract with Barrett# 3 Exhibit C: 2002 City Contract with Barrett# 4 Exhibit D: Letter from Attorney Gibbons 3−8−05# 5 Exhibit E: Letter from Attorney Rossiter 10−25−04# 6 Exhibit F: Letter from Attorney Gibbons 2−15−05# 7 Exhibit G: Affidavit of Lisa Meece# 8 Exhibit H: Letters from Shannon Milner 2−24−05; 3−15−05# 9 Letter from Attorney Bishop# 10 Declaration of Steve Chicatelli# 11 Barrett Memo to City 7−29−02) (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text on 6/14/2005 (P, G). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
202 Response to Motion to strike expert reports &exclude experts, with leave to file brief in support by March 31, 2005 and Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support document 176 filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 164 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D: Letters from Attorney Gibbons to Expert 11−04# 2 Exhibit E: Letter from Attorney Rossiter 10−25−04# 3 Exhibit F: Letter from Gibbons 2−15−05# 4 Exhibit G: Affidavit of Lisa Meece# 5 Exhibit H: 1996 Fire Exam List# 6 Exhibit I: 2000 Fire Exam List# 7 Exhibit J: Declaration of

06/14/2005 06/16/2005 06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005 06/27/2005
06/29/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005
07/12/2005

Steve Chicatelli# 8 Exhibit K: Barrett Memo to City 7−29−02)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
203 Reply to response to Motion for extension of Dispositive Motion until August 31, 2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 195 . (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
204 DOCUMENT TO BE FILED AS A MOTION. Notice of withdrawal of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants Barret, et al. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 191 , 158 , 159 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified on 6/17/2005 to note filing error (P, G). (Entered: 06/16/2005)
205 Motion to withdraw document i.e., Motion to Dismiss Defendants Barrett, et al. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 158 , 204 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
206 Notice that a status conference has been set for 7/1/05 at 11:15 a.m., in Chambers 21B (Cleveland) before Judge James S. Gwin. (M, G) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
207 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/23/05 referring motion for sanctions by Defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc., and Gerald Barrett and City of Cleveland and Kevin Gerity to Magistrate Judge Hemann. (Related Doc. 115 , 155 ) (M, G) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
208 Motion for protective order re: Defendant City of Cleveland's 16 Notices of Depositions filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' Counsel's Letter to Judge Gwin# 2 Exhibit 1 a − Barrett 2002 Letter to Cleveland Counsel# 3 Exhibit 2 − Letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel from Barrett Atty Thomas Barnard − 2002# 4 Exhibit 3 − Jordan EEOC Probable Cause# 5 Exhibit 4 − Attorney Gibbons' Letter re: Content Expert# 6 Exhibit Gibbonas E−Mail re: Depositions# 7 Exhibit 6 − Gibbons Letter Seeking 29 Depositions in two weeks# 8 Exhibit 7 − Attorney Gibbons' Letter Noticing 16 Depositions# 9 Exhibit 8 − Attorney Gibbons' Letter re: Service of Examination − Related Documents# 10 Exhibit 9 − Affidavit of Lisa Meese, Former Civil Service# 11 Exhibit 10 − Deposition Excerpt of Lisa Meese# 12 Exhibit 11 − Jordan Case Management Order Denying Initial Disclosures# 13 Exhibit 12 − Attorney Gibbons' Letter re: "Supplemental" Interrogatory Identifications# 14 Exhibit 13 − Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests Directed to Cleveland, August 2002# 15 Exhibit 14 − Defendant Cleveland's Responses to Plantiffs' Discovery Requests − March 2003)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
209 Motion for extension of time to Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Exclude Experts until 8/1/2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 176 , 190 , 164 , 202 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 7/1/2005 (L, T). (Entered: 06/29/2005)
210 Notice of discovery dispute filed by City of Cleveland via letter to Judge James S. Gwin dated 6/8/05. (M, G) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
211 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/1/05 referring discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Hemann. (Related Doc. 210 ) (M, G) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
212 Minutes of status conference before Judge James S. Gwin on 7/1/05. (Court Reporter: none.) (M, G) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
213 Case Management Conference Plan/Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/5/05. Case assigned to the Standard Track. Preliminary discovery due by 8/10/05. Parties to be joined and pleadings amended by 7/1/05. Dispositive motions to be filed by 8/17/05 with responses due by 8/31/05 and relies due by 9/7/05. Status conference set for 9/1/05 at 8:00 a.m., in Conference Room 588 (Akron). Final pretrial conference set for 10/13/05 at 12:00 noon in Chambers 21B (Cleveland). Jury trial set on a two−week standby basis beginning 10/24/05 at 8:00 a.m., in Courtroom 19A (Cleveland). (M, G) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
214 Notice of Hearing. Discovery Hearing set for 7/25/2005 09:30 AM in Chambers 11B before Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Hemann. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 07/12/2005)

07/14/2005
07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/16/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005
07/21/2005
07/25/2005
07/26/2005

215 Supplement to Plainitffs' Points and Authorities Relating to the Hold on the 2002 Promotional Examination filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 71 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Memo to Lackey (Wilson), 5−23−02# 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter, Krupka to Barrett# 3 Exhibit 3 − Letter, Barrett to Krupka, undated# 4 Exhibit 4 − Memo to Lackey (Wilson), 6−18−02# 5 Exhibit 5 − Gridded 2002 answer sheet, Jamie Jazz# 6 Exhibit 6 − Memo, Straffan to Civil Service# 7 Exhibit 7 − Contract, 1996 fire promotional examination# 8 Exhibit 8 − Contract, 2000 fire promotional examination)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified attachment on 7/15/2005 (P, G). (Entered: 07/14/2005)
216 Deposition of Kenneth Guyton taken on May 25, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified date on 7/15/2005 (P, G). (Entered: 07/14/2005)
217 Deposition of Emmett Jordan taken on June 8, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
218 Deposition of Lisa Meece taken on April 20, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
219 Deposition of Jonalyn Krupka taken on May 17, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
220 Deposition of Carita (Lackey) Wilson taken on April 20, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
221 Deposition of Mark Straffan taken on May 18, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
222 Deposition of Anthony Luke filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
223 Deposition of James Hogan taken on April 29, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
224 Deposition of Gerald Barrett taken on June 20, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
225 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/16/05 granting plaintiffs' motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss Defendant Barrett and Associates, Inc., et al. (Related Doc. 205 , 158 ) (M, G) (Entered: 07/16/2005)
226 Motion to continue sanctions hearing until August 2, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 207 , 209 , 210 , 214 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
227 Motion for Order referring to Magistrate Judge Hemann Plaintiffs' motion to strike/exclude defendants' experts as Rule 37 sanction filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 176 , 207 , 177 , 190 , 164 , 210 , 211 , 226 , 202 , 214 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Order (non−document) overruling plaintiffs' Motion to continue sanctions hearing until 8/2/2005. Hearing scheduled for 7/25/2005 is a discovery hearing not a sanctions hearing.(Related Doc # 226 ). Entered on behalf of Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 7/21/2005.(W, Gloria) Modified text on 7/26/2005 (P, S). (Entered: 07/21/2005)
228 Minutes of proceedings. Discovery Hearing held on 7/25/2005 before Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Docket #155 resolved. Docket #115 held in abeyance pending resolution of pending motion for summary judgment. (Court Reporter Julie Knabe.) (Related doc 115 , 155 ) (W, Gloria) Modified text of docket entry on 7/29/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 07/25/2005)
229 Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to the release of the 2002 promotional examinations filed by City of Cleveland and non−party Paul Stubbs. Related document(s) 60 , 71 , 215 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Temporary Promotion Cost Analysis) (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text of docket entry on 8/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 07/26/2005)

07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/28/2005 08/01/2005 08/10/2005 08/17/2005
08/17/2005
08/18/2005

230 Notice of Service of Expert Report on 7/26/2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) Modified text of docket entry on 8/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 07/26/2005)
231 Amended Initial Disclosures filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
232 Designation of Expert Witnesses Dr. Robert Johnson and Dr. Michael Zickar filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text of docket entry on 8/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 07/26/2005)
233 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/28/05. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' destruction of public records claim under Ohio law. Plaintiffs' suggestion of lack of subject matter is rejected and defendants' motion to strike is denied as moot. (Related Doc. 94 , 90 ) (M, G) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
234 Supplement to opposition to lifting the hold on 2002 fire promotional examination filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 71 , 215 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Report of Dr. Michael Zickar)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified text of docket entry on 8/9/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 08/01/2005)
235 Motion to dismiss party plaintiff Emmanuel Williams filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
236 Motion for summary judgment filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Exhibit A: 1996 Eligibility List# 3 Exhibit B: 2000 Eligibility List# 4 Exhibit C: Deposition of Granville White# 5 Exhibit D: Deposition of David Butler# 6 Exhibit E: Deposition of Keith Acey# 7 Exhibit F−1: Deposition of Michael Odum Part I# 8 Exhibit F−2: Deposition of Michael Odum Part II# 9 Exhibit G: Deposition of Keith Echols# 10 Exhibit H: Graves v. Van Buskirk# 11 Exhibit I: Watson Affidavit# 12 Exhibit J: City EEO Policy# 13 Exhibit K: Deposition of Daryl McGinnis# 14 Exhibit L: Excerpt of Barrett Report Jul. 26, 2005# 15 Exhibit M: Henderson Report Feb. 9, 2005# 16 Exhibit N: Henderson Report Feb. 14, 2005# 17 Exhibit O: Cavanagh v. City of Cleveland# 18 Exhibit P: Discipline Grid# 19 Exhibit Q: Deposition of Greg Wilson# 20 Exhibit R−1: Acey Docket# 21 Exhibit R−2: Acey Petition# 22 Exhibit S−1: Alford Docket (2000)# Unredacted Exhibit S−2: Alford Petition (2000)# 24 Exhibit T−1: Alford Docket (2005)# 25 Exhibit T−2: Alford Petition (2005)# 26 Exhibit U−1: Echols Docket# 27 Exhibit U−2: Echols Petition# 28 Exhibit V: Hodges Docket# 29 Exhibit W−1: Johnson Docket# 30 Exhibit W−2: Johnson Petition# 31 Exhibit X−1: Moore Docket# Unredacted Exhibit X−2: Moore Petition# 33 Exhibit Y−1: Nickerson Docket# Unredacted Exhibit Y−2: Nickerson Petition# 35 Exhibit Z−1: Pennyman Docket# Unredacted Exhibit Z−2: Pennyman Petition# 37 Exhibit AA−1: Watson Docket# Unredacted Exhibit AA−2: Watson Petition# 39 Exhibit BB−1: White Docket# Unredacted Exhibit BB−2: White Petition)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 8/24/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 08/17/2005)
237 FILING ERROR, exhibit uploaded instead of motion, entire document to be refiled. Motion for leave to file, instanter, supplement to summary judgment filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Interrogatory Responses Manually Filed# 2 Exhibit B − Wilson Dep# 3 Exhibit C − Krupka Dep# 4 Exhibit D − Meece Dep# 5 Exhibit E − Barrett Declaration# 6 Exhibit E−1 (pt. 1) − 1996 Agreement# 7 Exhibit E−1 (pt. 2) − 1996 Agreement# 8 Exhibit E−2 − 2000 Agreement# 9 Exhibit E−3 − 2002 Agreement# 10 Exhibit E−4 (pt. 1) − 2002 Study Guide# 11 Exhibit E−4 (pt. 2) − 2002 Study Guide# 12 Exhibit F − Barrett Dep# 13 Exhibit G − White Dep# 14 Exhibit H − McGinnis Dep# 15 Exhibit I − Guyton Dep# 16 Exhibit J − Jordan Dep# 17 Exhibit K− Odum Dep# 18 Exhibit L − Luke Dep# 19 Exhibit M − Echols Dep# 20 Exhibit N − Sheffield case# 21 Exhibit O − Asp case# 22 Exhibit P−1 − Buenrostro Case (Pt. 1)# 23 Exhibit P−2 − Buenrostro case (Pt. 2)# 24 Exhibit Q − Askew Dep# 25 Exhibit R − Docket Case No 00−1444# 26 Exhibit S − Johnson Dep)(Arendt, Michelle) Modified text/termed motion 8/18/2005 (C, K A). (Entered: 08/17/2005)
238 Motion for leave to file, instanter, supplement to motion for summary judgment filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement

08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005
08/25/2005 08/25/2005

to Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit A − Interrogatory Responses Manually Filed# 3 Exhibit B − Wilson Dep# 4 Exhibit C − Krupka Dep# 5 Exhibit D − Meece Dep# 6 Exhibit E − Barrett Declaration# 7 Exhibit E−1 (pt. 1) − 1996 Agreement# 8 Exhibit E−1 (pt.2) − 1996 Agreement# 9 Exhibit E−2 − 2000 Agreement# 10 Exhibit E−3 − 2002 Agreement# 11 Exhibit E−4 (pt. 1) − 2002 Study Guide# 12 Exhibit E−4 (pt. 2) − 2002 Study Guide# 13 Exhibit F − Barrett Dep# 14 Exhibit G− White Dep# 15 Exhibit H − McGinnis Dep# 16 Exhibit I − Guyton Dep# 17 Exhibit J − Jordan Dep# 18 Exhibit K − Odum Dep# 19 Exhibit L − Luke Dep# 20 Exhibit M − Echols Dep# 21 Exhibit N − Sheffield case# 22 Exhibit O − Asp case# 23 Exhibit P (Pt.1) − Buenrostro case# 24 Exhibit P (Pt.2) − Buenrostro case# 25 Exhibit Q − Askew Dep# 26 Exhibit R − Docket Case 00−1444# 27 Exhibit S − Johnson Dep)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
239 Motion for leave to file brief in excess of page limitation filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 238 . (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
240 Motion for leave to file summary judgment instanter filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Summary Judgment Motion Against Barrett &Associates# 2 Motion for Summary Judgment Against City of Cleveland)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified text of docket entry on 8/25/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 08/18/2005)
241 Notice of manual filing of exhibit to motion for leave to file, instanter, supplement to motion for summary judgment filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett. (B, B) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
242 Exhibit A to motion for leave to file instanter, supplement to motion for summary judgment filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 238 , 241 . (Complete 182 page document is on file in the Clerk's Office)(B, B) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
243 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/22/05 granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Barrett. (Related Doc. 60 , 61 , 82 , 89 ) (M, G) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
244 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/22/05 denying the motion of Association of Cleveland Firefighters, Local 93 IAFF to permit counsel to attend depositions. Additionally, plaintiffs' request for fees is denied. (Related Doc. # 146 , 153 ) (M, G) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
245 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/22/05 denying the motion of Defendants Barrett for separate trials and denying as moot the motion of plaintiffs for an extension of time to respond to the motion for separate trials. (Related Docs. 138 , 148 ) (M, G) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
246 Motion to strike Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 240 , 213 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Jordan appeal revised briefing schedule)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
247 Motion for leave to file dispositive briefs in excess of page limitation by six pages filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 246 , 240 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
248 Opposition to Motion to strike Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, Motion for leave to file summary judgment instanter and response to opposition to motion to file instanter, mnischaracterized by Defendant as "motion to strike" filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 246 , 240 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
249 Notice that the status conference set for 9/1/05 at 8:00 a.m., before Judge James S. Gwin has been relocated to Chambers 21B (Cleveland). (Related Doc. 213 ) (M, G) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
250 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/25/05 denying plaintiffs' motion to strike expert reports/exclude experts and denying as moot plaintiffs' motion to refer the motion to strike/exclude to Magistrate Judge Hemann. (Related Docs. 164 , 169 , 170 , 176 , 202 , 227 ) (M, G) Modified text 8/31/2005 (M, P).

08/27/2005 08/28/2005 08/28/2005 08/28/2005 08/29/2005 08/30/2005 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 09/02/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005

(Entered: 08/25/2005)
251 Second Initial Disclosures Supplement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 231 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/27/2005)
252 Motion to quash second subpoena of Plaintiffs' Content Expert filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/28/2005)
253 Opposition to Motion for leave to file, instanter, supplement to motion for summary judgment filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 238 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/28/2005)
254 Opposition to Motion to quash second subpoena of Plaintiffs' Content Expert filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 252 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Zickar Dep pages)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 08/28/2005)
255 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Dr. Michael Zickar by personal service (Kenneth Rower, process server) on August 25, 2005 filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett Related document(s) 252 , 254 . (Arendt, Michelle) Modified text on 9/14/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 08/29/2005)
256 Motion for extension of Summary Judgment Response until September 6, 2005 filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
257 Joint Motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment until One Week from Granting of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave and Filing of Plaintiffs' Exhibits filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett, City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 240 . (Arendt, Michelle) Modified text on 9/27/2005 (H, D). (Entered: 08/31/2005)
258 Opposition to Motion for extension of time to file Summary Judgment Opposition until September 6, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 256 . (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text of docket entry on 9/22/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 09/01/2005)
259 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/1/05 denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment instanter; granting, in part, plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file their summary judgment response (same due 9/5/05); denying as moot defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for summary jugment. (Related Doc. 240 , 256 , 257 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
261 Minutes of proceedings. Status conference held on 9/1/05 before Judge James S. Gwin. (Court Reporter: none) (M, G) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
260 Motion for extension of Filing Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Dispositive Motion until September 12, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 236 , 259 , 213 . (Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text, to correct typo, on 9/15/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/02/2005)
262 Opposition to Motion for summary judgment of City of Cleveland and Kevin Gerrity filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 236 . (Attachments: # 1 Little v. US 6.Cir Unrep.# 2 Stone Trans. v. Volvo − 6 Cir Unrep.)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
263 Deposition of Acey, Keith taken on 7−28−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
264 Deposition of Alford, Anthony taken on 7−28−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
265 Deposition of Askew, Ron taken on 8−4−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
266 Deposition of Austin, David taken on 7−29−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)

09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005

267 Deposition of Boyd, John taken on 7−27−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
268 Deposition of Buffington, Rudy taken on 7−26−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
269 Deposition of Butler, David taken on 5−4−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
270 Deposition of Carwright, James taken on 7−26−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified to change deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
271 Deposition of Echols, Kevin taken on 9/29/05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
272 Deposition of White, Granville taken on 4−12−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
273 Deposition of Guyton, Ken Vol. I taken on 5−25−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
274 Deposition of Guyton, Ken, Vol. II taken on 6−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
275 Deposition of Hasan,Kariem taken on 8−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
276 Deposition of Hodges, Sean taken on 8−2−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
277 Deposition of Hogan, James taken on 4−29−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
278 Deposition of Jackson, Anthony taken on 8−4−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
279 Deposition of Johnson, Damon taken on 8−2−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
280 Deposition of Jordan, Emmett taken on 6−8−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
281 Deposition of Mcginnis, Daryl, Vol. I taken on 12−22−04. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
282 Deposition of McGinnis, Daryl, Vol. II taken on 5−6−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
283 Deposition of McMickle, Fred taken on 7−26−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
284 Deposition of Moore. Lawrence taken on 8−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
285 Deposition of Newsome, Asa taken on 8−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
286 Deposition of Nickerson, Anthony taken on 7−26−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
287 Deposition of Lee, Neville taken on 7−29−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
288 Deposition of Nickerson, Richard taken on 8−4−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)

09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005

289 Deposition of Luke, Tony, Vol. I taken on 4−15−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
290 Deposition of Luke, Tony, Vol. II taken on 6−8−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
291 Deposition of Odum, Michael, Vol. I taken on 5−24−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
292 Deposition of Odum, Michael, Vol. II taken on 6−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
293 Deposition of Payne, Alonzo taken on 7−25−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
294 Deposition of Pennyman, Herb taken on 8−5−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
295 Deposition of Russell, Benard taken on 8−2−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
296 Deposition of Straffan, Mark taken on 5−18−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
297 Deposition of Szabo, Frank taken on 12−29−04. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
298 Deposition of Stubbs, Paul taken on 5−23−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
299 Deposition of Watson, Terence, Vol. I taken on 7−27−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
300 Deposition of Watson, Terence taken on 8−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified, to correct typo, on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
301 Deposition of Tyus, Daphne taken on 8−2−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
302 Deposition of Williams, Bruce, Vol. I taken on 7−25−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
303 Deposition of Williams, Bruce, Vol. II taken on 8−9−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
304 Deposition of Williams, Daryl taken on 7−27−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
305 Deposition of Woodard, Dale taken on 8−5−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
306 Deposition of Barrett, Gerald taken on 6−20−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
307 Deposition of Chicatelli, Steve taken on 8−29−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
308 Deposition of Polomsky, Michael taken on 8−10−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified deposition date on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)
309 Deposition of Wilson, Carita taken on 4−20−05. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
310 Exhibit(s) Jordan v. City of Cleveland Trial Transcript − Akram, McMickle &Askew filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 10/4/2005 (C, B). (Entered: 09/05/2005)

09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005
09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/05/2005

311 Exhibit(s) Jordan v. City of Cleveland Trial Transcript, Stubbs, Heil &McGinnis filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
312 Exhibit(s) Jordan v. City of Cleveland Trial Transcript − Odum &Jordan filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
313 Exhibit(s) Jordan v. City of Cleveland Trial Transcript − Jordan filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
314 Affidavit/Declaration of Tim Polomsky filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
315 Affidavit/Declaration of Michael Zickar, Ph.D., with report and proposed settlement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report# 2 Exhibit Settlement Proposal)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
316 Affidavit/Declaration of Captain Michael Odum filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
317 Affidavit/Declaration Robert Johnson, Ph.D. with attachments filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Output File for testing for sample size impact on reliability# 2 Exhibit 1996 Test Item Analysis# 3 Exhibit 2000 Test Item Analysis# 4 Exhibit Johnson Report, 4−14−05)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
318 Exhibit(s) Jordan v. City of Cleveland trial transcript − Akram filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
319 Exhibit(s) Trial transcript, Jordan v. City of Cleveland − Gerrity filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
320 Appendix filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Anonymous Letter to Lackey (nka Wilson), 5−23−02# 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter, Krupka to Barrett, 6−5−02# 3 Exhibit 3 − Letter, Barrett to Krupka, undated# 4 Exhibit 4 − Letter to Lackey (nka Wilson), 6−18−02# 5 Exhibit 5 − Letter of Notice, Odum to Gerrity, 8−1−99# 6 Exhibit 6 − Cleveland Roundtable report, May 2001# 7 Exhibit 7 − Emmett Jordan Eeoc Charge of Discrimination# 8 Exhibit 8 − EEOC Probable Cause determination, Emmett Jordan# 9 Exhibit 9 − Emerald Dispatch# 10 Exhibit 10 − Letter, Barrett to Wilson re cost cutting, 10−15−01# 11 Exhibit 11 − Formal Discipline Report, 1997−2000# 12 Exhibit 14 − Picture, Wall of Hate − Cooz Club Dues# 13 Exhibit 15 − Picture, Wall of Hate# 14 Exhibit 16 − Picrture, Wall of Hate# 15 Exhibit 17 − Picture, Wall of Hate, Fat Bastard# 16 Exhibit 18 − Affirmative Action obscene poster# 17 Exhibit 19 − Barrett &Associates website# 18 Exhibit 20 − Jordan v. City of Cleveland verdicts# 19 Exhibit 21A − 1996 Keyed Lt. Exam# 20 Exhibit 21B − Keyed Cap. Exam, 1996# 21 Exhibit 22 − Keyed Cap. Exam, 2000# 22 Exhibit 23 − Letter, Emmett Jordan to Campbell, 4−10−02# 23 Exhibit 28 − Agreement fpr 2002 promotional exam# 24 Exhibit 31 − RFP for 1996 promotional exam# 25 Exhibit 32 − RFP 2000 promotional exam# 26 Exhibit 33 − RFP 2002 promotional exam# 27 Exhibit 35A − 1996 Lt. Rankings# 28 Exhibit 35B − 1996 Cap. Rankings# 29 Exhibit 35C − 1996 BC Rankings# 30 Exhibit 35D − 1996 AC Rankings# 31 Exhibit 35E − 2000 Lt. Rankings# 32 Exhibit 35F − 2000 Cap. Rankings# 33 Exhibit 35G − 2000 BC Rankings# 34 Exhibit 35H − 2000 AC Rankings# 35 Exhibit 36 − City of Cleveland Charter Provisions# 36 Exhibit 38 − Plaintiffs' Letter Mag. Judge Hemann# 37 Exhibit 39 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re Study Guides, 6−9−05# 38 Exhibit 40 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re: answer sheetss &payroll records, 6−14−05# 39 Exhibit 41 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re: promotion hearings and score reports, 6−23−05# 40 Exhibit 42 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re: Odum &Stubbs docs, 6−24−05# 41 Exhibit 43 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re: CFD HQ communications, 6−28−05# 42 Exhibit 44 − Letter, Gibbons to DT re: More reports, communications, 8−10−05# 43 Exhibit 58 − Letter, Straffan to Civil Service# 44 Exhibit 59 − Barrett expert fee schedule# 45 Exhibit 54 − Jordan v. City of Cleveland, Appellee Brief)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)

09/05/2005 09/05/2005 09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/07/2005
09/07/2005 09/08/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005
09/12/2005

321 Affidavit/Declaration of Emmett Jordan filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
322 Affidavit/Declaration of Gerald Barrett filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2005)
323 Reply to response to Motion for leave to file, instanter, supplement to motion for summary judgment filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 238 . (Attachments: # 1 Garrett v. Firestone decision)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
324 Objection to Untimely Evidentiary Filings filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 259 , 262 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bishop Fax 9−6−05) (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
325 Exhibit(s) filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 320 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12 Captain Acting Time Summary# 2 Exhibit 25 − Deposition Extracts − Monkey Island, racial epithets &welfare officers# 3 Exhibit 26 Deposition extracts, Coos Club &drinking on the job# 4 Exhibit 27 − Deposition extracts − Supper Club, Supplies &Climitization# 5 Exhibit 34 − Barrett Vita# 6 Exhibit 37 − Letter to Judge Gwin# 7 Exhibit 46 − Barrett's Responses to Interrogatories# 8 Exhibit 48 − Deposition extracts, 36's House, Wall of Hate# 9 Exhibit 49 − Drinking on the job, Discipline# 10 Exhibit 50 − Hostile work environment &discrim, generally# 11 Exhibit 51 − Deposition extracts, inimidation &usurping authority# 12 Exhibit 51 − Deposition extracts − overtime &acting time)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
326 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/7/05 granting motion for extension of time to file replies to summary judgment. Replies shall be filed by 9/12/05. (Related Doc. 260 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
327 Supplement to Objection to Plaintiffs' Untimely Filings filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 259 , 324 , 325 , 326 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
328 Motion to withdraw document (deposition extracts), exhibits 25, 26, 27, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 320 , 325 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
329 Opposition to Motion for sanctions by Barrett Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 115 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter to Judge Gwin# 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter to Magistrate Judge Hemann# 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Opposition to Cleveland's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
330 Motion for leave to file word indexes for all depositions filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 294 , 295 , 271 , 296 , 272 , 273 , 298 , 274 , 299 , 275 , 300 , 276 , 277 , 301 , 302 , 278 , 303 , 279 , 280 , 304 , 305 , 281 , 306 , 282 , 283 , 308 , 284 , 309 , 285 , 286 , 287 , 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Keith Acey, 7−28−05# 2 Supplement word Index, Dep. of Keith Acey, 8−10−05# 3 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Alford, Anthony, 7−28−05# 4 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Askew, Ron, 8−2−05# 5 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Austin, David, 7−29−05# 6 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Gerald Barrett, 6−20−05# 7 Supplement Word Index, dep. of Boyd, John, 7−27−05# 8 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of David Butler, 5−4−05# 9 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Buffington, Rudy, 7−26−05# 10 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Cartwright, James, 7−26−05# 11 Supplement word Index, Dep. of Steve Chicatelli, 8−29−05# 12 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Echols, Kevin, 7−29−05# 13 Supplement Word Index, Dep. of Guyton, Ken Vol. I, 5−25−05# 14 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Guyton, Ken Vol. II, 6−9−05# 15 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Hasan, Kariem, 8−9−05# 16 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Hodges, Sean, 8−2−05# 17 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Jackson, Anthony, 8−4−05# 18 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Jordan, Emmett, 6−8−05# 19 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Krupka, Jonalyn, 5−17−05# 20 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Lee, Neville, 7−29−05# 21 Supplement word Index, Dep. of Luke, Tony, 4−15−05# 22

09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005
09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/16/2005
09/20/2005 09/21/2005

Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Luke, Tony Vol. II, 6−8−05# 23 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Mcginnis, Daryl Vol. I, 12−22−04# 24 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of McGinnis, Daryl, 6−5−05# 25 Supplement word Index − Dep. of McMickle, Fred, 7−26−05# 26 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Moore, Lawrence, 8−9−05# 27 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Newsome, Asa, 8−9−05# 28 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Nickerson, Anthony, 7−26−05# 29 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Nickerson, Richard, 8−4−05,# 30 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Odum, Michael, 5−25−05# 31 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Odum, Michael, 6−9−05# 32 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Payne, Alonzo, 7−25−05# 33 Supplement Word Index − dep. of Pennyman, Herbert, 8−5−05# 34 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Polomsky, Michael, 8−10−05# 35 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Russell, Benard, 8−2−05# 36 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Straffan, Mark, 5−18−05# 37 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Tyus, Daphne, 8−2−05# 38 Supplement word Index − Dep. of Watson, Terence Vol. I, 7−29−05# 39 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Watson, Terence Vol. II, 6−9−05# 40 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of White, Granville# 41 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Williams, Bruce Vol. I, 7−25−05# 42 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Williams, Bruce Vol. II, 8−9−05# 43 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Williams, Daryl, 7−27−05# 44 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Williams, Carita, 5−17−05# 45 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Woodard, Dale, 8−5−05# 46 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Johnson, Damon, 8−2−05# 47 Supplement Word Index − Dep. of Stubbs, Paul, 5−23−05)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 9/26/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 09/12/2005)
331 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/12/05 referring plaintiffs' motion to quash to Magistrate Judge Hemann. (Related Doc. 252 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
332 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/12/05 denying the parties' motions for extension of time as moot. (Related Doc. 175 , 185 , 186 , 188 , 189 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 198 and 209 (M, G) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
333 Reply to response to Motion for summary judgment (replying to R. 262) filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 236 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1: Henderson Signature Page# 2 Exhibit A−2: Henderson Rebuttal Report# 3 Exhibit B: Henderson Declaration# 4 Exhibit C: City Settlement Proposal# 5 Exhibit D: Luke Form−10# 6 Exhibit E: Deposition of Lisa Meece# 7 Exhibit F: Enz v. Enz)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
335 Exhibits to opposition to motion for summary judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (FILED UNDER SEAL #3723) Related document(s) 262 . (P, S) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
334 Marginal Order. Motion to quash granted in part and overruled in part. Deposition to be rescheduled to date convenient to plaintiff's counsel and limited to 2 hours 45 minutes (Related Doc # 252 ). Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 9/13/2005.(W, Gloria) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
336 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/16/05 denying plaintiffs' motion for extension as to supplemental expert reports, granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss individual plaintiffs (Marcus Turner and Emmanuel Williams) and denying as moot defendants' motion for a protective order. (Related Doc. 167 , 187 , 208 , 235 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
337 Motion for leave to file surrebuttal brief to Cleveland's Reply on Summary Judgment, Instanter filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 333 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Surrebuttal Brief)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
338 Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, Reply to response to Motion for sanctions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 115 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Sept. 23, 2002 Letter# 2 Exhibit B − Sept. 24, 2002 Letter# 3 Exhibit C − Document Responses# 4 Exhibit D − Barrett Declaration# 5 Ex E (Pt. 1) 1996 Agreement# 6 Exhibit E−2 1996 Agreement# 7 Exhibit F 2000 Agreement# 8 Exhibit G 2002 Agreement# 9 Exhibit H Sheffield case# 10 Exhibit I Chicatelli Declaration)(Arendt, Michelle) Modified text of

09/23/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005
09/29/2005
09/29/2005
10/03/2005 10/04/2005
10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005

docket entry on 9/28/2005 (B, B).\ (E−mail sent to attorney on 9/28/2005 re: more appropriate choice of event) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
339 Report and Recommendation that Motion for sanctions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc.,, Gerald Barrett be overruled. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 9/23/2005. (Related doc 115 ) (W, Gloria) Modified text of docket entry on 9/29/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 09/23/2005)
340 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/27/05 granting motion of plaintiffs to withdraw deposition extracts (exhibits 25, 26, 27, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52). (Related Doc. 328 , 325 , 320 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
341 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/27/05 granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file word indexes for all depositions filed by plaintiffs. (Related Doc. 330 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
342 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Instanter to File Surrebuttal to Summary Judgment filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 337 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 10/6/2005 (B, B). (E−mail sent to attorney on 10/6/2005 re: more appropriate choice of event) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
343 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/29/05 denying as moot the motion of Defendants City of Cleveland and Gerity to strike plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denying as moot plaintiffs' motion to file a dispostive motion in excess of the page limitation and denying plaintiffs' motion to file surrebuttal brief. (Related Doc. 246 , 247 , 337 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
344 Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/29/05 denying the motions of Defendants Barrett and Associates Inc., and Gerald Van Barrett for leave to file instanter supplement to motion for summary judgment and brief in excess of page limitation. (Related Doc. 238 , 239 ) (M, G) Modified text of docket entry on 10/3/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 09/29/2005)
345 Motion to continue FInal Pretrial Conference filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 213 . (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
346 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/4/05 granting motion of Defendants Barrett and Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett for a continuance of the final pretrial conference. The conference is reset for 10/14/05 at 1:30 p.m. (Related Doc. 345 , 213 ) (M, G) Modified text of docket entry on 10/11/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 10/04/2005)
347 Minutes of proceedings. Telephone conference held with counsel on 10/7/05 before Judge James S. Gwin. (Court Reporter: none) (M, G) Modified filing date on 10/11/2005 (M, G). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
348 Proposed Stipulation and Order re: Pretrial filed by all parties. (Bishop, Christy) Modified text of docket entry on 10/31/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
349 Witness List filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 348 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text of docket entry on 10/31/2005 (B, B). (E−mail sent to attorneys on 10/31/2005 re: signature) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
350 Joint Stipulations filed by all parties. Related document(s) 348 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text of docket entry on 10/31/2005 (B, B). (E−mail sent to attorneys on 10/31/2005 re: signature) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
351 Unsigned Witness List filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 348 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 10/31/2005 (B, B). (E−mail sent to attorney on 10/31/2005 re: signature) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
352 Unsigned Witness List filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 348 . (Arendt, Michelle) Modified text of docket entry on 10/31/2005 (B, B). (E−mail sent to attorney on 10/31/2005 re: signature) (Entered: 10/11/2005)

10/12/2005
10/12/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005

353 Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/12/05 granting in part and denying in part the motion of Defendants City of Cleveland and Gerity for summary judgment. (Related Doc. 236 , 262 ) (M, G) Modified text of docket entry on 11/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 10/12/2005)
354 Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/12/05 denying the motion for sanctions of Defendants Gerald Barrett and Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Related Docs. 115 , 329 , 338 , 339 ) (M, G) Modified text of docket entry on 11/2/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 10/12/2005)
355 Joint Motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Michael Zickar filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − United Black Firefighters' Assoc. v. City of Akron# 2 Exhibit B − Zickar Depositions I and II (Excerpts)# 3 Exhibit C − Barrett Deposition (Excerpt))(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 11/2/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 10/12/2005)
356 Attorney Appearance by Barton A. Bixenstine filed by on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Bixenstine, Barton) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
357 Motion to clarify order as to identity of 21 Plaintiffs remaining in hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 353 , 333 , 236 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
358 Motion for Exclusion of Witnesses not Disclosed in Interrogatories or Initial Disclosures filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 349 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; Ames v. Van Dayne# 2 Exhibit B: Sexton v. Uniroyal Tire)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
359 Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/14/05 granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify the Court's 10/12/05 Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the City of Cleveland's motion for summary judgment. (Related Doc # 357 ) (L, T) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
367 Minutes of final pretrial conference held on 10/14/05 before Judge James S. Gwin. (Court Reporter: none) (M, G) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
360 Proposed Voir Dire filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
361 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
362 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
363 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
364 Proposed Jury Interrogatories filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
365 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
366 Proposed Requested Jury Questions filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text on 10/27/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
368 List of Trial Exhibits filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Defendant City Exhibit List)(Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text on 10/27/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
369 Exhibit List filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
370 Notice of Filing of Deposition Extracts &Interrogatory Responses Relating to Hostile Work Environment &Disparate Treatment Claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit A. Nickerson Interrogatory Responses# 3 Exhibit Acey Interrogatory Responses# 4 Exhibit Alford Interrogatory Responses# 5 Exhibit Askew Interrogatory Responses# 6 Exhibit B. Williams Interrogatory

10/18/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005
10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005
10/20/2005 10/20/2005

Responses# 7 Exhibit Boyd Interrogatory Responses# 8 Exhibit Buffiington Interrogatory Responses# 9 Exhibit Butler Interrogatory Responses# 10 Exhibit Cartwright Interrogatory Responses# 11 Exhibit Austin Interrogatory Responses# 12 Exhibit D. Williams Interrogatory Responses# 13 Exhibit Echols Interrogatory Responses# 14 Exhibit Guyton Interrogatory Responses# 15 Exhibit Hasan Interrogatory Responses# 16 Exhibit Hodges Interrogatory Responses# 17 Exhibit Jackson Interrogatory Responses# 18 Exhibit Lee Interrogatory Responses# 19 Exhibit Luke Interrogatory Responses# 20 Exhibit McGinnis Interrogatory Responses# 21 Exhibit McMickle Interrogatory Responses# 22 Exhibit Moore Interrogatory Responses# 23 Exhibit Newsome Interrogatory Responses# 24 Exhibit Odum Interrogatory Responses# 25 Exhibit Payne Interrogatory Responses# 26 Exhibit Pennyman Interrogatory Responses# 27 Exhibit R. Nickerson Interrogatory Responses# 28 Exhibit Russel Interrogatory Responses# 29 Exhibit Tyus Interrogatory Responses# 30 Exhibit Watson Interrogatory Responses# 31 Exhibit White Interrogatory Responses# 32 Exhibit Woodard Interrogatory Responses) (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
371 Stipulated Final Pretrial Order approved by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/18/05. (Related Doc. 348 ) (M, G) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
372 Exhibit List filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
373 Proposed Jury Interrogatories filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Jury Interrogatories# 2 Exhibit B − Verdict Forms)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
374 Response to Defendant City of Cleveland's Motion to Exclude Witnesses filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 358 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
375 Motion in limine to preclude any presentation of evidence or witnesses by Defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett, and for attorneys fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Letter, Barrett to Monegan# 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter, Attorney Barnard to Thompson# 3 Exhibit 3 − Barrett Declaration, 10−2−05# 4 Exhibit 4 − Plaintiffs requests for Admissions)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
376 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/20/05 setting forth the trial procedure and allocating 1700 minutes each for plaintiffs and defendants to present their respective cases. (M, G) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
377 Amendment to Exhibit List filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended Exhibit List)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
378 Motion in limine to preclude the City of Cleveland from introducing certain documents and witnesses filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − City's Answers to Plaintiffs' Ints# 2 Exhibit 2 − Barrett Declaration Docs Destroyed − 2002# 3 Exhibit 3 − E−mail on late depositions# 4 Exhibit 4 − Gibbons Leter More discovery# 5 Exhibit 5 − Gibbons' Letter Promo &Overtime# 6 Exhibit 6 Gibbons Notice of 29 deps in 2 weeks# 7 Exhibit 7 − Gibbons letter − More Discovery# 8 Exhibit 8 − Gibbons Letter Still more discovery (other earlier ones missing)# 9 Exhibit Gibbons Letter − More Discovery# 10 Affidavit 10 − Meese Affidavit)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
379 Motion for Bench Trial becase Jury Trial is Unavailable for Disparate Impact Claim Under O.R.C. Chapter 4112 filed by City of Cleveland. (Hastings, Jr., L.) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
380 Joint Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Alleged Alterations or Improper Scoring of 2000 Exam Answer Sheets filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Odum Dep pages# 2 Exhibit B− Askew Dep pages# 3 Exhibit C− Greg Wilson Dep pages)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/20/2005)

10/20/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005 10/22/2005 10/22/2005

381 Joint Motion in limine to exclude anonymous letter sent to the civil service commission filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A letter 1# 2 Exhibit A letter 2# 3 Exhibit B Odum Dep pages# 4 Exhibit C Barrett dep pages# 5 Exhibit D Sheffield)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
382 Response to Motion in limine to preclude any presentation of evidence or witnesses by Defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett, and for attorneys fees filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 375 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Aug. 27, 2002 Letter# 2 Exhibit B−1 March 11, 2003 Letter# 3 Exhibit B−2 Sign In Logs# 4 Exhibit C Dec. 29, 2003 Letter# 5 Exhibit C−1 Response to Document Requests# 6 Errata C−2 Response to Interrogatories# 7 Exhibit Aug. 31, 2004 Status Report# 8 Exhibit E− Oct. 25, 2004 Letter# 9 Errata F − Johnson Dec 2004 Dep pages# 10 Exhibit G − Chicatelli Dep Cover# 11 Exhibit H − Zickar Dep pages# 12 Exhibit I − Johnson Sept 2005 Dep pages)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
383 Joint Motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding romantic relationships filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Sheffield# 2 Exhibit B Luke Depo# 3 Exhibit C Hott)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
384 Notice /certification of counsel as to Plaintiffs with bankruptcy petitions filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 359 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
385 Motion in limine to exclude new, untimely opinions of Michael Zickar filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Thompson Enclosure Letter Oct. 10, 2005# 2 Exhibit B − Zickar Deposition Excerpts# 3 Exhibit C − Rowe v. Case Equip. Corp# 4 Exhibit D − Baker v. Indian Prairie Comm. Unit)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
386 Motion in limine to exclude reference to non−relevant evidence filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 353 , 271 , 75 , 217 , 222 , 262 , 243 , 337 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Headen Second Amended Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit B − Vanguard Order# 3 Exhibit C − Vanguard Amended Consent Decree# 4 Exhibit D − Emmett Jordan EEOC Charge# 5 Exhibit E − Emmett Jordan EEOC Ruling# 6 Exhibit F − Jordan v. City of Cleveland jury verdict)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
387 Objection to Plaintiffs' Notice of Additional Filings Relating to Dismissed Claims filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 353 , 359 , 207 , 328 , 208 , 357 , 327 , 325 , 259 , 324 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Gibbons Letters to Thompson May, June 2005) (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
388 Objection to Certification of counsel as to plaintiffs with bankruptcy petitions filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 384 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Acey Docket# 2 Exhibit Alford Docket# 3 Exhibit Alford second case docket# 4 Exhibit Echols Docket# 5 Exhibit Hodges Docket# 6 Exhibit Johnson Docket# 7 Exhibit Moore Docket# 8 Exhibit Nickerson Docket# 9 Exhibit Pennyman Docket# 10 Exhibit Watson Docket# 11 Exhibit White Docket# 12 Exhibit Hodges Trustee Report# 13 Exhibit Nickerson Trustee Report# 14 Exhibit White Trustee Report) (Hastings, Jr., L.) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
389 Opposition to Joint Motion to strike /exclude testimony of Dr. Michael Zickar filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 355 . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zickar Affidavit# 2 Exhibit Zickar Deposition# 3 Exhibit Word Index, Zickar 9−30 Depo)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
390 Order signed on 10/21/05 by Judge James S. Gwin on plaintiffs' oral motion for reconsideration of Cleveland Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' disparate treatment and hostile environment claims. The Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' oral motion for reconsideration. (Related Doc. 370 , 359 , 357 , 353 ) (M, G) (Entered: 10/22/2005)
391 Reply to response to Motion in limine to preclude any presentation of evidence or witnesses by Defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett, and for attorneys fees filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 375 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/22/2005)

10/22/2005 10/22/2005 10/22/2005 10/22/2005
10/23/2005
10/23/2005 10/23/2005 10/23/2005 10/23/2005 10/23/2005
10/23/2005 10/23/2005 10/23/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005

392 Opposition to Motion for Bench Trial becase Jury Trial is Unavailable for Disparate Impact Claim Under O.R.C. Chapter 4112 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 379 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/22/2005)
393 Motion for leave to Amend and Correct Exhibit List filed by City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Amended Exhibit List)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 10/22/2005)
394 Opposition to Motion in limine to preclude the City of Cleveland from introducing certain documents and witnesses filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 378 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Bishop Letter to Court 6−20−05)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/22/2005)
395 Motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative Rule 50 Motion, filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 243 , 60 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − G. Wilson Depo# 2 Exhibit B− 1996 Agreement# 3 Exhibit C − 2000 Agreement# 4 Exhibit D − 2002 Agreement)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/22/2005)
396 Opposition to Joint Motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding romantic relationships, Joint Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Alleged Alterations or Improper Scoring of 2000 Exam Answer Sheets, Motion in limine to exclude reference to non−relevant evidence, Joint Motion in limine to exclude anonymous letter sent to the civil service commission (Combined in a single opposition brief) filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 383 , 380 , 386 , 381 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − EEOC O.C. Determination)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
397 Opposition to Motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative Rule 50 Motion, and Request for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 395 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit 2 − 2000 Project Log)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
398 Reply to response to Motion in limine to preclude the City of Cleveland from introducing certain documents and witnesses filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 378 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
399 Joint Motion for an Order Excluding the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert Johnson filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Johnson Deposition pages# 2 Errata B − Barrett Declaration)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
400 Motion in limine to exclude expert testimony from non−experts filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
401 Motion in limine to exclude evidence under Federal Evidence Rule 403 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Headen Second Amended Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit B − Excerpt of Szabo Deposition# 3 Exhibit C − Luke Memo 3−21−00)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
402 Motion to unseal case /vacate protective order filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 44 , 38 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
403 Motion for leave to file amended exhibit list filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exhibit List)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
404 Opposition to Motion in limine to exclude expert testimony from non−experts filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 400 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/23/2005)
405 Opposition to Motion in limine to exclude evidence under Federal Evidence Rule 403 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 401 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
406 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/24/05. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

10/26/2005
10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/01/2005 11/02/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005
11/04/2005 11/04/2005

407 Opposition to Motion to unseal case /vacate protective order filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 402 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Barrett Dep pages# 2 Exhibit B − M Polomsky Dep pages)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
408 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/25/05. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) Modified text on 10/27/2005 (M, G). (Entered: 10/26/2005)
409 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/26/05. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) Modified text on 10/27/2005 (M, G). (Entered: 10/26/2005)
410 Opposition to Motion in limine to exclude new, untimely opinions of Michael Zickar filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 385 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
413 Minutes of jury trial proceedngs before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/27/05. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
411 Attorney Appearance by Britt J. Rossiter filed by on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
412 Motion for Order Excluding Testimony of Timothy Polomsky filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Adrienne L. Rapp)(Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
417 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/28/05. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
414 Opposition to Motion for Order Excluding Testimony of Timothy Polomsky filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 412 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
415 Motion for directed verdict on Public Records claim filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Ciganik case# 2 Exhibit B − Farmakis case# 3 Exhibit C − West case)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
416 Motion for leave to file Amended Witness List filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 348 , 351 . (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
418 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 10/31/05. (Court Reporters: R. Delmonico; S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
419 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 11/1/05. (Court Reporter: R. DelMonico) (M, G) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
420 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 11/2/05. (Court Reporter: R. DelMonico) (M, G) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
421 Supplemental Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Rossiter, Britt) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
422 Second Proposed Jury Instructions Supplement filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
423 Second Proposed Jury Instructions Supplement filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
424 Objection and Additions to Court's Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − City of Alliance case# 2 Exhibit B − Allen case# 3 Exhibit C − Leone Case) (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
425 Motion to supplement Court's draft jury instructions filed by all plaintiffs. (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
426 Minutes of jury trial proceedngs before Judge James S. Gwin on 11/3/05. (Court Reporter: R. DelMonico; S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
11/15/2005 11/15/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005

427 Minutes of jury trial proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 11/4/05. (Court Reporters: R. DelMonico; J. Gage) (M, G) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
428 Minutes of proceedings before Judge James S. Gwin on 11/7/05. Jury trial completed. (Court Reporter: S. Trischan.) (M, G) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
429 Special Verdicts as to defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc. (Attachments: # Unredacted signature page of Special Verdict as to defendant Barrett &Assoc.) (L, T) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
430 Special Verdicts as to defendant City of Cleveland. (Attachments: # Unredacted signature page of special verdicts as to defendant City of Cleveland) (L, T) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
431 Special Verdicts as to plaintiff Keith Acey. (Attachments: # Unredacted signature page of special verdicts as to plaintiff Keith Acey) (L, T) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
432 Exhibit and Witness Lists filed. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs and defendants' exhibit lists; # 2 Plaintiffs and defendants' witness list)(L, T) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
433 Jury notes to the court. (Attachments: # Unredacted jury notes)(L, T) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/10/2005 (L, T). (Entered: 11/10/2005)
434 Judgment in favor of defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc. against plaintiffs on plaintiffs' Ohio public records claim; in favor of defendant Barrett &Associates, Inc. and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983 that defendant violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights; in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant City of Cleveland on plaintiffs' claim of disparate impact of discrimination regarding the 1996 lieutenant and captain promotional examinations; in favor of defendant City of Cleveland and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact of discrimination regarding the 2000 and 2002 lieutenant and captain promotion examinations; in favor of defendant City of Cleveland and against plaintiffs Keith Acey, David Austin, Anthony Luke, Daryl McGinnis, Lawrence Moore and Asa Newsom and Bruce Williams on plaintiffs' federal claims of hostile work environment; in favor of defendant City of Cleveland and against plaintiffs Bruce Williams and David Austin on plaintiffs' state law claims of hostile work environment and for plaintiffs against the City of Cleveland on plaintiffs' state law claims of hostile work environment as follows: damages for Keith Acey in the amount of $35,000, Anthony Luke in the amount of $30,000, Daryl McGinnis in the amount of $41,000, Lawrence Moore in the amount of $5,000 and Asa Newsome in the amount of $95,000; court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment as to plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact of discrimination regarding the 1996 lieutenant and caption promotion examinations. Signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/10/05. (L, T) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
435 Address Change Notice filed by Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Barton A. Bixenstine, Britt J. Rossiter, Michelle R. Arendt on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Arendt, Michelle) Modified text of docket entry on 11/21/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 11/15/2005)
436 Order of referral to mediation before Magistrate Judge Patricia Hemann signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/15/05. (M, G) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
437 Motion for extension of to file brief on testing remedies until Until November 30, 2005 filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
438 Brief regarding damages for disparate impact claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01 − Wage Summary Table# 2 Exhibit 02 − Ovetime Summary, 2004# 3 Exhibit 03 − Wage Loss Computation, Lieutenant# 4 Exhibit 04 − wage Loss computation, Individual Lieutenant# 5 Exhibit 05 − wage Loss Computation, Captain# 6 Exhibit 05 − Wage Loss Computation, Individual Captain# 7 Exhibit 07 − Collins F*** You e−mail# 8 Exhibit 08 − Luke, Collins e−mail research# 9 Exhibit 09 − Overtime &Acting Time highest paid analysis, 2003# 10 Exhibit 10 − Overtime &Acting Time highest paid analysis, 2004# 11

11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005
11/28/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005
12/02/2005
12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005
12/12/2005

Exhibit 11 − NFPA 1021, 2003 Ed.# 12 Exhibit 12 − Plaintiff test summary, Defendant Ex. I# 13 Affidavit Tony Luke# 14 Affidavit Kevin Echols# 15 Affidavit Neville Lee# 16 Affidavit Daryl Mcginnis) (Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 3/14/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 11/21/2005)
439 Deposition of Brent Collins taken on April 27, 2005. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 438 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
440 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/22/05 extending the date for the filing of briefs on potential remedies available to plaintiffs on their disparate impact claim until 11/30/05. (Related Doc. 437 ) (M, G) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
441 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/22/05 that the lunches provided to the jurors in the above−captioned case on 11/7/05 be paid for by the Court. (M, G) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
442 Motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict under Rule 50 (B) filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 430 , 434 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 12/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 11/28/2005)
443 Motion for attorney fees and related expenses filed by Michelle R. Arendt on behalf of Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Barnard Declaration# 2 Exhibit A−1 Time Entries Itemization# 3 Exhibit A−2 Billing Summary# 4 Exhibit B − Steve Bell Affidavit)(Arendt, Michelle) Modified text of docket entry on 12/1/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 11/28/2005)
444 Motion to alter/amend judgment and for new trial filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 353 , 434 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
445 Notice of filing unreported cases filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Essex v. Merrill# 2 Walker v. Russell# 3 Warthan v. Allstate)Related document(s) 444 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
446 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/30/05 that lunches provided to the jurors on 11/3/05 be paid for by the Court. (M, G) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
447 Pre−Trial Brief on testing remedies and request for hearing on remedies filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. (Attachments: # 1 1996 Lieutenant Grid# 2 1996 Captain Grid# 3 Williams Complaint (I)# 4 Williams Complaint (II)# 5 Baker Affidavit# 6 Exhibit A to Baker Affidavit (Overtime Analysis))(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text of docket entry on 12/2/2005 (B, B). (Entered: 11/30/2005)
448 Notice of filing of exhibits to City's Brief on Potential Test Remedies filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 447 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6 Wollman Verified Complaint# 2 Exhibit 7 Wollman Judgment Entry)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text, wrong event used, notified filer on 12/2/2005 (E, P). (Entered: 12/02/2005)
449 Motion for extension of time until 12/30/05 to File Opposition to Defendants Barrett &Asociates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett's Motion for Attorneys Fees &Costs filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 443 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 12/13/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/12/2005)
450 Motion for extension of time to File Brief in Opposition to Defendant City of Cleveland's Motion for Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 442 . (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 12/13/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/12/2005)
451 Opposition to Motion to alter/amend judgment and for new trial filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 444 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 1996 Agreement# 2 Exhibit B − 2000 Agreement# 3 Exhibit C − State Auto case# 4 Exhibit D − Exxon case# 5 Exhibit E − Roy case# 6 Exhibit F − Trial Transcript excerpt)(Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
452 Opposition to Motion to alter/amend judgment and for new trial filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 444 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A

12/15/2005 12/26/2005 12/30/2005 12/30/2005 01/03/2006 01/04/2006 01/06/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/20/2006
01/23/2006 01/23/2006 01/23/2006 01/23/2006

− Macdermid Inc. v. Electrochemicals Inc.)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
453 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/15/05 granting plaintiffs' motions for an extension of time to respond to the pending motions for attorney fees/costs and judgment. Plaintiffs shall file their responses by 12/30/05. (Related Doc. 442 , 443 , 449 , 450 ) (M, G) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
454 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/26/05 referring the motion for attorney fees to Magistrate Judge Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. (Related Doc. 443 ). (M, G) (Entered: 12/26/2005)
455 Opposition to Motion for judgment NOV for City of Cleveland, et al. filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 442 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
456 Opposition to Motion for attorney fees by Michelle R. Arendt filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 443 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − ND Ohio Bill of Costs)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
457 Motion for extension of time until January 13, 2006 to File reply Brief re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter/Amend or For New Trial filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 452 , 451 , 444 . (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
458 Supplement to Barrett Motion for Fees − Controlling Authority filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 456 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Balmer v. HCA)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
459 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/6/06 granting plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time until 1/13/06 to file their reply to motion to alter/amend judgment or for new trial. (Related Doc. 457 ) (M, G) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
460 Reply to response to Motion to alter/amend judgment and for new trial filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 444 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Entire 1996 Agreement# 2 Exhibit 2 − Entire 2000 Agreement)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
461 Reply to response to Motion for attorney fees by Michelle R. Arendt filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 443 . (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
462 Reply to response to Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 442 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Trial Transcript (11−1−05) pp. 865−879# 2 Exhibit B − Trial Transcript (11−4−05) p. 1786)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text on 1/23/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
463 Transcript of Trial Proceedings (Volume VI) held on 10/31/05 before Judge James S. Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Richard G. DelMonico at 330−472−1830. Complete document on file, 182 pages. (W, He) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
464 Transcript of Trial Proceedings (Volume VIII) held on 11/1/05 before Judge James S. Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Richard G. DelMonico at 330−472−1830. Complete document on file, 309 pages. (W, He) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
465 Transcript of Trial Proceedings (Volume IX) held on 11/2/05 before Judge James S. Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Richard G. DelMonico at 330−472−1830. Complete document on file, 339 pages. (W, He) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
466 Transcript of Trial Proceedings (Volume X) held on 11/3/05 before Judge James S. Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Richard G. DelMonico at 330−472−1830. Complete document on file, 157 pages. (W, He) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

01/23/2006
01/27/2006
02/03/2006
02/03/2006 02/09/2006 02/13/2006 02/24/2006 02/24/2006
02/27/2006 02/27/2006
02/27/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006
03/07/2006 03/07/2006

467 Transcript of Trial Proceedings (Volume XII) held on 11/4/05 before Judge James S. Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Richard G. DelMonico at 330−472−1830. Complete document on file, 181 pages. (W, He) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
468 Motion for leave to file instanter surreply in opposition to Plaintiffs' JNOV motion, filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 353 , 452 , 359 , 460 , 236 , 390 . (Attachments: # 1 Surreply In Opposition)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text on 1/30/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 01/27/2006)
469 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 2/3/06 granting the motion of Defendants City of Cleveland and Gerity to file a sur−reply to the motion for judgment not withstanding the the verdict. The sur−reply shall be filed upon receipt of this marginal entry. (Related Doc. 468 ) (M, G) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
470 Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to alter/amend judgment and for new trial filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 444 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
471 Report and Recommendation that defendants' motion for attorney fees and related expenses be overruled. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 2/9/2006. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
472 Order terminating case referral. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 02/10/06. (S, N) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
473 Minutes of proceedings. Settlement Conference before Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Case cannot settle. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
474 Objection to Report and Recommendation on Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 471 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Feb 17, 2005 Letter) (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
475 Bill of costs filed by all plaintiffs. (C, K A) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
476 Notice of failure to file electronically, pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(c). Non−compliant document: 475 Bill of costs filed by Anthony Luke,, Keith Acey,, Rudolph Buffington,, Michael Odum,, Bashir Rahman,, Daryl McGinnis,, Kenneth Guyton,, Bruce Williams,, Kevin Echols,, Granville White,, Asa Newsome,, Lawrence Moore, Related document(s) 475 . (C, K A) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
477 Order terminating case referral. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 2/27/06.(S, N) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
478 Motion for leave to file Amendment to Damages Brief, removing certain prospective, inter−Departmental relief requests filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 438 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
479 Notice that a damages hearing will be held on 3/14/06 at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 19A, (Cleveland) before Judge James S. Gwin. (Related Doc. 434 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
480 Motion to continue date for remedies hearing filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerity. Related document(s) 479 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
481 Motion to quash City's unilateral, unfiled notice of video deposition of Chief Stubbs whose vacation interferes with Damages Hearing ordered by this Court filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City's Unilateral and Unfiled Notice of Video Deposition)(Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
482 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/7/06 denying motion of City of Cleveland and Fire Chief Paul Stubbs for a continuance of the damages hearing. (Related Doc. 480 , 479 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
483 Opposition to Motion to quash City's unilateral, unfiled notice of video deposition of Chief Stubbs whose vacation interferes with Damages Hearing

03/07/2006
03/08/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006
03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/10/2006 03/11/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006 03/14/2006 04/21/2006 04/24/2006

ordered by this Court filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity. Related document(s) 481 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
484 Reply to response to Motion to quash City's unilateral, unfiled notice of video deposition of Chief Stubbs whose vacation interferes with Damages Hearing ordered by this Court and scheduled by mutual consent of the parties filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 481 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pleban Case − Defendant's Notice to Take Expert Depo)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 3/8/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
485 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/8/06 granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend damages brief. (Related Doc. 478 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
486 Motion for leave to file instanter a surreply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to quash, filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity. Related document(s) 483 , 481 , 484 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A City's Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
487 Opposition to Motion for leave to file instanter a surreply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to quash,, Motion to quash City's unilateral, unfiled notice of video deposition of Chief Stubbs whose vacation interferes with Damages Hearing ordered by this Court filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 486 , 481 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
488 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/8/06 adopting the Report and Recommendation and denying the motion of Defendants Gerald Barrett and Barrett &Associates, Inc., for attorney fees and related expenses. (Related Docs. 443 , 456 , 461 , 471 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
489 Reply to response to Motion for leave to file instanter a surreply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to quash, filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity. Related document(s) 486 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
490 Joint Motion for leave to present live testimony from Defendant Chief Stubbs from a remote location, filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity and plaintiffs. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text on 3/13/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
491 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/11/06 granting motion to present live testimony of Chief Stubbs from remote location at hearing on 3/14/06. (Related Doc. 490 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/11/2006)
492 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/13/05 denying as moot plaintiffs' motion to quash. (Related Doc. 481 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
493 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/13/06 denying as moot defendants' motion to file a surreply instanter. (Related Doc. 486 ) (M, G) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
494 Amended Pre−Hearing Brief on damages with respect to disparate impact and hostile work environment claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Related document 438 . Modified text &created link on 3/14/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 03/13/2006)
495 Minutes of damages hearing and settlement dicussions held on 3/14/06 before Judge James S. Gwin. (Court Reporter: S. Perkins) (M, G) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
496 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/14/06 that upon representation from the parties that all remaining issues have been resovled, the docket is marked settled and dismissed with prejudice. (M, G) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
497 Bill of costs filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Itemization and Invoices) (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
498 Transcript of Verdict Proceedings held on 11/7/2005 before Judge Gwin filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Sue Trischan at 440−570−6950. Complete document on file, 24 pages. (S, T) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

05/05/2006 05/12/2006 06/01/2006 06/15/2006 06/21/2006 06/22/2006 06/29/2006 06/30/2006 07/06/2006
07/07/2006 07/07/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006
07/19/2006
07/19/2006

499 Motion for extension of time until May 31, 2006 to file opposition to Barrett's bill of costs filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
500 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/12/06 granting plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time until 5/31/06 to file opposition to the bill of costs. (Related Doc. 497 , 499 ) (M, G) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
501 Objection to Defendant Barrett &Associates and Barrett's Second Request for Costs filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 497 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
502 Response to Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs filed by Barrett &Associates, Inc., Gerald Barrett. Related document(s) 501 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Baker v. First Tennessee) (Arendt, Michelle) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
503 Motion to enforce settlement agreement, back pay and for post judgment interest filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified text on 6/21/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 06/21/2006)
504 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/22/06 referring plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement, back pay and post judgment interest to Magistrate Judge Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. (Related Doc. [503[) (M, G) Modified text on 6/22/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 06/22/2006)
505 Motion for extension of time until 7/6/2006 to respond/reply to defendants Barrett &Associates, Inc. and Gerald Barrett's motion to stike filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 502 , 501 , 497 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text &links on 6/30/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 06/29/2006)
506 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/30/06 granting plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time until 7/6/06 to file their reply concerning the motion for costs. (Related Doc. 505 ) (M, G) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
507 Reply to Barrett's Response to Plaintiffs' Objection to Costs and Motion to Strike filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 501 , 502 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − May 31 EFC Notification of Filing# 2 Exhibit 2 − ECF Posting − June 1, 2:05 a.m.) (Bishop, Christy) Modified docket text on 7/7/2006 (R, N). (Entered: 07/06/2006)
508 Minutes of proceedings.Telephone Conference held on 7/7/2006 before Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Hemann. Counsel to redraft settlement proposals, exchange drafts and negotiates. (W, Gloria) Modified docket text on 7/7/2006 (R, N). (Entered: 07/07/2006)
509 Response to Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 503 . (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
510 Reply to response to Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 503 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
511 Appendix of Unreported cases to Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 510 . (Attachments: # 1 Genesis v Crown Life Ins.# 2 Gibson v. Dairy# 3 Mandato v. Mandato# 4 McConnell v. Applied Performance Tech# 5 Simulate v. Clark−O'neill)(Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
512 FILING ERROR − ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE − Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 503 . (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support Exhibit A.# 2 Exhibit B: Affidavit of Asst. Chief O'Toole# 3 Exhibit C: Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Cleveland and Local 93# 4 Exhibit D: Letter from D.Thompson, 5−30−06# 5 Exhibit E: D. Thompson Revised Agreement 6−6−06# 6 Exhibit F: E−Mail from D.Thompson, 6−15−06)(Gibbons, Kevin) Modified text on 7/19/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 07/19/2006)
513 Motion for leave to File Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply Brief filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 503 , 510 , 512 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sur−Reply)(Gibbons, Kevin) Modified link on 7/20/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 07/19/2006)

07/20/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006
08/04/2006
08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/28/2006 08/30/2006 09/01/2006 09/06/2006 09/11/2006 10/20/2006

514 Opposition to Motion for leave to File Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply Brief filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 513 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
Order [non−document] granting defendant City of Cleveland's Motion for leave to file sur−reply to plaintiffs' response to defendants' reply to the motion to enforce settlement agreement (Related Doc # 513 ). Entered on behalf of Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 7/21/2006.(W, Gloria) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
515 Report and Recommendation that the court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by plaintiffs. The magistrate judge further recommends that the court grant plaintiffs' request for postjudgment interest but deny the request for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 7/21/2006. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
516 Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 503 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B: Affidavit of Asst. Chief O'Toole# 2 Exhibit C: Local 93 Collective Bargaining Agreement# 3 Exhibit D: Letter from Thompson 5−30−06# 4 Exhibit E: Thompson Proposed Settlement Agreement# 5 Exhibit F: E−Mail from Thompson 6−15−05)(Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
517 Objection to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate−Judge filed by City of Cleveland. Related document(s) 515 . (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 Exhibit A; Affidavit of AC O'Toole# 3 Exhibit B: Local 93 CBA−HDI# 4 Exhibit C: Thompson Letter 5−30−06# 5 Exhibit D: Thompson Draft of Settlement Agreement# 6 Exhibit E: Thompson E−Mail 6−15−06# 7 Exhibit F: Local 93 CBA−Promotions# 8 Exhibit G: Fire Lieutenant Job Description# 9 Exhibit H: Fire Captain Job Description# 10 Exhibit I−1: Bishop E−mail 6−16−06# 11 Exhibit I−2: Bishop 2nd E−mail 6−16−06# 12 Exhibit I−3: City E−Mail 6−16−06# 13 Exhibit J: SERB Opinion 97−016# 14 Exhibit K: Affidavit of Union President Fisher) (Gibbons, Kevin) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
518 Motion for extension of Objections to Magistrate RRuntil 8/28/2006 filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 517 , 515 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified to term motion on 8/18/2006 (L, T). (Entered: 08/17/2006)
519 Amended Motion (Corrected) for extension of time to Respond to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's RRuntil 8/28/2006 filed by all plaintiffs. Related documents 517 , 518 . (Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 8/18/2006 (L, T). (Entered: 08/17/2006)
520 Response/reply to City's Rule 72 Objections to Magistrates Report &Recommendations Re: Settlement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 517 , 515 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
521 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/30/06 granting plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time until 8/28/08 to respond to defendants' objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Related Doc. 519 ) (M, G) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
522 Motion for leave to File Reply in Support of its Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity. Related document(s) 517 , 520 . (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
523 Opposition to Motion for leave to File Reply in Support of its Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 522 , 503 . (Bishop, Christy) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
524 Marginal Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/11/06 denying defendants' motion for leave to file a reply as to the Report and Recommendation. (Related Doc. 522 ) (M, G) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
525 Motion for damages , back pay from March 14, 2006 −− the date the settlement agreement was placed on the record filed by all plaintiffs. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

11/06/2006 11/13/2006 11/14/2006 12/05/2006 01/05/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007
01/17/2007 01/24/2007
01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/31/2007

526 Reply in Opposition to Motion for damages , back pay from March 14, 2006 −− the date the settlement agreement was placed on the record filed by City of Cleveland, Paul Stubbs. Related document(s) 525 . (Attachments: # Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Robert Baker)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) Modified text on 11/7/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 11/06/2006)
527 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/13/06 adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hemann. The Court enforces the terms of the settlement agreement as articulated by plaintiffs, grants post−judgment interest and denies plaintiffs' request for attorney fees. (Related Doc. 509 , 510 , 515 , 516 , 517 , 520 ) (M, G) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
528 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/14/06 referring plaintiffs' motion for damages to Magistrate Judge Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. (Related Doc. 525 ) (M, G) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
529 Report and Recommendation. The magistrate recommends that the court grant plaintiffs' motion for backpay. re 525 . Signed by Judge Patricia A. Hemann on 12/5/2006. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
530 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/5/07 adopting the Report and Recommendation and granting plaintiffs' motion for back pay from the settlement date. (Related Doc. 525 , 526 , 529 ) (M, G) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
531 Motion to stay selection of cycle days, special days vacation days and flex day selections pending promotion of plaintiffs filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Daryl McGinnis# 2 Exhibit A− Letter to Attorney Kevin Gibbons, 11−15−06)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified docket text on 1/16/2007 (R,N). (Entered: 01/12/2007)
532 Motion to lift stay on 2002 examination, and notice of intent to promote filed by City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity. Related document(s) 44 , 64 , 81 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − ECF 44, Order# 2 Exhibit 2 − Renwald email 11−16−06 with draft Agreement# 3 Exhibit 3 − Thompson email 11−16−06# 4 Exhibit 4 − Renwald email 12−29−06# 5 Exhibit 5 − Bishop email 1−2−07)(Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
533 Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/17/07 referring plaintiffs' motion to stay and defendants' motion to lift stay to Magistrate Judge Hemann for a Report and Recommendation. (Related Docs. 531 , 532 ) (M,G) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
534 Response to 532 defendant City of Cleveland's Motion to lift stay on 2002 examination, and notice of intent to promote filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Cleveland's Nov. &2007 Release# 2 Exhibit 2 − Plaintiff's Counsel E−mail to Cleveland's − 1−24−07# 3 Exhibit 3 − Plaintiff's Revised Release)(Bishop, Christy) Modified text on 1/25/2007 (S, T). (Entered: 01/24/2007)
535 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a)(1) and Lift On Hold of 2002 Eligibility List filed by Bashir Rahman, Daryl McGinnis, Kenneth Guyton, Lawrence Moore, Asa Newsome, Bruce Williams, Kevin Echols, Granville White, City of Cleveland, Kevin Gerrity, Anthony Luke, Keith Acey, Rudolph Buffington, Michael Odum. (Marquit Renwald, Amy) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
536 Stipulated dismissal with prejudice approved by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/26/07. (Related Doc. 535 ) (M,G) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
537 Returned Mail addressed to Sean DeCrane. Envelope states "Return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward" (Related document 536 ). (R,N) Modified on 5/11/2007. Resent to Sean DeCrane c/o Local 93 Union, 3886 Rocky River Drive #3, Cleveland, OH 44111 (G, C). (Entered: 01/31/2007)