IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

FILED
U,S DISTRICT COURT EASiERN D'STRICT ARKANSAS
SEP 282006

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTlThlTY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P. D/B/A A.T.& T. SOUTHWEST AND SBC COMMUNICATIONS
Defendant.

)

JBAy:MES W, Mcca MACK. CLER

)

DEPClERI<

) )

3: CIVIL ACTION NO 010(. V<9011bjAA

)

)

COMPLAINT

y' m~ )
) This C8se assigned to Districl)udge ) and I,) k;2gistrate JUdge__i<.L.l.,l~..t!.<!o""'"~_ _ _ __

)

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez who have been adversely affected by such practices. Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez were denied a reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, suspended and terminated because of their religious beliefs in violation of Title VII.
mRISDICTION AND YENUE
1. Jurisdictionofthis Court is invokedpursuantto 28 U.S.C, §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This is an action authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(l) and (3) and §706 and §707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S,C. §2000e, et~. ("Title VII"),
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) and §707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f)(l) and (3), and 42 U.s.C. §2oo0-6. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Southwestern Bell telephone, L.P. d/b/a A.T.&T. Southwest and SBC Communications ("Defendant Employer"), was a corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and the City of Jonesboro and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §70 I(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. From on or around January 1,2005, and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in violation of §703(a) of Title VD, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2oo0c-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, discrimination against Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez by denying Mr. Owen
2

and Mr. Gonzalez a reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, suspending Mr. Owen and Mr. Gonzalez, and tenuinating Mr. Owen and Mr. Gonzalez because oftheir religious beliefs.
8. Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez are both Jehovah's Witnesses. 9. Both men have a sincerely held religious belief that they must attend a religious convention each year. 10. The convention takes place in the summer months. Both men had attended the religious conventions for several years. 11. Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez requested leave to attend the religious convention that occurred in Little Rock in July of2005. 12. Defendant refused to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez by denying their request for leave to attend the religious convention. 13. Due to Defendant's refusal to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez both men were suspended and discharged. 14. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Glenn Owen Jose Gonzalez of equal employment opportnnities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional. 16. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez.
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez who were SUbjected to religious discrimination, suspension and discharge by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and provide other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement or frontpay. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez who were subjected to religious discrimination, suspension and discharge by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including medical andJor counseling expenses, job search expenses, and other appropriate expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez who were subjected to religious discrimination, suspension, and discharge by providing compensation for past and future non pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of
4

above. including emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Glenn Owen and Jose Gonzalez who were subjected to religious discrimination, suspension and discharge punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of filet raised by its Complaint.
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAMES L.LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Regional Attorney

",j~tyt

£

n
)c@

TERR BECK

Supervisory Trial Attorney
tl,J/!i/;u.t d. tllQ:~t, ,~L3

WILLIAM A. CASH, JR. . /

Senior Trial Attorney

AR #88081

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
820 Louisiana St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (SOl) 324-5539

6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 3:06CV00176 JLH

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P. d/b/a AT&T SOUTHWEST AND SBC COMMUNICATIONS

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this action on behalf of Jose (Joe)

Gonzalez and Glenn Owen alleging that they were discriminated against by Southwestern Bell

because of their religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Southwestern Bell has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, this motion

is denied.

I.

Owen and Gonzalez, who are members of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, worked as customer

service technicians for Southwestern Bell, now known as AT&T, at an Installation and Repair Center

in Jonesboro, Arkansas. As customer service technicians at the Installation and Repair Center, Owen

and Gonzalez installed new phone and high-speed internet lines and responded to customer

complaints about telephone outages.

In keeping with its 2004 agreement with the Communication Workers of America Union, the

Center implemented a procedure for employees to schedule vacation time. In October or November

of each year, management circulated a vacation schedule for the following year. The employees

indicated on the master schedule the days or weeks that they planned to take as vacation. The

employees were allowed to choose their vacation days in order of seniority. After the master

schedule was complete, an employee could still ask for other days off by submitting a vacation request form. According to AT&T, during the summer months, only one technician per day could take off. If a request were made for a day that no other employee was scheduled to be off, then that request would be granted, but if a request were made for a day in which another employee was scheduled to be off, according to AT&T, the request would not be granted, though the employee requesting that day could wait to see if the senior employee who had already scheduled a vacation day changed his mind about taking that day.
As part of practicing their faith, Owen and Gonzalez attend a yearly Jehovah’s Witness convention. The dates for the convention are announced early in the year, so they are always announced after the master vacation schedule has been circulated at the Jonesboro Installation and Repair Center. Thus, Owen and Gonzalez had to make a vacation request if they wanted that time off. The 2005 convention was scheduled for July 15-17 (Friday through Sunday). The only day of concern in this case is Friday, July 15, when both men were scheduled to work. They were not scheduled to work that Saturday. Customer service technicians do not work on Sundays.
For purposes of the summary judgment motion, AT&T concedes that before July 2005 Owen and Gonzalez submitted multiple written and verbal requests to Jacob Garrett, the manager of the Jonesboro Center, for vacation time on July 15. The men approached Garrett about the Jehovah’s Witness convention and its importance on July 7 as well. Garrett said that he would let them know about it closer to July 15.
The decision had still not been made on July 14. Gonzalez spoke with Garrett that day about the matter by telephone approximately three times. Garrett and Phillip Farley, the area manager to whom Garrett reported, were working together that day and discussed the request made by Owen and
2

Gonzalez. Garrett also discussed the request with Marty Benz.1 Benz was the manager of the Walnut Ridge, Paragould, and Blytheville Centers, but he worked out of the Jonesboro office. Benz and Garrett discussed ways the situation could be handled, such as getting the employees who were scheduled for vacation time to switch with Owen and Gonzalez, or requesting help from computer service technicians from other centers, as they sometimes would do in circumstances of a heavy workload. After reviewing the workload information and considering other factors, Garrett told Owen and Gonzalez on the afternoon of July 14 that “the forecast doesn’t look good” and he would “try to do what [he could] if the load permits.” Later that afternoon or evening, Garrett informed them that the workload would not allow them to take the day off. Because Garrett suspected they might not show up the next day, he gave each man a directive to come to work or face serious consequences. Each responded that he would not be at work. Farley contacted the local union president, who called the men to reiterate that they would face serious consequences for missing work.
Owen and Gonzalez missed work on July 15. Farley and Garrett suspended the men after an investigatory meeting. Farley recommended to the director of Installment and Repair that the two men should be terminated. The director followed his recommendation.
Gonzalez and Owen filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Commission investigated the charges and issued a letter of determination finding probable cause that both men had been denied a reasonable accommodation because of their religious beliefs. The Commission filed this lawsuit on behalf of Gonzalez and Owen based on religious discrimination under Title VII.
1 AT&T’s briefs spell his name as Binns, but his deposition transcript reports his name as Benz.
3

II. A court should enter summary judgment when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). When a nonmoving party cannot make an adequate showing on a necessary element of the case on which that party bears the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 32223, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. If the moving party meets this burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). A genuine issue for trial exists only if there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. at 2511. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all inferences in his favor, mindful that summary judgment seldom should be granted in discrimination cases where claims are often based on inferences. Peterson v. Scott County, 406 F.3d 515, 520 (8th Cir. 2005); Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1099 (8th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases). But see Bainbridge v. Loffredo Gardens, Inc., 378 F.3d 756, 762 (8th Cir. 2004) (Arnold, J., dissenting).
4

III. It is unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) (2000). “An employee establishes a prima facie case of religious discrimination by showing that: (1) the employee has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) the employee informed the employer of this belief; (3) the employee was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Wilson v. U.S. West Communications, 58 F.3d 1337, 1340 (8th Cir. 1995). For purposes of the summary judgment motion, AT&T does not dispute that Owen and Gonzalez had a bona fide religious belief that required them to attend the convention on July 15, that they so informed AT&T, and that they were disciplined for missing work on July 15. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to show “that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). An employer must prove either that the employee was reasonably accommodated or that the employee could not be reasonably accommodated without undue hardship. EEOC v. Chemsico, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 940, 950 (E.D. Mo. 2002) (citing Seaworth v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2000)). In its motion for summary judgment, AT&T asserts only the latter, that the accommodation requested by Owen and Gonzalez caused an undue hardship for AT&T. AT&T argues that when Owen and Gonzalez disregarded the directive to be at work on Friday, July 15, they caused an undue hardship on AT&T because other employees were required to work overtime and AT&T was forced to pay premium wages for that work. AT&T also argues
5

that the absence of Owen and Gonzalez caused it to be unable to meet the service needs of all of its customers that day.
The Supreme Court has observed that “the employer’s statutory obligation to make reasonable accommodation for the religious observance of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship, is clear, but the reach of that obligation has never been spelled out by Congress or by EEOC guidelines.” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 75, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 2272, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1977). In Hardison, the Supreme Court held that to require the employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost” to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs is an undue hardship. Id. at 85, 97 S. Ct. at 2277. To determine whether an accommodation would require the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost, “the circumstances under which a particular accommodation may cause undue hardship . . . must be made in the particular factual context of each case.” Chemsico, 216 F. Supp. 2d at 952.
In Hardison, the Supreme Court held that it would be an undue hardship if the employer were required to pay “premium wages” or lose efficiency in other jobs from which substitute workers would be taken to replace the employee who missed work for religious reasons. Id. at 84, 97 S. Ct. at 2277. Similarly, in Mann v. Frank, 7 F.3d 1365, 1369 (8th Cir. 1993), the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that accommodating Mann’s religious belief, which required her not to work from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, would be an undue hardship on the employer. In that case, Mann had placed her name on a list to volunteer for overtime shifts but suggested that an employee who had not volunteered on the list could be substituted for her when the shift was on Saturday. Id. She also suggested requiring other employees to work longer shifts or that the employer not replace her on those shifts. Id. The court recognized, however, that requiring other employees to work longer would violate the collective bargaining agreement (an
6

undue hardship the employer is not required to undertake), and that “just doing without” her would cause a “significant loss in efficiency.” Id. at 1369-70. In Cook v. Chrysler Corp., 981 F.2d 336, 339 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit upheld a finding that there was more than de minimis cost to an employer when an employee’s religious beliefs did not allow him to work on Friday nights or Saturdays. There, the costs included the fact that one proposed accommodation would make the employee part-time but would allow him to receive full-time benefits at a cost to the employer of $1500 per year. Id. (recognizing alternatively the cost of hiring another temporary part-time employee to work employee’s shifts). The facts here are different from those in Hardison, Mann, and Cook because each of those cases involved employees whose religious beliefs required them to miss work one day out of every week, whereas Owen and Gonzalez needed accommodation only once each year.
AT&T asserts that sixteen hours of overtime resulting in $882.88 in “premium wage payments” were required due to the failure of Owen and Gonzalez to work on July 15. The EEOC says that the cost of accommodating Owen and Gonzalez should properly be calculated as $441.44, or $220.72 each. The EEOC notes that AT&T’s calculation does not recognize the amount that it saved by not paying Owen and Gonzalez on July 15. The record is silent as to whether Owen and Gonzalez could take a day without pay. If they could do so, the EEOC would seem to be correct that the cost of accommodating Owen and Gonzalez would be $220.72 per person. Furthermore, the EEOC argues that this overtime cost must be viewed in context. Specifically, the EEOC points to evidence that overtime is a regular occurrence for AT&T’s technicians in the Jonesboro Center. An overtime report for technicians in the Jonesboro Center showed that 987.56 overtime hours were worked in July 2005 and a total of 7,088.68 overtime hours were worked during the first seven
7

months of 2005. In that context, AT&T argues, the sixteen hours of overtime paid by AT&T on July 15 as a result of Owen and Gonzalez missing work, is de minimis.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, as the Court must do in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the cost to AT&T of accommodating Owen and Gonzalez was no more than de minimis.
In Chemsico, the court denied summary judgment because the employer made no attempts to replace the employee, the employer did not inquire with the Union representative about a possible accommodation, and the employer used volunteers or ran its operations with fewer employees on other occasions when employees missed work. Chemsico, 216 F. Supp. 2d at 953. While AT&T asserts that no more than one employee could miss work on a certain day, the EEOC points to evidence of occasions on which more than one employee was allowed to miss work. The EEOC also observes that, while the Union representative was contacted, the contact was made after the managers decided to give Owen and Gonzalez a directive to work despite their religious obligation to attend the convention; management did not contact the representative about possible accommodation of the employees.
Finally, although the affidavit of Phillip Farley says that the service needs of some customers could not be met on July 15, there is no evidence from which the Court could say that this was more than a de minimis hardship. Farley says that delays in repairs and installation often result in customers being displeased with AT&T. He says that customers often stay home or stay off work to meet AT&T’s technicians. He says that, when AT&T does not meet a customer’s service needs, the customer may complain to the Arkansas Public Service Commission or switch to another provider. He says that dissatisfied customers may complain to their neighbors, which can result in
8

lost customers. He also says that regulations of the Arkansas Public Service Commission require that service be restored within 24 hours after an outage is reported. However, Farley does not say that any of these potential adverse consequences actually occurred as a result of the Jonesboro Center’s inability to meet all of the service needs on July 15. He does not say that any customer actually complained to the Arkansas Public Service Commission, switched to another provider, or injured AT&T’s reputation in the community. He does not say that AT&T actually violated a regulation or was subjected to any penalty by the regulatory authority. Nothing is said about the nature of the service needs that went unmet or the actual consequence of failing to meet those needs, so it is impossible to say, on the record before the Court, whether AT&T’s inability to meet these service needs caused a de minimis or more than de minimis hardship.
CONCLUSION AT&T has failed to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether accommodating Owen’s and Gonzalez’s religious beliefs would have caused it to suffer more than a de minimis hardship. AT&T’s motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2007.
J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

v.

NO. 3:06CV00176 JLH

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P. d/b/a AT&T SOUTHWEST and SBC COMMUNICATIONS

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court for trial by jury beginning on October 15, 2007. The

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appeared through its lawyers, William A. Cash, Jr.,

and Darin B. Tuggle. The persons on whose behalf the EEOC brought this action, Jose (Joe)

Gonzalez and Glenn Owen, appeared in person. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a AT&T

Southwest and SBC Communications, appeared through its lawyers, Byron L. Freeland and Timothy

Scott Pickering, as well as its corporate representative, Phillip Farley. All parties announced ready

for trial. A jury of twelve was duly selected and sworn. On October 19, 2007, the jury returned

verdicts as follows:

VERDICT FORM-JOE GONZALEZ
* * *
On the religious discrimination claim of Joe Gonzalez, as submitted in Instructions 5 and 6, we find in favor of:

Joe Gonzalez (Joe Gonzalez)

or

(Defendant)

Note: Answer the next question only if the above finding is in favor of the Plaintiff. If the above finding is in favor of the Defendant, have your foreperson sign and date this form because you have completed your deliberations on this claim.

We find Joe Gonzalez’s lost wages and benefits through the date of this verdict to be:

$136,000 (stating the amount or, if none, write the word “none”).

We find Joe Gonzalez’s other damages, excluding lost wages and benefits, to be:

$230,000 (stating the amount [or, if you find that Joe Gonzalez’s damages do not have a monetary value, write in the nominal amount of One Dollar ($1.00)]).
/s/ Jimmy Thompson Foreperson Dated: 10-19-07

VERDICT FORM-GLENN OWEN
* * *
On the religious discrimination claim of Glenn Owen, as submitted in Instructions 5 and 6, we find in favor of:

Glenn Owen

(Glenn Owen)

or

(Defendant)

Note: Answer the next question only if the above finding is in favor of the Plaintiff. If the above finding is in favor of the Defendant, have your foreperson sign and date this form because you have completed your deliberations on this claim.

We find Mr. Owen’s lost wages and benefits through the date of this verdict to be:

$160,000 (stating the amount or, if none, write the word “none”).

We find Mr. Owen’s other damages, excluding lost wages and benefits, to be:

$230,000 (stating the amount [or, if you find that Mr. Owen’s damages do not have a monetary value, write in the nominal amount of One Dollar ($1.00)]).
/s/ Jimmy Thompson Foreperson Dated: 10-19-07

Therefore, judgment is entered against Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a AT&T

Southwest and SBC Communications, in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

in the amount of $756,000, with interest to accrue at the rate of 4.14% per annum from this day

forward.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to consider what equitable relief, if any, should be granted.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23d day of October, 2007. ___________________________________ J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

v.

NO. 3:06-CV-00176 JLH

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P. D/B/A AT&T SOUTHWEST AND SBC COMMUNICATIONS

DEFENDANT

ORDER

The Court entered a judgment in this matter on October 23, 2007. At that time the Court

retained jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief. The Court hereby enters the

following injunction. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which

discriminates on the basis of religion.

Defendant is directed to reinstate Glenn Owen and Joe Gonzalez, with appropriate

adjustments to seniority rights and benefits, to the positions they held prior to their terminations.

Defendant is directed to pay front pay to Mr. Owen and Mr. Gonzalez from the point of judgment

until the date of their reinstatement. Defendant is directed to pay interest on the front pay amounts

from the point of judgment until Mr. Owen and Mr. Gonzalez are reinstated.

The Court orders that Glenn Owen is entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount of

$15,764.52. The Court orders that Joe Gonzalez is entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount

of $13,982.99.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2007.

__________________________________ J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...

APPEAL, CLOSED, JTR, JURY
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Jonesboro) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-00176-JLH

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. Assigned to: Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes Case in other court: USCA8, 08-01096
USCA8, 08-01417 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/28/2006 Date Terminated: 12/19/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Faye A. Williams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901-544-0088 Email: faye.williams@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Beck Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0138 TERMINATED: 12/20/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A. Cash, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Little Rock 820 Louisiana Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5539 Email: william.cash@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...

V.
Defendant
Southwestern Bell Telephone LP doing business as AT&T Southwest doing business as SBC Communications

Darin B. Tuggle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901-544-0137 Email: darin.tuggle@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron L. Freeland Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 688-8810 Email: bfreeland@mwsgw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L. Spillyards Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 688-8800 Email: jspillyards@mwsgw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2006 09/28/2006
10/03/2006

# Docket Text
***Set Flags: "Jury" & Magistrate. (jct) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Filing fee waived; no summons issued)(jct) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
2 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to Judge J. Leon Holmes for all further proceedings. Judge James M. Moody no longer assigned to case.(bfw) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
11/14/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006 02/20/2007 03/20/2007
03/22/2007 03/22/2007
03/27/2007
08/16/2007 08/16/2007
08/16/2007 08/16/2007 08/16/2007

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cash, William) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
4 ANSWER to Complaint by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P..(Freeland, Byron) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Byron L. Freeland on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Freeland, Byron) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
6 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC): Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 2/7/2007; Rule 26(f) Report due by 2/21/2007; proposed jury trial date the week of 6/18/2007 in Jonesboro, Arkansas.(cdw) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
7 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
8 FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC): Jury Trial set for the week of 6/18/2007 at 9:15 AM in Jonesboro, Courtroom (large) #324 before Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes; Discovery due by 4/5/2007; Pretrial Disclosure Sheet due by 5/29/2007; Status Report due by 4/19/2007.(cdw) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
9 Joint MOTION to Continue by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
10 ORDER granting 9 Joint Motion to Continue. The 6/18/07 trial date is removed from the Court's docket. A new trial date & scheduling deadlines will be set by separate order. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 3/22/07. (jct) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
11 AMENDED FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC): Jury Trial reset for the week of 10/15/2007 at 9:15 AM in Jonesboro, Courtroom (large) #324 before Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes; Discovery due by 8/2/2007; Pretrial Disclosure Sheet due by 9/25/2007; Status Report due by 8/16/2007.(cdw) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey L. Spillyards on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9)(Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
14 BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. re 13 Motion for Summary Judgment (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
15 STATEMENT OF FACTS (Local Rule 56.1) re 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.. (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
16 STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

3 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
08/17/2007 08/22/2007
08/22/2007 09/05/2007
09/06/2007 09/14/2007
09/14/2007 09/14/2007
09/17/2007
09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/25/2007 09/25/2007

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Darin B. Tuggle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Tuggle, Darin) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
18 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed August 16, 2007 by defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. d/b/a AT&T Southwest and SBC Communications, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Pltf's response deadline to 13 Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 9/7/07. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/22/07. (jct) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
20 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Defendant has no objection to the extension) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response, re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's response deadline is extended until 9/14/07. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 9/6/07. (jct) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
22 BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 24 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Cash, William) (Docket entry modified on 9/17/2007 to correct linkage and the description of the document filed.) (thd) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
23 RESPONSE re 15 Statement of Facts (Local Rule 56.1) . Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
24 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 2# 2 Exhibit 3 thru 4# 3 Exhibit 5 thru 8# 4 Exhibit 9 thru 24)(Cash, William) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: 22 Brief in Support. CORRECTION: The docket entry was modified to correct the linkage and the description of the document filed as "Brief in Support of Response to Motion for Summary Judgment." (thd) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
25 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
26 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Defendant must file its reply brief on or before 9/27/07. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 9/20/07. (jct) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
27 PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Freeland, Byron) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
28 PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET . Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 09/25/2007)

4 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
09/27/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/03/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/15/2007
10/16/2007 10/17/2007

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
29 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
30 MOTION in Limine Regarding Glenn Owen by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cash, William) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
31 BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 30 Motion in Limine (Cash, William) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
32 OPINION AND ORDER denying 13 Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/3/07. (jct) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
33 TRIAL BRIEF by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.(Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
34 TRIAL BRIEF (Plaintiff EEOC's) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(Cash, William) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
35 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION in Limine Regarding Glenn Owen Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Glenn Owen filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.. (Spillyards, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/08/2007)
36 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine regarding testimony of Glenn Owen. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/9/07. (jct) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
37 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial before Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes set for 10/15/2007 is rescheduled to begin at 1:15 PM in Jonesboro Courtroom #324. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/10/07. (jct) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: Jury Trial (DAY 1) held on Monday, 10/15/2007 in Jonesboro; William Cash, Darin Tuggle present for plaintiff; Byron Freeland, Tim Pickering present for defendant; voir dire by Court and counsel; peremptory strikes exercised; jury of 12 seated and sworn; opening statements by counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant; plaintiff's proof begins. (Court Reporter Genie Power) (cdw) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: Jury Trial (DAY 2) held on Tuesday, 10/16/2007 in Jonesboro; plaintiff's proof continues. (Court Reporter Genie Power) (cdw) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: Jury Trial (DAY 3) held on Wednesday, 10/17/2007 in Jonesboro; plaintiff's proof concludes. (Court Reporter Genie Power) (cdw) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

5 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
10/18/2007
10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/23/2007
10/25/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/12/2007
6 of 8

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: Jury Trial (DAY 4) held on Thursday, 10/18/2007 in Jonesboro; defendant's proof concludes; closing arguments by counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant; Court reads jury instructions to jurors; CSO sworn; jury retires for deliberations at 2:13 p.m.; jury excused for the evening at 7:00 p.m., directed to return to resume deliberations at 9:00 a.m. on Friday. (Court Reporter Genie Power) (cdw) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
38 Jury Instructions given by the Court. (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
39 Proffered Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
40 Proffered Jury Instruction by Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
41 Minute entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: Jury Trial (DAY 5) held on Friday, 10/19/2007 in Jonesboro; jurors resume deliberations at 9:00 a.m.; fed lunch at 12:30 p.m.; announce verdict in favor of plaintiffs at 1:22 p.m.; jurors excused from service, Court adjourned. (Court Reporter Cheryl Nelson) (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
42 JURY VERDICT finding in favor of plaintiffs (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
43 JUDGMENT, pursuant to 42 Jury Verdict, in favor of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. in the amount of $756,000, with interest to accrue at the rate of 4.14% per annum from this day forward. The Court will retain jurisdiction to consider what equitable relief, if any, should be granted. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/23/07. (jct) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
44 MOTION for Bill of Costs by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B)(Cash, William) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
45 TRANSCRIPT of Voir Dire (1 Volume) held on October 15, 2007 before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power. (mkf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
46 TRANSCRIPT of Trial (Vol. #1) held on October 15, 2007 before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power. (mkf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
47 TRANSCRIPT of Trial (Vol. #2) held on October 16, 2007 before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power. (mkf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
48 TRANSCRIPT of Trial (Vol. #3) held on October 17, 2007 before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power. (mkf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
49 TRANSCRIPT of Trial (Vol. #4) held on October 18-19, 2007 before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power. (mkf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
50 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Bill of Costs. Costs shall be taxed in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. in the amount of $2,700.15. Signed at Direction of the Court by Cory Wilkins on 12/12/07. (jct) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
12/19/2007
12/19/2007 12/20/2007 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/09/2008 01/10/2008 01/15/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008
7 of 8

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
52 ORDER, re 43 Judgment, that Defendant is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion. Defendant is directed to reinstate Glenn Owen & Joe Gonzalez, with appropriate adjustments to seniority rights & benefits, to the positions they held prior to their terminations. Defendant is directed to pay front pay to Mr. Owen & Mr. Gonzalez from the point of Judgment until the date of their reinstatement. Defendant is directed to pay interest on the front pay amounts from the point of Judgment until Mr. Owen & Mr. Gonzalez are reinstated. The Court orders that Glenn Owen is entitled to prejudgment interest of $15,764.52. The Court orders that Joe Gonzalez is entitled to prejudgment interest of $13,982.99. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/19/07. (jct) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
54 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Proposed Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Tuggle, Darin) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
55 ORDER granting 54 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Terry Beck terminated. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/20/07. (jct) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
56 NOTICE OF APPEAL with Appeal Information form "A" as to 52 Order, 32 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 43 Judgment, 50 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs, by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number JONOOO292. (dac) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
57 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL and NOA SUPPLEMENT as to 52 Order 32 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 43 Judgment, 50 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs, 56 Notice of Appeal, by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP. (NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL: REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT CLERK. FORM A & B SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CLERK'S OFFICE). (dac) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
58 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (Freeland, Byron) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
59 MOTION to Stay Motion for Stay Upon Appeal by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Bond)(Freeland, Byron) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/9/08. (dac) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
61 USCA Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule as to 56 Notice of Appeal, filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP. USCA Case Number 08-1096 Transcript due by 2/19/2008 (dac) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
62 Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals: 5 volumes of jury trial transcripts re 56 Notice of Appeal, (dac) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
63 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 52 Order,,, 43 Judgment, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cash, William) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
64 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL and NOA SUPPLEMENT as to 52 Order, 43 Judgment, 63 Notice of Appeal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (dac) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
3/24/2008 3:05 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE
02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?979998783455038-L_9...
65 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a transcript of the proceedings in the case has been received and the transcript is on file. (Cash, William) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
66 USCA Docketing Letter as to 63 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. USCA Case Number 08-1417 (dac) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
67 USCA Scheduling Order as to 63 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 56 Notice of Appeal, filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP. (dac) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2008 15:05:02

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

eeoc 3:06-cv-00176-JLH 0.40

8 of 8

3/24/2008 3:05 PM

 
 08-1096 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

Court Home

Case Search

Calendar

Opinions

Orders/Judgments

Billing History

XML

TXT

Logout

Help

If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 2 Pages $0.16

General Docket Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1096

Docketed: 01/10/2008

Nature of Suit: 1442 Jobs

EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Telephone

Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

Case Type Information: 1) Civil 2) United States as a party 3) null

Originating Court Information:

District: 0860-3 : 3:06-cv-00176-JLH

Court Reporter: Cheryl B Nelson, Court Reporter

Court Reporter: Eugenie M. Power, Court Reporter

Trial Judge: J. Leon Holmes, U.S. District Judge

Date Filed: 09/28/2006

Date Order/Judgment:

Date NOA Filed:

12/19/2007

01/08/2008

Date Rec'd COA: 01/08/2008

01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/29/2008
02/22/2008
02/22/2008 02/22/2008

METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. Separate Appendix w/service 01/21/2008 [3393665] [08-1096]
DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P.. w/service 01/21/2008 [3393671] [08-1096]
STATEMENT of issues filed by Appellant Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. w/service 01/21/2008 [3393675] [08-1096]
RECORD FILED - Record Part: TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, No. of Volumes: 5, Volumes Location: STL, Comments: trial volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 volume of Jury Voir Dire held on 10/15/2007 - 10/19/2007., Source Location: USDC / EA, Dt. of Proceeding/Hearing: 10/15/2007, No. of Pgs.: 825, Court Reporter: Power, Eugenie M. [3396519] [08-1096]
BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: Brief appellant, Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. due 04/14/2008. Appendix due on 04/14/2008.. Appellee/cross Appellant brief due 30 days following service of appellant's brief. Transcript was rcvd on 1/29/08. [08-1096, 08-1417]
APPELLANT'S FORM A FILED from Appellant EEOC in 08-1417 [08-1417, 08-1096]
CORPORATE disclosure statement filed by Appellant EEOC in 08-1417. - FOR CAL. [3405651] [08-1417, 08-1096]

1 of 2

3/28/2008 3:33 PM

08-1096 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

02/26/2008 02/26/2008 02/26/2008

CORPORATE disclosure statement filed by Appellant EEOC in 08-1417. - FOR CAL. [3406712] [08-1417, 08-1096]
METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant EEOC in 08-1417 - Separate Appendix w/service 02/26/2008 [3406717] [08-1417, 08-1096]
DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant EEOC in 08-1417. w/service 02/26/2008 [3406720] [08-1417, 08-1096]

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

03/28/2008 15:33:00

wu0079

Client Code:

Case Summary Search Criteria:

1

Cost:

eeoc 08-1096 0.08

2 of 2

3/28/2008 3:33 PM