UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARCEL “MARC” T. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated African-American employees,
Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-- against --

Civ. No. _____

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE TRANSPORTATION, GE AVIATION MATERIALS, L.P. a/k/a GEAM, JEFFREY R. IMMELT, DAVID L. CALHOUN, DANIEL “DAN” C. HEINTZELMAN, CHARLENE T. BEGLEY, JOHN “JACK” F. RYAN, MARC A. CHINI, WILLIAM “BILL” J. CONATY, CLAUDIO X. GONZALEZ, ANDREA JUNG, RALPH S. LARSEN, SAM NUNN, and DOUGLAS A. WARNER III,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendants.

1. Plaintiff MARCEL “MARC” T. THOMAS (“Class Representative,” “Mr. Thomas” or “Plaintiff”), brings this law suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated African-American managers and professional level employees against the GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Defendants for inter alia: (1) Race Discrimination, and (2) Injunctive Relief to change GE’s racist and subjective pay and promotion policies and procedures.
2. Plaintiff sues (i) Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (“GE”); (ii) Defendants GE TRANSPORTATION and GE AVIATION MATERIALS, L.P. (“GEAM”
1

or “the Company”); (iii) individual Senior Management and/or Officers, Defendants JEFFREY R. IMMELT, DAVID L. CALHOUN, DANIEL “DAN” C. HEINTZELMAN, CHARLENE T. BEGLEY, JOHN “JACK” F. RYAN, MARC A. CHINI, and WILLIAM “BILL” J. CONATY, and (iv) GE’s Board of Directors, Defendants CLAUDIO X. GONZALEZ, ANDREA JUNG, RALPH S. LARSEN, SAM NUNN, and DOUGLAS A. WARNER III, who are all members of the Management Development and Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”), who carried out and/or assisted the wrongful acts described in this Complaint. (collectively “the GE Defendants,” “Defendants” or “the Company,” unless otherwise specified).
3. Plaintiff Mr. Thomas alleges, upon knowledge as to his own acts, and upon information and belief, as follows: I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CLASS-WIDE RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION AT GENERAL ELECTRIC 4. At a recent “town hall-style” meeting broadcast to some 300,000 GE employees on March 22, 2005, the CEO and Chairman of General Electric Company, Defendant Jeffrey R. Immelt (“Immelt”), was asked why the “senior leadership” at GE is run “predominantly by [white] men.” Surveying the sea of principally white faces in the room, Immelt replied that as far as he was concerned, the concentration of men in leadership positions at GE is “o.k.” To measure how well GE is doing, he said, the proof is in the numbers: Diversity is about the percentage of women and African-Americans and global talent that are in the leadership of the company . . . that [] is the only metric that ultimately counts about how your diversity program is going. And, I’d say look, we’re doing o.k. (emphasis added). 5. If, as Immelt insists, “the percentage of [ ] African-Americans” in leadership roles in the company “is the only metric that ultimately counts,” then GE is not “doing o.k.” As of
2

Spring 2005, the “leadership team” at GE is a restricted club. There are only about 160 AfricanAmericans out of GE’s approximately 4,500 “Executive Band” level (“EB”) employees, which constitutes a paltry 3.6%.
6. At the even higher “Senior Executive Band” level (“SEB”) at GE, there are only about 23 African-Americans out of approximately 465 SEB employees, which equals approximately 4.9%.
7. The paucity of African-Americans continues at the highest employment band level at GE – the “Officer” level. Here, African-Americans comprise just 6 out of 180 Officer positions, barely 3.3% of all Officers.
8. In addition to the small percentage of African-American employees at the higher reaches of GE, there is an escalating departure of African-Americans and minorities from the Company. Soaring minority attrition is a fact known to senior management. But GE has done nothing to change the imbedded “white” management culture that is unwilling to promote deserving African-Americans either at the higher or lower levels of GE.
9. Although Defendants publicly state that they promote diversity and purport to be the “Global Employer of Choice,” they have (i) failed to pay African-American managers and other professional level employees on par with the pay of white managers and professionals; (ii) failed to promote African-American managers and professionals to senior leadership positions; (iii) failed to effectively enforce procedures and policies prohibiting race discrimination; and (iv) retaliated against employees who have protested Defendants’ discriminatory policies, procedures and/or patterns. Upon information and belief, GE’s internal statistics show race discrimination against the class of African-American managers and professional level employees in pay and promotion (hereafter collectively “managers”).
3

10. Plaintiff Marc Thomas is one of GE’s top-performing, African-American managers. His experience is typical of the experiences of other African-American managers trying to move into higher positions at GE.
11. Given the “titles” of President, Chairman and CEO of Defendant General Electric Aviation Materials, L.P. (“GEAM”) in 2004, Mr. Thomas recently led this GE Transportation company to an extraordinary 162% profit growth in the first quarter of 2005 over the previous year. Sales also increased at GEAM by 35%. Under Mr. Thomas’ leadership, in 2004 GEAM had an 89% profit increase, the highest increase of any of GE’s nine GE Transportation subsidiary companies.
12. In addition to reversing the company’s weak financial performance, Mr. Thomas cured GEAM’s long-standing, discriminatory practices. Under his leadership, GEAM:
! Implemented a bonus policy based on merit, rather than on race, gender and cronyism, as the policy had existed under Mr. Thomas’ predecessor;
! Implemented company-wide employment guidelines in accord with established GE practices that required parity in vacation, perks and attendance; and
! Implemented policies that forbid racial innuendos and slurs – such as GEAM PowerPoint presentations that portrayed GEAM as a company free of blacks – activities that were tolerated in the workplace under Mr. Thomas’ predecessor.
13. In addition to the above, Marc Thomas has taken courageous and ethical positions during his tenure at GE. For example, he objected to the GE scheme to force an older employee out of the company; he eliminated the practice of permitting favored white employees to take extended vacations; and he questioned GE’s anti-competitive plan to create a scarcity of used materials.
4

14. Instead of promoting Mr. Thomas to a senior management position based on his impressive achievements and courageous stands, GE informed Mr. Thomas that his future at GE is over. Just months after Mr. Thomas implemented a merit-based, non-discriminatory bonus plan, GE’s “leaders” told Mr. Thomas that he would not be promoted, would not receive a salary increase nor the stock options awarded to top performers, and would not merit a bonus commensurate with his performance.
15. As his reward for turning the company around in 2004, GE Transportation unleashed its Senior Human Resources (“HR”) manager, Defendant Jack Ryan, to interview white GEAM employees who, upon information and belief, were complaining that Mr. Thomas had decreased their perks and was working them too hard. Defendant Jack Ryan also conducted roundtable discussions outside of Mr. Thomas’ presence designed to undermine his authority and disparage him to his subordinates.
16. Until 2005, Mr. Thomas’ annual ratings at GE were always “Top Talent/Highly Promotable,” a rating awarded to the highest ten to twenty percent of all GE employees. In 2005, however, when it came time to promote Mr. Thomas to a senior management position for his remarkable achievements, GE dramatically dropped his rating to “Least Effective” – the lowest rating and one reserved for the bottom seven to ten percent of all GE employees.
17. The GE Defendants lowered Mr. Thomas’ performance rating in retaliation for Mr. Thomas having described to GE and its in-house Legal Department in early 2005 the particulars of race discrimination at GE. The GE Defendants retaliated against him almost immediately in April 2005 with an end-of-the-year performance review (“Least Effective”) that all but insures the end to one’s career at GE.
5

18. To GE, Mr. Thomas was just another African-American manager who could be passed over for promotion and paid less than his non-minority counterparts. Mr. Thomas exemplifies the racial barriers facing GE’s minority employees.
19. Mr. Thomas brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated African-American managers against whom GE has systematically discriminated, by (i) denying African-American managers the same pay and perquisites afforded other white managers, and (ii) denying African-Americans promotions that are awarded to less qualified white employees. For himself and the class, Plaintiff seeks monetary and equitable relief based on GE’s discriminatory denial of equal remuneration and promotion.
20. Mr. Thomas and the class of African-American managers at GE have been treated differently from similarly situated white managers. Based on their race, African-American managers such as Mr. Thomas have been denied promotional opportunities, senior management positions, equal pay, comparable retention ratings, bonuses and other benefits of employment.
21. Although Defendants may have strongly worded anti-discrimination policies, far too many of the company’s Caucasian managerial and supervisory employees are ineffectively policed, are rarely disciplined for violating the rights of African-Americans, and ignore GE’s stated policies by making decisions disadvantageous to African-Americans.
22. This class action seeks to modify and reform Human Resources policies and procedures (“HR procedures”) at GE that foster the wide-spread discrimination and prevent African-Americans from rising to leadership positions at GE. These HR procedures encourage and inject an unbridled amount of subjectivity in (a) the performance appraisal system, and (b) pay and promotion decision-making.
6

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1332(a)(1), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f), et seq., as amended (“Title VII”), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended (“§ 1981”), to redress and enjoin employment practices of Defendants in violation of these statutes.
24. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
25. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) because Defendant GE is headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut, and many of the unlawful employment practices were committed in this District. In addition, upon information and belief, all of the Defendant-Director members of Defendant GE’s Management Development and Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) attend numerous meetings each year in Fairfield, Connecticut.
26. Plaintiff has standing to bring this suit as he has duly filed his administrative charge before the EEOC and Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities and is in the process of perfecting his right to sue.
27. Plaintiff and the class bring this action in Federal Court in order to challenge the inherently unfair and biased “Dispute Resolution Program” (“DRP”) enacted by Defendants to prevent any effective challenge to racial discrimination on an individual and classwide basis at GE. Defendants have crafted a company-friendly, non-litigative dispute mechanism that prevents employees from obtaining required documents, depositions, and other evidence necessary for full and fair hearing of the issues concerning racial discrimination.
7

28. Among other restrictions, GE’s DRP places a gag order on any GE employee who wishes to speak with victims of racially discriminatory employment practices. While GE employees are barred from speaking to Mr. Thomas, the DRP allows GE to contact Mr. Thomas’ fellow employees, thereby enabling the Defendants to pressure such employees to hide the truth and cover up GE’s discriminatory practices.
29. Plaintiff and the class thus bring this action in United States Federal Court rather than use a four-step, procedurally deficient Dispute Resolution procedure. The GE dispute process provides an illusory basis to challenge employment discrimination because it does not create a context in which to (a) litigate fairly a class action or an individual claim of race discrimination; (b) protect the interests of class members; or (c) retain continuing jurisdiction over the course of a consent decree.
30. Further, this action is properly brought in Federal Court because under GE’s DRP, employees are expressly permitted to bring court actions that seek to “modify” GE’s “policies or procedures,” as this suit does. III. THE PARTIES
31. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Marc Thomas has been a resident of both Texas and Pennsylvania. Mr. Thomas has been a manager at GE since 2001, and is currently CEO, President and Chairman of General Electric Aviation Materials, L.P.
32. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant General Electric Company is and has been a multi-national company headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut.
33. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant GE Transportation is and has been a multi-billion dollar company and a division of Defendant GE. GE Transportation comprises aircraft engines, rail, marine and off-highway business units and is headquartered in
8

Cincinnati, Ohio. GE Transportation’s products and services include jet engines for military and civil aircrafts, freight and passenger locomotives, motorized systems for mining trucks and drills, and gas turbines for marine and industrial applications.
34. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant GE Aviation Materials, L.P. (“GEAM”) is a subsidiary of GE Engine Services, Inc (“GEES”). GE Engine Services is and has been a division of GE Aircraft Engines (“GEAE”), which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant GE Transportation. GEAM is headquartered in Irving, Texas.
35. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Jeffrey R. Immelt (“Immelt”) is and has been the CEO and Chairman of GE, and is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of GE. Immelt is and has been a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in his capacities as the CEO and Chairman of GE and as the Chairman of the Board. Immelt approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
36. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant David L. Calhoun (“Calhoun”) is and has been the President and CEO of GE Transportation. Calhoun approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
37. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Daniel “Dan” C. Heintzelman (“Heintzelman”) is and has been the Vice President and General Manager for GE Engine Services, Inc. Heintzelman approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
38. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Charlene T. Begley (“Begley”) is and has been the President and CEO of GE Transportation Rail (“GE Rail”). GE Rail is and has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant GE Transportation headquartered in Erie,
9

Pennsylvania, and is a self-described “global technology leader and supplier to the railroad, transit, marine engine and mining industries.” Begley approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint
39. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant John “Jack” F. Ryan (“Ryan”) is and has been the Vice President of Human Resources for GE Engine Services. Ryan approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
40. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Marc A. Chini (“Chini”) is and has been the Vice President of Human Resources for GE Transportation. Chini approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
41. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant William “Bill” J. Conaty (“Conaty”) is and has been the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for GE, headquartered in Connecticut, and is, upon information and belief, the senior GE officer who reports to and assists the GE Compensation Committee. Conaty approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
42. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Claudio X. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) is and has been a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in this capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant GE. Gonzalez is a member of GE’s Compensation Committee, which upon information and belief, regularly meets in Connecticut, is responsible for all of the policies under which compensation is paid or awarded to the company’s executive officers, and is also responsible for assisting in evaluating and developing candidates for executive positions. Gonzalez approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
10

43. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Andrea Jung (“Jung”) is and has been a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in her capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant GE. Jung is a member of GE’s Compensation Committee, which upon information and belief, regularly meets in Connecticut, is responsible for all of the policies under which compensation is paid or awarded to the company’s executive officers, and is also responsible for assisting in evaluating and developing candidates for executive positions. Jung approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
44. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Ralph S. Larsen (“Larsen”) has been and is a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in his capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant GE. Larsen is a member of GE’s Compensation Committee, which upon information and belief, regularly meets in Connecticut, is responsible for all of the policies under which compensation is paid or awarded to the company’s executive officers, and is also responsible for assisting in evaluating and developing candidates for executive positions. Larsen approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
45. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Sam Nunn (“Nunn”) is and has been a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in his capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant GE. Nunn is a member of GE’s Compensation Committee, which, upon information and belief, regularly meets in Connecticut, is responsible for all of the policies under which compensation is paid or awarded to the company’s executive officers, and is also responsible for assisting in evaluating
11

and developing candidates for executive positions. Nunn approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
46. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Douglas A. Warner III (“Warner”) is and has been a resident of the State of Connecticut and/or has worked and continues to work in Connecticut in his capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant GE. Warner is a member of GE’s Compensation Committee, which upon information and belief, regularly meets in Connecticut, is responsible for all of the policies under which compensation is paid or awarded to the company’s executive officers, and is also responsible for assisting in evaluating and developing candidates for executive positions. Warner approved, ratified and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this complaint. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Plaintiff Thomas’ Educational, Military, White House & Work Background Prior To His Employment With General Electric
47. Plaintiff Marc Thomas embodies the American dream. Raised in a low-income neighborhood in San Francisco, California, Mr. Thomas overcame numerous childhood obstacles and graduated in 1984 from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Science degree.
48. Mr. Thomas was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army and, as a “Green Beret” commander, led a Special Forces team from 1985 through 1990. While serving with Special Forces, Mr. Thomas trained and engaged in unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance and counter-insurgency/terrorist operations. In 1991, Mr. Thomas voluntarily left graduate school to lead a rapid training/readiness effort of a newly formed Special Forces battalion deploying into the Saudi Arabian Theater of War during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
12

49. After receiving a Masters in Business Administration (“MBA”) in International Finance and a Masters of Science in Industrial Engineering (“MS”) from Columbia University in 1992, Mr. Thomas became an Assistant Professor in the Department of Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point (“West Point”). At West Point, as the course director for 320 cadets enrolled in the Engineering Management and Systems Engineering curricula, Mr. Thomas led five senior officers and professors.
50. In 1994, Mr. Thomas was appointed by President Bill Clinton to be a White House Fellow. He became Special Advisor to Vice President Al Gore, briefing the Vice President on issues ranging from Africa to the global environment. He also served as a member of the National Security Council and was appointed by the Vice President to the position of Executive Secretary to the United States – South Africa Bi-National Commission focusing on business development and the proliferation of democracy in South Africa and establishing power and electricity in rural areas.
51. After leaving the White House, Mr. Thomas became a Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho). In that capacity, Mr. Thomas advised the Senator on armed services, international humanitarian assistance, and environmental and public works issues. In addition, Mr. Thomas drafted legislation on the implementation of U.S. forces in future United Nations peace keeping operations.
52. In 1999, Mr. Thomas became a consultant at McKinsey & Co. (“McKinsey”) in Houston, Texas. While at McKinsey, Mr. Thomas (i) helped developed a $1 billion international liquefied natural gas business strategy for a major energy company; (ii) assisted in the development and marketing of a successful new product for a $350 million consumer products company; (iii) formulated and assisted in the implementation of a $200 million corporate
13

strategy for a large electric utility company facing a deregulated market; (iv) designed a $15 million cost savings strategy for a construction and gas pipeline development entity; and (v) performed due diligence for a major venture capital firm that was engaged in the acquisition and development of companies operating in the multi-media production/distribution segment.
B. Plaintiff Thomas’ Employment With General Electric 1. GE Corporate Initiatives Group, Fairfield, Connecticut: 2001-2002
53. In 2001, Mr. Thomas joined GE’s Corporate Initiatives Group (“CIG”) as a Manager in Fairfield, Connecticut. While at CIG, Mr. Thomas led a cross-functional team that created and successfully implemented software applications to accurately identify products and services to facilitate eSourcing, which resulted in multi-million dollar savings throughout GE.
54. While at CIG, Mr. Thomas became a founding member of the Corporate Crisis Management Team, which made recommendations to safeguard GE and its employees in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and served as a member of the Corporate Sourcing Advisory Board.
55. Plaintiff’s efforts also involved developing a content management/supplier digitalization tool to enhance procurement operations within GE. He also provided strategic guidance and led remote teams to ensure quality and project implementation – thus establishing early on in his career at GE notable leadership skills.
2. GE Transportation Systems, Erie, Pennsylvania: 2002-2004 56. After CIG, Mr. Thomas joined GE Rail as a General Manager of Global Sourcing at GE Rail, which is the largest U.S.-based locomotive manufacturer. At GE Rail, he led a global team of over 200 employees responsible for almost $2 billion in annual purchases worldwide.
14

57. As a result of his first-rate performance, GE Transportation achieved over $41 million in cost savings and deflation (a record 32% incremental increase over the prior year) and reduced the number of sole/single source suppliers. Plaintiff also annually negotiated in excess of $135 million in contracts for specific parts and sub-assemblies while ensuring the protection of GE intellectual property during increased globalization efforts.
58. Mr. Thomas managed strategic rethinking of sourcing operations to develop suppliers in low cost countries. He collaborated with manufacturing to reduce inventory, increase on-time delivery, improve quality, and capture greater warranty periods.
59. Plaintiff also created and led several management initiatives to include but not limited to “Sourcing IQ” – a major re-invigoration of Six Sigma processes and supplier negotiation skills throughout the global sourcing community.
60. Mr. Thomas’ success and talent caught the attention of senior management, including GE’s CEO and Chairman of the Board, Defendant Jeffrey Immelt, who recommended Mr. Thomas to head its divisional Aircraft subsidiary Company, GE Aviation Materials, LP (“GEAM”).
3. GE Aviation Materials, LP, Irving, Texas: 2004-Present 61. Plaintiff holds the positions of President, Chairman & CEO of GE Aviation Materials, LP (“GEAM”) in Irving, Texas. GEAM is one of nine subsidiary “platform” companies of the parent GE Engine Services that concentrates on transportation issues concerning aircrafts. 62. GEAM is an almost $200 million joint venture specializing in the purchase and sale of turbine engines, airframes, and refurbished spare parts manufactured by GE, CFM, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, IAE, and Rolls-Royce.
15

4. GE’s Corporate Objectives And Representations Made To Plaintiff 63. Defendants offered Mr. Thomas the position of CEO at GEAM in early 2004 with specific directives. The President and CEO of GE Rail, Defendant Charlene Begley (“Begley”), told Mr. Thomas that growth is key at GE and that he must increase sales, cut costs and/or improve productivity. 64. Ms. Begley also told Mr. Thomas that if he succeeded as the CEO of GEAM and expanded GEAM’s business, then Defendants would promote him after six to nine months from Manager to the Senior Executive Band level – a representation that turned out to be false. 65. William “Bill” Fitzgerald (“Fitzgerald”), formerly Mr. Thomas’ direct manager at GE Rail, told Plaintiff that GEAM was almost everything a CEO could want – i.e., sales, sourcing, asset management, etc. Fitzgerald explained that GEAM had, in the past, issues with respect to meeting certain metrics, and added that Mr. Thomas was just the person needed to turn GEAM around. 66. Plaintiff was successful in turning GEAM around. The company reported a record 89% profit and 21% sales increase in 2004. And the trend has continued into 2005 under Mr. Thomas’ leadership. GEAM’s first quarter profits are up by 162%, and sales have skyrocketed by 35% over the first quarter in 2004.
5. Discriminatory Pay And Perquisites 67. Before accepting the position at GEAM, Mr. Thomas asked Defendant Dan Heintzelman (“Heintzelman”), the senior executive responsible for offering Plaintiff the position to head GEAM, whether GE was offering Mr. Thomas the best compensation numbers available for the new position. Heintzelman responded that the numbers were the best available.
16

68. In fact, Heintzelman’s statement was false. Unknown to Mr. Thomas at the time, GEAM was paying a lower level white GEAM employee, William “Bill” Thompson (“Thompson”), 8% more than the salary offered to Mr. Thomas. Not only was Thompson at a lower employment “band” level than Plaintiff, but this individual would in fact be reporting to Mr. Thomas.
69. Heintzelman knew that the salary offered to Mr. Thomas was less than the amount paid to Plaintiff’s predecessor, Don Schreiber (“Schreiber”). In addition, Defendants had paid and continued to pay for Schreiber’s Arizona condominium, his automobile, and his country club membership, perks that Defendants never offered to Plaintiff.
6. Awards And Recognition 70. In May 2004, after Mr. Thomas had taken the helm at GEAM, Defendant Heintzelman informed Mr. Thomas that the Board of Directors was awarding Mr. Thomas a large stock grant of 2,567 shares as a result of his outstanding performance while General Manager at GE Rail. Heintzelman congratulated Mr. Thomas on his achievement, noting that Mr. Thomas received the largest incremental stock increase of anyone on Heintzelman’s staff. 71. In June 2004, GE selected Plaintiff from hundreds of employees to receive one of GE’s most prestigious awards, The Lewis A. Latimer Award. Mr. Thomas was invited to GE’s corporate headquarters in Connecticut to receive the award personally from GE’s top corporate officers and to attend a lunch with Lewis Latimer’s granddaughter. The inscription on the award reads:
This award is in recognition of your exemplary leadership skills, technical mastery, and Six Sigma discipline used to secure a record $41M in cost reduction and to achieve over 250% improvement in China annual receipts. (emphasis added)
17

72. GE’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, signed Mr. Thomas’ Latimer Award personally.
7. Plaintiff Remedies A Racially Biased Bonus Scheme 73. Soon after taking charge at GEAM, Mr. Thomas conducted a top-to-bottom assessment of GEAM’s operations and capabilities. Among the major priorities needing correction was a biased and unfair bonus scheme that favored white employees and friends of GEAM’s former CEO, Don Schreiber. Schreiber’s modus operandi was to pay his favorite white employees’ bonuses based not on their prior year’s performance, but rather on their status as his friends and confidants. 74. Under Schreiber, in 2003 African-Americans comprised 4.8% of the workforce but received only 1.1% of the bonus pool. By contrast, white employees comprised 81.0% of the GEAM workforce, but were awarded approximately 89.8% of the bonus pool available. Additionally, Hispanics comprised 12.7% of the workforce yet received only 7.7% of the bonuses. 75. Finally, in 2003 males comprised 63.5% of GEAM’s workforce and received 72.8% of the bonuses. By contrast, females comprised 36.5% of the workforce and received 27.2% of the bonuses. 76. After Mr. Thomas implemented a merit-based bonus system that rewarded employees based largely on their performance, the disparity between white and minority employees virtually disappeared. When bonuses were awarded for 2004, male employees comprised approximately 69.6% of GEAM’s workforce, and received 68.8% of the total bonus money available. Mr. Thomas’ non-prejudicial, merit-based bonus system resulted in minorities
18

and women receiving bonuses roughly equivalent to their employment representation at GEAM. Mr. Thomas’ initiatives eliminated the compensation disparities between men and women.
77. Further, in 2004, Plaintiff’s initiatives again markedly reduced the disparities between white employees and minority employees. Special arrangements that had existed between Mr. Thomas’ predecessor, Schreiber, and white employees dealing with vacation, job attendance and other perks not offered to minority employees were drastically reduced and/or eliminated under Mr. Thomas’ leadership.
78. Upon information and belief, Mr. Thomas’ restructuring of the bonus system caused great concern among certain senior white managers at GEAM, particularly IT Leader Dan Lynch, Operations & Warehouse Manager Brad Herring, and the Vice President of Small Engine Sales, Robert “Bob” Schmalholtz, who for many years had grown accustomed to receiving higher bonuses than other, more deserving GEAM employees.
79. Before Mr. Thomas’ new bonus structure was implemented, these white managers correctly suspected that a change in the bonus system would lower their take. Upon information and belief, these individuals began to spread falsehoods about Mr. Thomas and complained to senior management above him.
80. In May 2004, Mr. Thomas reported to his superior, Defendant Heintzelman, his plans for revamping GEAM, including (i) restructuring the inequitable bonus system; (ii) creating a quality, risk and assessment entity; (iii) improving communication and socialization system among GEAM employees; (iv) investigating expense account misuses; and (v) reducing excess/obsolescent inventory. Heintzelman responded to these plans by questioning the bonus restructuring idea and requiring that Mr. Thomas discuss his plans with Senior Human Resources Manager, Defendant Jack Ryan, before going forward.
19

8. Senior GE Officers/Managers Improperly Interfere In Bonuses/Ratings Of White Managers; Decrease Bonuses For Minority Employees; And Frustrate Plaintiff’s Investigation Of White Employee Accused Of Embezzlement
81. After Mr. Thomas changed the bonus structure, Defendants Heintzelman and Ryan resisted a meritocratic system that resulted in white employees making less money than under the prior non-meritocratic system. When white employees Brad Herring (“Herring”), Dan Lynch (“Lynch”) and Bob Schmalholz circumvented Mr. Thomas’ leadership by complaining directly to HR Manager Jack Ryan, these white managers’ complaints received a favorable hearing.
82. In early 2005, Defendants Heintzelman and Ryan both interceded to increase the bonuses of two of these favored white male employees, Herring and Lynch, notwithstanding that under the new merit-based program, neither Herring nor Lynch deserved the higher bonuses. By contrast, GE insisted on lowering the bonus of the only other senior level African-American at GEAM, Terry Arnold (“Arnold”), and meticulously scrutinized the proposed bonus of the other minority member of senior management at GEAM, Jeana Quintana (“Quintana”).
9. Illegal And Discriminatory Tactics To Which Mr. Thomas Objected 83. In August 2004, Defendant Heintzelman suggested to Mr. Thomas and other senior business staff that GEAM attempt to engage in illegal anti-competitive actions designed to boost the parent company’s sales at the expense of GEAM’s performance. Heintzelman wanted GEAM to enter the aviation materials market in order to purchase and hold critical used material for the sole purpose of creating a scarcity and causing an increased demand for new GE spare parts, thereby driving up the price of new GE spare parts.
20

84. When Mr. Thomas objected to the seriously flawed and anti-competitive nature of Heintzelman’s plan, Heintzleman interrupted him and directed him to devise a concrete plan to implement Heintzelman’s strategy.
85. Mr. Thomas also objected to the scheme of Defendants Heintzelman and Ryan to force GEAM senior employee Barry McKemy (“McKemy”) out of the company. Heintzelman told Mr. Thomas to talk to Ryan about how to take care of McKemy.
86. The Defendants’ plan was to “load up” McKemy with increasingly difficult and unachievable tasks, forcing McKemy to quit. Mr. Thomas refused to comply with the scheme because he believed it was wrong to treat employees in such a manner and he believed such conduct would expose the company to a wrongful termination suit.
87. Defendant Ryan also interfered with Mr. Thomas’ and Quintana’s investigation of a white employee, Richard Francis, who allegedly embezzled thousands of dollars worth of IT equipment to bolster his fledgling home business.
88. In addition to equalizing the bonus plan, Mr. Thomas overhauled certain entrenched business practices at GEAM. Mr. Thomas eliminated the practice of his predecessor, Schreiber, of secretly permitting favored white employees to take extended vacations without repercussions.
89. Mr. Thomas also sought to foster GE values that place a premium on employees’ integrity and to foster an atmosphere in which equal opportunity extends to all employees, including those who wish to join the GE team.
90. Additionally, Mr. Thomas instituted a more hospitable and engaging work environment at GEAM by holding firm-wide social events, giving quarterly awards based on
21

merit, and encouraging constructive suggestions from all employees, not just favored white employees.
10. Senior Management Officials Above Mr. Thomas Act In Concert To Diminish Plaintiff’s Successes At GEAM
91. When four GEAM employees submitted their resignations in January 2005 in order to accept substantially more compensation from a competitor company of GEAM’s, North Texas Engines (“NTE”), Defendants used this event as a pretext for questioning Mr. Thomas’ leadership. Under Plaintiff’s predecessor, Schreiber, GEAM had experienced two suicides and numerous, ongoing resignations without subjecting Schreiber to any repercussive investigations or inquiries. Neither Defendants Heintzelman nor Ryan ever physically visited GEAM to investigate the resignations or comfort grieving co-workers after the suicides.
92. Defendant Heinztelman sent his Senior Human Resources Manager, Defendant Ryan, to GEAM’s headquarters to make false accusations and negatively influence GEAM’s employees against Mr. Thomas.
93. Defendant Ryan descended on GEAM’s headquarters, organizing group and individual sessions designed to extract negative comments about Mr. Thomas’ leadership. Immediately before his resignation, William “Bill” Thompson (“Thompson”) was approached by Defendant Ryan and urged to blame his departure on Mr. Thomas. Upon information and belief, Ryan told Thompson that if he agreed, he would be rewarded with Plaintiff-Thomas’ job.
94. Thompson remonstrated, stating that he had been considering leaving GEAM for two years and finally decided to leave for a better opportunity. Thompson told Ryan in substance, “I’m not interested in stabbing [Plaintiff-]Thomas in the back.” Defendant Ryan responded, “We [GE] won’t make it appear that way.”
22

95. More than 88% of the employees responding to a “leadership” survey sent to GEAM’s employees either strongly agreed with, agreed with or were neutral towards Mr. Thomas’ leadership style.
96. Despite lacking any reliable evidence of poor performance by Mr. Thomas, either in his financial or management leadership at GEAM, Defendant Marc Chini (“Chini”) contacted Mr. Thomas in early February 2005 and told him that GE’s senior management had decided that Mr. Thomas had to go. Chini said in substance that: (a) Mr. Thomas’ incentive compensation would not be what he expected; (b) Mr. Thomas would not receive any executive stock options during the next issuance; (c) Mr. Thomas would not be promoted to SEB (Senior Executive Band) level; and (d) Mr. Thomas should take a severance package and begin looking for outside employment. V. INDIVIDUAL LEGAL CLAIMS
A. Race Discrimination: Unequal Pay, Denial Of Promotion And Retaliation 97. The GE Defendants discriminated against Mr. Thomas based on his race in three ways. 98. First, Defendants discriminated against Mr. Thomas by failing to pay him a salary and bonus commensurate with his position as President, Chairman & CEO of a major company. Upon information and belief, Defendants (a) paid Mr. Thomas less salary and bonus than other comparable non-minority CEOs at GE; (b) paid Mr. Thomas 8% less than a white subordinate, Thompson, who reported to Mr. Thomas, and were also creating a package for Thompson that would further broaden the gap by 19%; and (c) paid Mr. Thomas less than his white predecessor at GEAM, Schreiber, who was demoted for malfeasance. Upon information and belief, even after his demotion, Schreiber still retained all the perks of his previous position, including the
23

Scottsdale, Arizona condominium, the automobile, and the Country Club membership. None of these perks were ever offered to Mr. Thomas.
99. Second, Defendants discriminated against Mr. Thomas by failing to promote him to higher level leadership positions.
100. Defendants had rewarded Schreiber during his tenure at GEAM despite his inferior performance, which was highlighted by poor productivity, the suicides of two employees under his watch, and the exodus of numerous employees (including five who left within days of each other to form a competing company).
101. Third, Defendants discriminated against Mr. Thomas by retaliating against him for: (a) changing the policies that allowed undeserving white employees to receive unfair bonuses and perks; (b) defending the reputation of another African-American employee; and (c) speaking out against the racial discrimination at GE with GE in-house counsel. GE informed Mr. Thomas that he would receive no promotion, no stock options, a de minimis bonus, and that he had no future with the Company. Defendants further retaliated against Mr. Thomas by ruining his reputation at GE and labeling Mr. Thomas as “Least Effective” after he complained about GE’s lack of equitable treatment towards minority employees.
102. Each of the individual Defendants and Defendant Compensation Committee Board Members, including, but not limited to, Defendants Jeffrey Immelt (CEO and Chairman of the Board), David Calhoun (President & CEO of GE Transportation) and Bill Conaty (the topranking Human Resources Manager at GE), were aware of, participated in, and/or approved the following discriminatory decisions: (a) not to award Mr. Thomas any stock options despite his excellent performance in 2004, and thereafter (b) to give Mr. Thomas a de minimus bonus despite the record profits and revenues he generated for GEAM in 2004, and thereafter (c) to
24

eliminate any salary increase for Mr. Thomas in 2005, and (d) not to promote Mr. Thomas to SEB.
103. Defendants treated Mr. Thomas differently from other similarly situated nonminority employees at GE. For example, he is paid less and receives fewer privileges, benefits and perks than similarly situated white male employees.
104. Upon information and belief, GE pays minority and woman executives less than comparably-situated white male employees.
B. Breach Of Contract And Misrepresentation 105. Defendants, in particular Defendant Dan Heintzelman (“Heintzelman”), Vice President of GEAM’s parent company, GE Engine Services, Inc. (“GEES”), breached their promise to pay Mr. Thomas the highest salary and bonus available in his position as President, Chairman & CEO. Although Heintzelman represented to Mr. Thomas that he would be paid the highest remuneration available for the leader of GEAM, in fact he knew that GE would be paying Plaintiff (a) 8% less than a white lower level employee, Thompson, who would report to Mr. Thomas, and (b) less than Plaintiff’s immediate predecessor, Schreiber. C. Tortious Interference With Contract And Retaliation Against Plaintiff In
Violation Of Public Policy 106. Mr. Thomas opposed Defendants’ attempts to: (i) engage in illegal anticompetitive actions designed to help GEES (GEAM’s parent company); (ii) engage in dishonest and discriminatory employment practices by “loading up” an elderly employee, Barry McKemy, with increasingly unrealistic tasks in order to force him out of the company; (iii) pay undeserving white managers, Brad Herring, Dan Lynch, and Bob Schmalholz, higher bonuses than warranted under GEAM’s new merits-based incentive program; (iv) change an Employee Management System evaluation (“EMS”) for an inferior-performing white employee, Dan
25

Lynch; (v) reduce a bonus award for another minority employee at GEAM, Terry Arnold; and (vi) conduct biased, secret investigations at GEAM designed by GE to create the appearance of a lack of confidence in Mr. Thomas.
107. Plaintiff’s refusal to aid Defendants’ discriminatory, unfair and/or potentially illegal practices did not please GE’s senior management.
108. Defendants Heintzelman, Charlene Begley, David Calhoun, Jack Ryan, Marc Chini, and Bill Conaty targeted Mr. Thomas and tortiously interfered with his employment contract.
109. Defendants initiated a smear campaign disseminated among GEAM’s employees that was intended to interfere with Mr. Thomas’ position and stature as the leader of GEAM. Defendants spread false rumors about four former employees who had resigned from GEAM in early 2005, implying that these employees left GEAM because of Mr. Thomas’ leadership. In fact, three of the four employees left to obtain more lucrative positions at a GEAM competitor while the fourth was induced to stay at GE with a huge salary and bonus increase. Defendants used the departure of these employees to malign Mr. Thomas and harm his reputation and integrity.
110. Individual Defendants Heintzelman, Begley, Calhoun, Ryan, Chini, and Conaty acted in concert to improperly influence GEAM employees’ and GE senior management’s reviews and opinions of Mr. Thomas in order to manufacture the appearance of “no-confidence” in Mr. Thomas’ leadership. Defendants’ aim was to create a pretextual reason for terminating or constructively terminating Mr. Thomas.
111. Defendant Ryan met both individually and as a group with Mr. Thomas’ staff and employees in an attempt to extract false, misleading and negative comments about Mr. Thomas’
26

leadership. 112. When GEAM employees refused to denigrate Mr. Thomas, the individual
Defendants, including Ryan, tried to instigate a rebellion against Mr. Thomas by continuing to interrogate employees and expressing their discontent with Mr. Thomas’ leadership at GEAM. Specifically, they stated that Mr. Thomas was the reason that the four employees had tendered their resignations.
113. In contrast, Defendants did not attempt to undermine the leadership of Plaintiff’s white predecessor, even though two of Schreiber’s employees committed suicide during his tenure and numerous others resigned because of the climate of fear and discontent created by Schrieber.
114. Schreiber ran the operation like his own private fiefdom insulated from the policies and practices of GE, rewarding his favored employees and snubbing others. Yet after Mr. Thomas remedied Schreiber’s abuses and violations, Mr. Thomas was spurned by Defendants, made a scapegoat for the independent resignation decisions of a few subordinates, and attacked as a deficient leader. These consequences all stemmed from racist attitudes that were approved and furthered by senior management GE Defendants.
115. Nearly 70% of GEAM employees surveyed strongly agreed with Mr. Thomas’ leadership at GEAM, and only a small, disgruntled and underperforming cabal of white employees questioned his leadership. Yet Defendants, particularly the individual Defendants Heintzelman, Begley, Calhoun, Ryan, Chini, and Conaty, tortiously interfered with Mr. Thomas’ contractual relationship as head of GEAM.
D. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 116. Defendants, in particular individual Defendants Heintzelman, Begley, Calhoun,
27

Ryan, Chini, and Conaty, targeted Mr. Thomas in a deliberate smear campaign by spreading false rumors about Mr. Thomas, which were intended to, and did, cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
117. Defendants intentionally spread false rumors in an attempt to influence GEAM employees’ opinions about Mr. Thomas in order to destroy Mr. Thomas’ reputation and stature as the President, Chairman, and CEO of GEAM.
E. Racially Hostile Environment 118. Mr. Thomas received a racist welcome when he joined GEAM in 2004. Placed on Mr. Thomas’ desk was a printout of a 2002 GE Powerpoint presentation used by his predecessor at GEAM, Schreiber. Part of the printout proclaimed: “What we’re NOT” . . . “Sanford & Sons,” i.e., some second-hand junk-yard run by the archetypal comic black men. 119. Mr. Thomas was dubbed “intimidating” and “arrogant” after his (“black”) picture and resume were distributed by Defendants’ employees throughout GEAM before Mr. Thomas arrived on the premises. Upon information and belief, the circulation of Mr. Thomas’ picture was a highly unusual practice. 120. At a golf outing, Schreiber had recently told the African-American HR leader, Terry Arnold (“Arnold”), that most people might wonder whether he [Arnold] was a caddy at the country club. 121. Additionally, Defendants created a hostile work environment for Mr. Thomas, resulting in Defendants, including the individual management Defendants and Defendant GE Compensation Committee, denying Mr. Thomas a salary increase, stock options, promotion and deserved bonus, thus effectively ending Plaintiff’s career at GE.
28

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 122. Class Representative Marc Thomas and the class of GE managers and other
professional level employees he seeks to represent have been subjected to a systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination involving a battery of practices, which have had an unlawful disparate impact on them and their employment opportunities. Such racial discrimination includes (a) paying African-American managers less than their white counterparts, and (b) adhering to a policy and practice of restricting the promotion and advancement opportunities of African-American managers so that they remain in the lower classification and compensation levels.
123. GE in effect bars African-American managers from better and higher paying positions which have traditionally been held by white employees. The systemic means of accomplishing such racial stratification include, but are not limited to, GE’s promotion, advancement, training, and performance evaluation policies, practices, and procedures.
124. GE’s promotion, advancement, training, and performance evaluation policies, practices, and procedures incorporate the following racially discriminatory practices: (a) relying upon subjective judgments, procedures, and criteria which permit and encourage the incorporation of racial stereotypes and bias by GE’s predominately white executive, managerial and supervisory staff in making promotion, training, performance evaluation, and compensation decisions; (b) refusing or failing to provide equal training opportunities to African-Americans; (c) refusing or failing to provide African-Americans with opportunities to demonstrate their qualifications for advancement; (d) refusing or failing to establish and/or follow policies, practices, procedures, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact and/or intentional bias or stereotypes; (e) disqualifying African-American employees for vacancies by unfairly
29

disciplining them; (f) discouraging applications and expressions of interest by AfricanAmericans; and (g) subjecting African-Americans to a racially hostile work environment.
125. GE’s promotion policies, practices, and procedures have had a disparate impact on the Class Representative and the members of the class. Such procedures are not valid, jobrelated, or justified by business necessity.
126. Defendants’ compensation, promotion, training, performance evaluation, termination, and transfer policies, practices, and procedures are intended to have a disparate impact on the class representative and the class he seeks to represent. Such practices form a part of the Defendants’ overall pattern and practice of keeping African-Americans in the lower classifications which have less desirable terms and conditions of employment.
127. Because of Defendants’ systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination, the Class Representative and class he seeks to represent have been adversely affected and have experienced harm, including the loss of compensation, wages, backpay, and employment benefits.
128. Class Representative Mr. Thomas and the class he represents have been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, which affects the terms and conditions of their employment. For example, white managers have used derogatory terms with respect to AfricanAmerican employees, have described African-American employees, and African-Americans in general, in negative stereotypical terms, have made it clear that they favor white employees over African-American employees, and otherwise have created a working environment hostile to African-American employees. The GE Defendants have condoned similar words and actions by white employees.
30

129. African-American employees at GE have complained to their supervisors, including upper-level management, about the racially hostile work environment. GE managers have conducted inadequate and/or superficial investigations of these complaints and have failed to implement adequate procedures to monitor or alter the hostile working environment.
130. GE has failed to impose adequate discipline on managers and employees who violate the equal employment opportunity laws and has failed to create adequate incentives for its managerial and supervisory personnel to comply with such laws regarding the employment policies, practices, and procedures described above.
131. Class Representative and the class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only means of securing adequate relief. Plaintiff is now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from GE’s unlawful policies, practices, and procedures as set forth herein unless those policies, practices, and procedures are enjoined by this Court.
A. General Facts Relevant To Class Claims And Class Definition 132. Class Representative Marc Thomas seeks to maintain claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of current and former African-American managers at GE. 133. The class consists of all African-American managers who are, or have been, employed by GE and have experienced race discrimination at any time during the applicable liability period. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of such managers in the proposed class. 134. The class representative seeks to represent all of the African-American employees described above who have been subjected to one or more aspects of the systemic racial discrimination and racial harassment described in this Complaint, including, but not limited to:
31

discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures in pay; selection, promotion, and advancement; disparate and hostile working conditions, training and discipline; the failure to promulgate, maintain and enforce effective racial harassment and/or non-discrimination policies, practices and procedures; and unequal terms and conditions of employment. The systemic racial discrimination and racial harassment described in this Complaint has been, and is, continuing in nature.
B. Efficiency Of Class Prosecution Of Common Claims 135. Certification of a class of African-American managers and professional level employees similarly situated to the Class Representative, Marc Thomas, is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact which are common to the claims of the Class Representative and the proposed class. The individual claims of the Class Representative require resolution of the common question of whether GE has engaged in a systemic pattern and/or practice of racial discrimination against African-American employees. Class Representative Thomas seeks remedies to eliminate the adverse effects of such discrimination in his own life, career and working conditions and in the lives, careers and working conditions of the proposed class members, and to prevent continued racial discrimination and/or racial harassment in the future. Mr. Thomas has standing to seek such relief because of the adverse effect that such discrimination and/or harassment has had on him individually and on African-Americans generally. In order to gain such relief for himself, as well as for the class members, Class Representative Thomas will first establish the existence of systemic racial discrimination as the premise for the relief he seeks. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to re-litigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations.
32

Certification of the proposed class of African-Americans who have been affected by these common questions of law and fact is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments necessary to resolve such questions for the Class Representative, the proposed class, and the GE Defendants.
136. Class representative Marc Thomas’ individual and class claims are premised upon the traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for disparate impact and systemic disparate treatment claims of the type at issue in this case. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common issues.
C. Numerosity And Impracticability Of Joinder 137. The class which the Class Representative seeks to represent is too numerous to make joinder practicable. The proposed class consists of hundreds of current, former and future African-American managers during the liability period. GE’s pattern and/or practice of race discrimination also makes joinder impracticable by discouraging African-Americans from applying for or pursuing promotional, training, or transfer opportunities, thereby making it impractical and inefficient to identify many members of the class prior to determination of the merits of GE’s class-wide liability. D. Common Questions Of Law And Fact 138. The prosecution of the claims of class representative Marc Thomas will require the adjudication of numerous questions of law and fact common to both his individual claims and those of the putative class he seeks to represent. The common questions of law include, inter alia, whether GE has engaged in unlawful, systemic race discrimination in its compensation, selection, promotion, advancement, transfer, training and discipline, policies, practices, and procedures, and in the general terms and conditions of work and employment;
33

whether GE is liable for a continuing systemic violation of Title VII, and/or § 1981 and/or other statutes; and a determination of the proper standards for proving a pattern or practice of discrimination by GE against its African-American managers and other professional level employees. The common questions of fact include, inter alia: whether GE has, through its policies, practices, and procedures: (a) compensated African-American managers less than similarly situated Caucasian white males through the use of salary and /or other perks; (b) precluded or delayed the selection and promotion of African-American managers into higher level jobs traditionally held by white employees; (c) discouraged African-Americans from seeking promotions and/or transfers into higher level jobs traditionally held by white employees; (d) prevented African-Americans from learning about or competing for opportunities in jobs traditionally held by white employees; (e) failed to train or offer training to African-Americans so they could compete for positions traditionally held by white employees; (f) subjected AfricanAmericans to a racially hostile work environment; and (g) subjected African-Americans to disparate disciplinary policies, practices, and procedures, including terminations.
139. The employment policies, practices, and procedures to which the Class Representative and the class members are subjected are set at GE’s corporate level and apply universally to all class members. These employment policies, practices and procedures are not unique or limited to any department; rather, they apply to all departments and, thus, affect the Class Representative and class members in the same ways no matter the plant, department, or position in which they work.
140. Throughout the liability period, a disproportionately large percentage of the managers, supervisors, executives, senior executives and officers at GE have been white.
34

141. Discrimination in selection, promotion and advancement occurs as a pattern and practice throughout the manager level of all departments of GE. Selection, promotion, and advancement opportunities are driven by personal familiarity, subjective decision-making, preselection and interaction between white executives, managers, supervisors, and subordinates rather than by merit or equality of opportunity. As a result, white employees have advanced and continue to advance more rapidly to better and higher paying jobs than do African-American employees.
142. GE’s policies, practices, and procedures have had an adverse impact on AfricanAmerican managers seeking selection for, or advancement to, better and higher paying positions. In general, the higher the level of the job classification, the lower the percentage of AfricanAmerican employees holding it.
E. Typicality Of Claims And Relief Sought 143. The claims of Class Representative Thomas are typical of the claims of the class. The relief sought by the Class Representative for racial discrimination complained of herein is also typical of the relief which is sought on behalf of the class. 144. Like the members of the class, the Class Representative, Mr. Thomas, is an African-American manager who has worked at GE during the liability period. 145. Discrimination in selection, promotion, advancement, and training affects the compensation of the Class Representative and all the employee class members in the same ways. 146. Discrimination in discipline, including termination, occurs as a pattern and practice throughout all departments of GE. GE’s predominantly white executives and other managers discipline African-American employees, including both the Class Representative and the class members, more frequently and severely than their white counterparts.
35

147. Discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment occurs as a pattern and practice throughout all levels and departments at GE and affects the Class Representative and the members of the class in the same ways. White supervisors have used derogatory language when speaking to and about African-American employees, have retaliated against African-American employees who have sought to enforce their rights, have made it clear in various ways that they favor white employees, and otherwise have created a working environment hostile to AfricanAmerican employees. White managers and supervisors have also condoned hostile words and actions by white employees which add to the already racially hostile working environment.
148. GE has failed to create adequate incentives for its executives and managers to comply with equal employment opportunity laws regarding each of the employment policies, practices, and procedures referenced in this Complaint and has failed to discipline adequately its executives and managers and other employees when they violate the discrimination laws. These failures have affected the Class Representative and the class members in the same ways.
149. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the Class Representative is exactly the same as that necessary to remedy the claims of the class members in this case. Class Representative Thomas seeks the following relief for his individual claims and for those of the members of the proposed class: (a) a declaratory judgment that GE has engaged in systemic racial discrimination against African-American managers by paying African-American managers less than their white counterparts, subjecting African-Americans to a racially hostile work environment, by limiting their ability to be promoted to better and higher paying positions, by limiting their employment opportunities to lower and less desirable classifications, by limiting their training and transfer opportunities, and by exposing them to less desirable terms and conditions of employment; (b) a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory
36

conduct; (c) injunctive relief which effects a restructuring of GE’s promotion, transfer, training, performance evaluation, compensation, work environment, and discipline policies, practices, and procedures – so that African-American managers will be able to compete fairly in the future for promotions, transfers, and assignments to better and higher paying classifications with terms and conditions of employment traditionally enjoyed by white employees; (d) injunctive relief which effects a restructuring of the GE workforce so that African-American managers are promoted into higher and better paying classifications that they would have held in the absence of GE’s past racial discrimination; (e) backpay, front pay, and other equitable remedies necessary to make the African-American employees whole from the Defendants’ past discrimination; (f) punitive and nominal damages to prevent and deter GE from engaging in similar discriminatory practices in the future; (g) compensatory damages; and (h) attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.
F. Adequacy Of Representation 150. The Class Representative’s interests are co-extensive with those of the members of the proposed class which he seeks to represent in this case. Class Representative Thomas seeks to remedy GE’s discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures so that African-American managers will no longer be subjected to a racially hostile work environment, and will not be prevented from advancing into higher paying and more desirable higher GE “band level” positions. Mr. Thomas is willing and able to represent the proposed class fairly and vigorously as he pursues his individual claims in this action. Class Representative Thomas has retained counsel who are qualified, experienced, and able to conduct this litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The combined interests, experience, and resources of Mr. Thomas’ counsel
37

to litigate competently the individual and class claims at issue in this case clearly satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).
G. Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2) 151. GE has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class Representative and the class by adopting and following systemic policies, practices, and procedures which are racially discriminatory. Racial discrimination is GE’s standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence. GE has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by, inter alia: (a) failing to pay African-American managers on par with white managers; (b) refusing to adopt and apply selection, promotion, training, performance evaluation, compensation, and discipline policies, practices, and procedures which do not have a disparate impact on, or otherwise systemically discriminate against African-American managers; (b) refusing to provide equal terms and conditions of employment for African-Americans; and (c) refusing to provide a working environment which is free of racial harassment. GE’s systemic discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are not racially discriminatory have made appropriate the requested final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 152. Injunctive and declaratory relief are the predominant relief sought in this case because they are the culmination of the proof of GE’s individual and class-wide liability at the end of Stage I of a bifurcated trial and the essential predicate for the class representative Thomas’ and the class members’ entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies at Stage II of such trial. Declaratory and injunctive relief flow directly and automatically from proof of the common questions of law and fact regarding the existence of systemic racial discrimination against African-American employees at GE. Such relief is the factual and legal predicate for class representative’s and the class members’ entitlement to monetary and non-monetary
38

remedies for individual losses caused by, and for exemplary purposes necessitated by, such systematic discrimination.
H. Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(3) 153. The common issues of fact and law affecting the claims of Mr. Thomas and proposed class members, including, but not limited to, the common issues identified herein, predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims. These issues include whether GE has engaged in racial discrimination against African-American managers by denying them equal pay, promotion and advancement opportunities and whether GE has tolerated a culture of racism directed against such employees. 154. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Representative and members of the proposed class. 155. The cost of proving GE’s pattern and practice of discrimination makes it impracticable for the Class Representative and members of the proposed class to control the prosecution of their claims individually.
CLASS COUNTS
COUNT I (Class Claims) VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 156. Class Representative incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 157. This Count is brought on behalf of Class Representative and members of the class.
39

158. Defendants have denied Class Representative and members of the class the same right to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens employed by Defendants, including rights involving the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts with Defendants and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of that relationship, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended.
159. In the employment practices described above, Defendants intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Class Representative and the members of the class, entitling Class Representative and the members of the class to punitive damages.
160. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, persistent throughout the employment of Class Representative and members of the class, Class Representative and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein.
161. As a result of Defendants’ conduct alleged in this complaint, Class Representative and the members of the class have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish.
162. By reason of Defendants’ discrimination, Class Representative and members of the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of § 1981, as amended, including an award of punitive damages.
163. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.
40

COUNT II (Class Claims) RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
164. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 165. This Count is brought on behalf of Class Representative and all members of the class. 166. Defendants have discriminated against Class Representative and members of the class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”), by subjecting them to different treatment on the basis of their race. The members of the class have suffered both disparate impact and disparate treatment as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. 167. In the employment practices described above, Defendants intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Class Representative and the members of the class, entitling Class Representative and the members of the class to punitive damages. 168. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, persistent throughout the employment of Class Representative and the members of the class, Class Representative and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein. 169. As a result of Defendants’ conduct alleged in this complaint, Class Representative and the members of the class have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including but not limited
41

to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish.
170. By reason of Defendants’ discrimination, Class Representative and members of the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including an award of punitive damages.
171. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
COUNT III (Class Claims) VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT – CONN. GEN. STAT. 46a-60, et seq. DENIAL OF EQUAL PAY AND PROMOTION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 172. Class Representative realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 173. The Defendants have discriminated against Class Representative and the class of African-American managers by treating them differently from and less preferably than similarly situated non-African-American employees, and subjecting them to discriminatory compensation policies, discriminatory denials of promotion, differential treatment, unequal pay, disparate terms and conditions of employment, hostile work environment, and other forms of discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Human Rights Act. 174. Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of Class Representative’s and the class’ rights and has damaged Class Representative and the class. 175. Class Representative and the class are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies, as well as punitive damages.
42

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CLASS CLAIMS WHEREFORE, Class Representative, on his own behalf and on behalf of the class, prays that this Court: A. Certify the case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff class, and designate Mr. Thomas as the representative of this class and his counsel of record as class counsel; B. Declare and adjudge that Defendants’ employment policies, practices and/or procedures challenged herein are illegal and in violation of the rights of Class Representative and members of the class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, and the Connecticut Human Rights Act, Conn. Gen Stat. 46a-60, et seq.; C. Issue a permanent injunction against the Defendants and their partners, officers, trustees, owners, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in any conduct violating the rights of the Class Representative, class members and those similarly situated as secured by 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and order such injunctive relief as will prevent Defendants from continuing their discriminatory practices and protect others similarly situated. D. Issue a permanent injunction against Defendants and their partners, officers, trustees, owners, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, race discrimination or retaliation by the Defendants as set forth herein; E. Order Defendants to initiate and implement programs that: (i) will provide equal employment opportunities for African-American employees; (ii) will grant zero tolerance to any
43

white employees who create racial hostility in the workplace; (iii) will remedy the effects of the Defendants’ past and present unlawful employment policies, practices and/or procedures; and (iv) will eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory and retaliatory practices described above;
F. Order Defendants to initiate and implement systems of assigning, training, transferring, compensating and promoting African-American employees in a non-discriminatory manner;
G. Order Defendants to establish a task force on equality and fairness to determine the effectiveness of the programs described in E through F above, which would provide for: (i) monitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment opportunity; (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly implemented; and (iii) a quarterly report setting forth information relevant to the determination of the effectiveness of the programs described in E through F above;
H. Order Defendants to adjust the wage rates and benefits for the Class Representative and the class members to the level that they would be enjoying but for the Defendants’ discriminatory policies, practices and/or procedures;
I. Order Defendants to place or restore the Class Representative and the class members into those jobs they would now be occupying but for Defendants’ discriminatory policies, practices and/or procedures;
J. Order that this Court retain jurisdiction of this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the Defendants have remedied the practices complained of herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law;
44

K. Award nominal, compensatory and punitive damages to Class Representative and the class members, in excess of $450 million dollars;
L. Award litigation costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the Class Representative and class members;
M. Award back pay, front pay, lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs and other damages for lost compensation and job benefits with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest suffered by the Class Representative and the class members to be determined at trial;
N. Order Defendants to make whole the Class Representative and class members by providing them with appropriate lost earnings and benefits, and other affirmative relief;
O. Award any other appropriate equitable relief to the Class Representative and proposed class members; and
P. Award any additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
INDIVIDUAL COUNTS
COUNT I (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. DENIAL OF EQUAL PAY AND PROMOTION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
176. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
177. The Defendants have discriminated against Mr. Thomas by treating him differently from and less preferably than similarly situated non-African-American employees and by subjecting him to discriminatory denials of promotion, discriminatory compensation policies,
45

differential treatment, unequal pay, disparate terms and conditions of employment, hostile work environment, and other forms of discrimination in violation of Title VII.
178. Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
179. Such conduct directly and proximately caused Mr. Thomas to be damaged and to suffer economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish, and humiliation. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Title VII.
COUNT II (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
RETALIATION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 180. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 181. The Defendants retaliated against Mr. Thomas as described in the Complaint, because he, inter alia: ! Attempted to equalize opportunities for minorities and women within GEAM; ! Complained about inequitable treatment of minorities and women within GEAM, including the racist treatment GE directed against him; and ! Maintained friendly working and cooperative relationships with other minority and female employees within GEAM. 182. After Mr. Thomas revealed to GE and its in-house Legal Department the specifics race discrimination at GE, in pay, promotion and treatment, the GE Defendants quickly retaliated against him in April 2005 with a biased end-of-the year performance review for 2004 that labeled him “Least Effective” – a moniker that effectively ends his career at the company.
46

183. In retaliation for these activities, Defendants have denied Plaintiff promotions, remuneration, and other emoluments of employment, and informed Mr. Thomas that his career at GE is effectively over.
184. The Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, malicious, reckless, and done with callous disregards of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to punitive damages.
185. By reason of the retaliation Plaintiff suffered at GEAM, Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Title VII.
COUNT III. (Individual Claim of Mr. Thomas) VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT – CONN. GEN. STAT. 46a-60, et seq. DENIAL OF EQUAL PAY AND PROMOTION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 186. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 187. The Defendants have discriminated against Mr. Thomas by treating him differently from and less preferably than similarly situated non-African-American employees, and subjecting him to discriminatory denials of promotion, discriminatory compensation policies, differential treatment, unequal pay, disparate terms and conditions of employment, hostile work environment, and other forms of discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Human Rights Act. 188. Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 189. Such conduct directly and proximately caused Mr. Thomas to be damaged and to suffer economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish, and humiliation.
47

190. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies, as well as punitive damages.
COUNT IV (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT –
CONN. GEN. STAT. 46a-60, et seq. RETALIATION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
191. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
192. The Defendants retaliated against Mr. Thomas because he, inter alia: ! Attempted to equalize opportunities for minorities, and women within GEAM; ! Complained about inequitable treatment of minorities, and women within GEAM, including the racist treatment directed against him; and ! Maintained friendly working and cooperative relationships with other minority and female employees within GEAM.
193. After Mr. Thomas revealed to GE and its in-house Legal Department the specifics of race discrimination at GE, in pay, promotion and treatment, the GE defendants quickly retaliated against him in April 2005 with a biased end-of-the year performance review for 2004 that labeled him “Least Effective” – a label that effectively ends his career at the company.
194. In retaliation for these activities, Defendants have denied Plaintiff promotions, remuneration, and other emoluments of employment. Defendants have effectively destroyed Plaintiff’s career and reputation at GE.
195. The Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, malicious, reckless, and done with callous disregards of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to punitive damages.
48

196. By reason of the retaliation Plaintiff suffered at GEAM, Plaintiff is entitled to all appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
COUNT V (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
197. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff by subjecting him to racial discrimination in employment on the basis of his race, African-American, including subjecting Plaintiff to discriminatory compensation, discriminatory denial of pay increase, discriminatory denial of promotions and subjecting Plaintiff to disparate terms and conditions of employment, a hostile work environment and other forms of discrimination, in violation of the § 1981.
198. Defendants have intentionally, deliberately, willfully, and callously disregarded the rights of Plaintiff.
199. By reason of Defendants’ discrimination, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under § 1981, including punitive damages.
COUNT VI (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT (AGAINST ALL GE DEFENDANTS) 200. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 201. Plaintiff was induced to join Defendant GEAM as President, Chairman and CEO based on contractual promises by the corporate Defendants that Plaintiff would receive the
49

highest competitive salary, would be treated fairly and equitably without regard to race, and would be discharged only for cause.
202. These representations and contractual obligations were made orally by GEAM and GE top corporate personnel, including Defendants Heintzelman, Begley, and Chini.
203. These oral representations constitute an implied contract of employment between the corporate Defendants and Plaintiff.
204. Plaintiff has fulfilled all obligations under his contract of employment. Plaintiff has performed in an exemplary manner at GEAM, increasing profits, raising revenues and sales, and receiving awards for excellent performance.
205. The GE Defendants have breached their contract of employment with Plaintiff. Defendants have not treated Plaintiff equitably and have not provided the contracted-for salary, bonuses, pay raises and stock grants.
206. As a direct consequence of Defendants’ misconduct and breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of past and future wages and other consequential damages.
COUNT VII (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (AGAINST ALL CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT GEAM)
207. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
208. A contractual and/or beneficial relationship existed between Mr. Thomas and GEAM.
50

209. The Defendants named in this Count intended to interfere with the contractual relationship. All of these Defendants acted to destroy Plaintiff’s employment opportunities and Plaintiff’s employment relationship with GEAM.
210. The above mentioned interference was unjustified, unprivileged and undertaken for an improper motive and purpose.
211. As a direct and proximate result of such interference, Plaintiff has suffered actual loss including diminution in earning capacity, reduced remuneration and denial of promotions.
212. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages based on the conduct described in this count.
COUNT VIII (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
213. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
214. Plaintiff was induced to join Defendant GEAM as President, Chairman and CEO based on promises by the corporate Defendants that Plaintiff would be given the highest competitive salary, would be treated fairly and equitably without regard to race, and would be discharged only for cause.
215. These representations were made orally by GEAM and GE top corporate personnel, including Dan Heintzleman and Charlene Begley, and Mark Chini.
216. These representations were false and Defendants knew them to be false. Defendants had no intention of paying Mr. Thomas top dollar, giving him fair promotional opportunities, and treating him fairly.
51

217. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these false representations and has sustained damages.
218. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. COUNT IX
(Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 219. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 220. Plaintiff was induced to join Defendant GEAM as President, Chairman and CEO based on promises by the corporate Defendants that Plaintiff would be given the highest competitive salary, would be treated fairly and equitably without regard to race, and would be discharged only for cause. 221. These representations were made orally by GE top executives, including Defendants Heintzleman, Begley, and Chini. 222. These representations were false, and Defendants failed to use due care in making such representations. 223. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these negligent representations and suffered damages.
COUNT X (Individual Claim of Plaintiff - Thomas) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 224. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
52

225. The actions of Defendants described above are outrageous and surpass the bounds of all human decency.
226. Plaintiff has been subjected to a campaign to destroy his professional prospects within GEAM and GE as well as his employment prospects in other companies.
227. Defendants acted deliberately, maliciously, and wantonly, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
228. Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress as a result as well as additional monetary damages, and is entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages.
COUNT XI (Individual Claim of Plaintiff-Thomas) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 229. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the earlier paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 230. By reasons of the activities described in this complaint, Defendants have negligently inflicted severe emotional distress on Mr. Thomas. 231. Defendants have informed Mr. Thomas that despite his superior record at GEAM, of shepherding GEAM to record growth and profits, his career with GE is essentially finished and that he should look for other employment. 232. Defendants have engaged in an organized campaign to destroy Plaintiff’s professional life as a GEAM and GE executive. 233. This misconduct was carried out negligently and with lack of due care. 234. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress so severe that it is likely lead to illness or bodily harm. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages.
53

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCEL “MARC” T. THOMAS prays that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff all compensatory and punitive damages allowed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. – Title VII – as set forth in Counts I and II; B. Award Plaintiff all compensatory and punitive damages allowed under the Connecticut Human Rights Act – Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-60, et seq. – as set forth in Counts III and IV; C. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages and punitive allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended – as set forth in Count V; D. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Breach of Implied Contract – as set forth in Count VI; E. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages and punitive damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Tortious Interference with Contract – as set forth in Count VII; F. Award Plaintiff all compensatory and punitive damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Intentional Misrepresentation – as set forth in Count VIII. G. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Negligent Misrepresentation – as set forth in Count IX. H. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages and punitive damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – as set forth in Count X; I. Award Plaintiff all compensatory damages allowed as a result of Defendants’ Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – as set forth in Count XI; J. Award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, interest, and other expenses; and
54

K. Grant such other, further, and different relief as this court deems just and proper.

Dated: May 17, 2005

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven L. Wittels Steven L. Wittels (SLW-8110) Jeremy Heisler (JH-0145) SANFORD, WITTELS, & HEISLER, LLP 545 Fifth Avenue Suite 960 New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 swittels@nydclaw.com www.nydclaw.com
David W. Sanford, D.C. Bar No. 457933 Lisa Goldblatt, D.C. Bar No. 456187 SANFORD, WITTELS, & HEISLER, LLP 2121 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 942-9124 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189 dsanford@nydclaw.com www.nydclaw.com (Pending Pro Hac Vice Admission)
Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Marc T. Thomas and the Class
-and-
/s/ Victoria de Toledo Victoria de Toledo CT06741 Casper & de Toledo LLC 1458 Bedford Street Stamford, Connecticut 06905 Telephone: (203) 325-8600
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Marc T. Thomas and the Class

55

Grant Morris, D.C. Bar No. 926253 LAW OFFICES OF GRANT MORRIS 2121 K Street N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 486-0678 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189 grantemorris@gmail.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Marc T. Thomas and the Class
56

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARCEL “MARC” T. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated African-American employees,
Plaintiff,
- against -
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE TRANSPORTATION, GE AVIATION MATERIALS, L.P. a/k/a/ GEAM, JEFFREY R. IMMELT, DAVID L. CALHOUN, DANIEL “DAN” C. HEINTZELMAN, CHARLENE T. BEGLEY, JOHN “JACK” F. RYAN, MARC A. CHINI, WILLIAM “BILL” J. CONATY, CLAUDIO X. GONZALEZ, ANDREA JUNG, RALPH S. LARSEN, SAM NUNN, and DOUGLAS A. WARNER III
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-00788 (PCD)

ANSWER
This Answer is submitted on behalf of Defendants General Electric Company (“GE”), GE Transportation1, GE Aviation Materials, L.P. (“GEAM”), Jeffrey R. Immelt, David L. Calhoun, Daniel Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, William J. Conaty, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn and Douglas A. Warner
1 GE Transportation is an operating division of GE and not a separately incorporated entity. As such, it lacks capacity to be sued (see paragraph 2).
STM/297950.4

III (collectively, “Defendants”), by their attorneys, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP and Jones Day in response to the Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”).2
ANSWER TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 1. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Marcel “Marc” T. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) purports to bring this lawsuit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated African American managers and professional level employees for race discrimination and injunctive relief, but deny that Plaintiff is similarly situated to other African American managers and professional level employees, deny that Defendants collectively or individually engaged in race discrimination, deny that GE’s pay and promotion policies and procedures are racist and subjective, and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the claimed relief or any relief whatsoever. 2. Defendants admit that Plaintiff sues Defendants and admits that Claudio Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Lauren, Sam Nunn and Douglas A. Warner III are members of GE’s Board of Directors and the Management Development and Compensation Committee, but deny that Defendants carried out and/or assisted any wrongful acts as alleged in the Complaint. Defendants likewise deny that GE Transportation, an unincorporated division of GE, has the capacity to be sued. 3. Defendants admit that Plaintiff makes the allegations contained in the Complaint and respond to each such allegation as set forth below.

2 While this Answer is submitted on behalf of all Defendants, it contains denials of allegations about which the individual defendants may lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. Because a denial of knowledge or information has the same effect as a denial, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(b), where the Company defendants have denied the allegations, the Answer states denials on behalf of all defendants. This blanket denial serves the purpose of streamlining the answer, and avoids the submission of multiple answers on behalf of each defendant. A denial does not mean that each individual defendant has knowledge of the facts on which the denial by the Company defendants is based.

STM/297950.4

-2-

4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, but admit that on March 23, 2005, Jeffrey Immelt responded to a question by an employee about diversity in words substantially consistent with this allegation.
5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. Defendants admit that they promote diversity and that they publicly state they are the “Global Employer of Choice,” but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is one of GE’s African American managers, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was given the title of President, Chairman and CEO of Defendant General Electric Aviation Materials, L.P. (“GEAM”) in 2004, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. Defendants admit that Jack Ryan is a Senior Human Resources manager, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. Defendants admit that in 2005 Plaintiff’s performance rating was “Least Effective,” but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-3-

17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. Defendants admit that they have strongly worded anti-discrimination policies, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint 23. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 25. Defendants admit that GE is headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Defendants admit that plaintiff has brought this action in Federal court rather than use the DRP, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. Defendants admit that Plaintiff has been a manager at GE since 2001, and is currently CEO, President and Chairman of GEAM, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-4-

32. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. Defendants admit that GE Transportation is a multi-billion dollar operating division of GE, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, whose products and services include those identified in the Complaint, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 34. Defendants admit that GEAM is headquartered in Irving, Texas, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. Defendants admit that Jeffrey R. Immelt is a resident of and/or works in Connecticut in his capacity as the CEO of GE and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of GE, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint 36. Defendants admit that David L. Calhoun is the President and CEO of GE Transportation, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 37. Defendants admit that Daniel C. Heintzelman is the Vice President and General Manager for GE Engine Services, Inc., but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. Defendants admit that Charlene T. Begley is the President and CEO of GE Transportation Rail, that GE Transportation Rail is headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania, and that GE Transportation Rail is described on a portion of its website as a “global technology leader and supplier to the railroad, transit, marine engine and mining industries,” but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-5-

39. Defendants admit that Jack F. Ryan is the Vice President of Human Resources for GE Engine Services, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
40. Defendants admit that Marc A. Chini is the Vice President of Human Resources for GE Transportation, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
41. Defendants admit that William J. Conaty is the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for GE, and that GE is headquartered in Connecticut, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
42. Defendants admit that Claudio X. Gonzalez is a member of the Board of Directors of GE and GE’s Compensation Committee, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
43. Defendants admit that Andrea Jung is a member of the Board of Directors of GE and GE’s Compensation Committee, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
44. Defendants admit that Ralph S. Larsen is a member of the Board of Directors of GE and GE’s Compensation Committee, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Defendants admit that Sam Nunn is a member of the Board of Directors of GE and GE’s Compensation Committee, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-6-

46. Defendants admit that Douglas A. Warner III is a member of the Board of Directors of GE and GE’s Compensation Committee, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
47. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
49. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
50. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
51. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
52. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
53. Defendants admit that Plaintiff joined GE’s Corporate Initiative Group (“CIG”) as a manager in Fairfield, Connecticut in 2001, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
54. Defendants admit that while at CIG, Plaintiff was a member of the Corporate Crisis Management Team and that Plaintiff was a member of the Corporate Sourcing Advisory Board, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-7-

55. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint but admit that Plaintiff helped develop a management/supplier digitalization tool to enhance procurement operations within GE, provided guidance and led remote teams to ensure quality in project implementation.
56. Defendants admit that Plaintiff joined GE Rail as a General Manager after he left CIG and that GE Rail is the largest U.S.-based locomotive manufacturer, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
57. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, but admit that GE Transportation achieved over $41 million in cost savings and deflation and reduced the number of sole/single source suppliers. Defendants also admit that Plaintiff negotiated in excess of $135 million in contracts for parts and sub-assemblies.
58. Defendants admit that plaintiff worked with manufacturing and sourcing operations, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
59. Defendants admit that Plaintiff led initiatives, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
60. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint. 61. Defendants admit that Plaintiff holds the positions of President, Chairman and CEO of GEAM in Irving, Texas, and that GEAM is one of nine current business segments of GE Engine Services, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 62. Defendants admit that GEAM is a limited partnership that earned revenues of approximately $180 million in 2004 and specialized in the purchase and sale of turbine engines,

STM/297950.4

-8-

airframes, and refurbished spare parts, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
63. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was offered the position of CEO of GEAM in early 2004 and that Ms. Begley coached Plaintiff on various management techniques, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
64. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 65. Defendants admit that William Fitzgerald discussed with Plaintiff the career opportunities presented by the CEO position at GEAM, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 66. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 67. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 68. Defendants admit that William Thompson’s base salary was higher than Plaintiff’s base salary and that Thompson was in a lower band level and reported to Plaintiff, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 69. Defendants admit that Heintzelman knew that the base salary offered to Plaintiff was less than the salary paid to Plaintiff’s predecessor, Don Schreiber, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 70. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was awarded 2,567 shares of company stock in May, 2004, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 71. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was selected from less than 100 nominees to receive the Latimer award at a luncheon at GE’s corporate headquarters hosted by two GE

STM/297950.4

-9-

officers, and that the award acknowledged Plaintiff’s achievements as quoted in the Complaint, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
72. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was given a plaque with the GE Chairman’s signature inscribed, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
73. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff conducted a top-to-bottom assessment of GEAM’s operations and capabilities soon after becoming CEO of GEAM, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
74. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 75. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 76. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 77. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of the Complaint. 78. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 79. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 80. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 81. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 82. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s preliminary bonus recommendations were adjusted by Plaintiff for some employees as a result of the normal review process and that the adjustments were made for legitimate business reasons unrelated to race or sex, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 83. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-10-

84. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of the Complaint. 85. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 85 of the Complaint. 86. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 87. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 88. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of the Complaint. 89. Defendants admit that GE values integrity and equal opportunity with respect to its employees, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 90. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of the Complaint. 91. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 92. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 92 of the Complaint. 93. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 94. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Complaint. 95. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 96. Defendants admit that Chini counseled Plaintiff on several occasions on the subjects of his leadership style, his performance in relation to possible promotion and compensation, and alternative placement, but deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 96 of the Complaint. 97. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 97 of the Complaint. 98. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of the Complaint. 99. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of the Complaint. 100. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 100 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-11-

101. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of the Complaint. 102. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 102 of the Complaint. 103. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 103 of the Complaint. 104. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 104 of the Complaint. 105. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 105 of the Complaint. 106. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 106 of the Complaint. 107. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 107 of the Complaint. 108. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 108 of the Complaint. 109. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 109 of the Complaint. 110. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 110 of the Complaint. 111. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 111 of the Complaint. 112. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 112 of the Complaint. 113. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 113 of the Complaint. 114. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 114 of the Complaint. 115. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 115 of the Complaint. 116. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 116 of the Complaint. 117. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 117 of the Complaint. 118. Defendants admit that a 2002 PowerPoint presentation and marketing tool contained a reference to the television show “Sanford & Sons,” but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 118 of the Complaint. 119. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 119 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-12-

120. Defendants admit that Schreiber commented to Arnold about caddies during a golf outing prior to Plaintiff’s employment with GEAM, but deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 120 of the Complaint.
121. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 121 of the Complaint. 122. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 122 of the Complaint. 123. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 123 of the Complaint. 124. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 124 of the Complaint. 125. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 125 of the Complaint. 126. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 126 of the Complaint. 127. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 127 of the Complaint. 128. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 128 of the Complaint. 129. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 129 of the Complaint. 130. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 130 of the Complaint. 131. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 131 of the Complaint. 132. Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of a class of current and former African-American managers at GE, but deny that such a class should be certified. 133. Defendants admit that Plaintiff attempts to define the potential class he seeks to represent as set forth in paragraph 133 of the Complaint, but deny that such a class should be certified. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 133 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-13-

134. Defendants admit that Plaintiff attempts to define the potential class he seeks to represent as set forth in paragraph 134 of the Complaint, but deny that such a class should be certified. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 134 of the Complaint.
135. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 135 of the Complaint. 136. The allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 136 of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 136 of the Complaint. 137. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 137 of the Complaint. 138. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 138 of the Complaint. 139. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 139 of the Complaint. 140. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 140 of the Complaint. 141. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 141 of the Complaint. 142. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 142 of the Complaint. 143. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 143 of the Complaint. 144. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is an African-American who worked at GE during the period specified in the Complaint. Defendants deny that any class may be properly certified in this action and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 144 of the Complaint. 145. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 145 of the Complaint. 146. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 146 of the Complaint. 147. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 147 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-14-

148. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 148 of the Complaint. 149. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to seek the relief set forth in paragraph 149, but deny that any class may be properly certified in this action and deny that Plaintiff and/or the class he purports to represent is entitled to any of the relief identified in paragraph 149 of the Complaint or any relief whatsoever. 150. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 150 of the Complaint. 151. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 151 of the Complaint. 152. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 152 of the Complaint. 153. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 153 of the Complaint. 154. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 154 of the Complaint. 155. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 155 of the Complaint.

CLASS COUNTS

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1981

156. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1

through 155 as if fully set forth herein.

157. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this Count on behalf of himself

and all class members as defined by Plaintiff in the Complaint, but deny that any class may be

properly certified in this action and deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 157 of the

Complaint.

158. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 158 of the Complaint.

159. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 159 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-15-

160. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 160 of the Complaint. 161. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 161 of the Complaint. 162. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 162 of the Complaint. 163. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 163 of the Complaint.
COUNT II – TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
164. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 163 as if fully set forth herein.
165. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this Count on behalf of himself and all class members as defined by Plaintiff in the Complaint, but deny that any class may be properly certified in this action and deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 165 of the Complaint.
166. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 166 of the Complaint. 167. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 167 of the Complaint. 168. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 168 of the Complaint. 169. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 169 of the Complaint. 170. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 170 of the Complaint. 171. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 171 of the Complaint.
COUNT III – CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
172. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 171 as if fully set forth herein.

STM/297950.4

-16-

173. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 173 of the Complaint. 174. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 174 of the Complaint. 175. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 175 of the Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CLASS CLAIMS
Responding to the Prayer for Relief on Class Claims in the Complaint, Defendants deny that Plaintiff and/or the purported class members have been or will be damaged by reason of act or omission of Defendants or any officer, agent or employee of the corporate Defendants. Defendants further deny that any act or omission of Defendants or any officer, agent, or employee of the corporate Defendants, violated any rights, statutory or otherwise, of Plaintiff or any purported class member. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff and/or the purported class members are entitled to any of the relief requested in subparagraphs A through P thereof for Counts I through III of the Class Counts contained in the Complaint.
INDIVIDUAL COUNTS
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. – EQUAL PAY AND PROMOTION
176. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 175 as if fully set forth herein.
177. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 177 of the Complaint. 178. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 178 of the Complaint. 179. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 179 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-17-

COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. – RETALIATION
180. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 179 as if fully set forth herein.
181. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 181 of the Complaint. 182. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 182 of the Complaint. 183. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 183 of the Complaint. 184. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 184 of the Complaint. 185. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 185 of the Complaint.
COUNT III – CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT – EQUAL PAY AND PROMOTION
186. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 185 as if fully set forth herein.
187. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 187 of the Complaint. 188. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 188 of the Complaint. 189. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 189 of the Complaint. 190. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 190 of the Complaint.
COUNT IV - CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT – RETALIATION
191. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 190 as if fully set forth herein.
192. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 192 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-18-

193. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 193 of the Complaint. 194. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 194 of the Complaint. 195. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 195 of the Complaint. 196. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 196 of the Complaint.
COUNT V – 42 U.S.C. § 1981
197. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 197 of the Complaint. 198. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 198 of the Complaint. 199. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 199 of the Complaint.
COUNT VI – BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT (ALL GE DEFENDANTS)
200. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 199 as if fully set forth herein.
201. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 201 of the Complaint. 202. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 202 of the Complaint. 203. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 203 of the Complaint. 204. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 204 of the Complaint. 205. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 205 of the Complaint. 206. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 206 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-19-

COUNT VII – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (AGAINST ALL CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT GEAM)
207. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 206 as if fully set forth herein.
208. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 208 of the Complaint. 209. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 209 of the Complaint. 210. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 210 of the Complaint. 211. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 211 of the Complaint. 212. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 212 of the Complaint.

COUNT VIII – INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
213. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 212 as if fully set forth herein.
214. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 214 of the Complaint. 215. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 215 of the Complaint. 216. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 216 of the Complaint. 217. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 217 of the Complaint. 218. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 218 of the Complaint.

COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

219. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 218 as if fully set forth herein.

STM/297950.4

-20-

220. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 220 of the Complaint. 221. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 221 of the Complaint. 222. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 222 of the Complaint. 223. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 223 of the Complaint.
COUNT X – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
224. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 223 as if fully set forth herein.
225. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 225 of the Complaint. 226. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 226 of the Complaint. 227. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 227 of the Complaint. 228. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 228 of the Complaint.
COUNT XI – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
229. Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs 1 through 228 as if fully set forth herein.
230. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 230 of the Complaint. 231. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 231 of the Complaint. 232. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 232 of the Complaint. 233. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 233 of the Complaint. 234. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 234 of the Complaint.

STM/297950.4

-21-

235. Defendants deny each and every other allegation of the Complaint not expressly admitted herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS
Responding to the Prayer for Relief on Individual Claims in the Complaint, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has been or will be damaged by reason of act or omission of Defendants or any officer, agent or employee of the corporate Defendants. Defendants further deny that any act or omission of Defendants or any officer, agent, or employee of the corporate Defendants, violated any rights, statutory or otherwise, of Plaintiff. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in subparagraphs A through K thereof for Counts I through XI of the Individual Counts contained in the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Facts Sufficient to State a Claim)
236. The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration Agreements Bar Bringing Suit)
237. Plaintiff has agreed, as have many members of the putative class he seeks to represent, to arbitrate any or all of the purported claims asserted in the Complaint. The filing of

STM/297950.4

-22-

this Complaint violates such agreements to arbitrate and the Complaint should be dismissed and/or stayed and Plaintiff, and/or putative class members, should be compelled to arbitrate.
THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)
238. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over individual defendants Calhoun, Heintzelman, Begley, Ryan, Chini, Gonzalez, Jung, Larsen, Nunn, and Warner, none of whom are Connecticut residents and none of whom work in Connecticut. The Court also lacks personal jurisdiction over GEAM, which does not transact business in Connecticut. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed against all these defendants under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Venue)
239. Plaintiff is barred from pursuing his claims in the District of Connecticut because venue is improper, and the Complaint, and each purported claim contained therein, with respect to the following Defendants: GEAM, Calhoun, Heintzelman, Begley, Ryan, Chini, Gonzalez, Jung, Larsen, Nunn, and Warner should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, transferred to the proper venue.

STM/297950.4

-23-

FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations)
240. Some or all of Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, a failure to file a charge of discrimination with the proper administrative agency.

SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
241. Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ claims are barred because Plaintiff and the putative class members failed, in whole or in part, to exhaust all available administrative remedies, and/or otherwise failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites to the bringing of this action, including, but not limited to, the assertion of claims that do not fall within the scope of an administrative charge and the failure to obtain a right to sue letter.

SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendant’s Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Decisions)
242. The Complaint, and each purported claim contained therein, is barred in whole or in part because all decisions with respect to Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ employment were made by Defendants for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons.

EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mixed Motive)

243. Defendants did not commit the acts or omissions as alleged in the Complaint for

discriminatory motives, but assuming that they did, such acts or omissions would have been

taken in any event for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons.

STM/297950.4

-24-

NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel)
244. Plaintiff and putative class members are estopped from pursuing the claims in the Complaint, in whole or in part, by reason of the Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ own actions and course of conduct.
TENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver)
245. Plaintiff and putative class members have waived their right, if any, to pursue the claims in the Complaint, in whole or in part, by reason of their own actions and course of conduct.
ELEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Doctrine of Laches)
246. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by the doctrine of laches.
TWELFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Doctrine of Unclean Hands)
247. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
THIRTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendants’ Reasonable Care)
248. The Complaint is barred in whole or in part, because Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any alleged discriminatory and/or retaliatory behavior.

STM/297950.4

-25-

FOURTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Prior Settlement and Release Bars Bringing Suit)
249. To the extent that any putative class member has executed a settlement and release with Defendants and received consideration therefor, any and all claims he or she purports to bring against Defendants, including, without limitation, the claims alleged herein, are barred in their entirety.

FIFTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Venue – Special Venue Provisions of Title VII)
250. Plaintiff and putative class members who do not work for, did not work for, or did not apply for work with Defendants in the District of Connecticut are barred from pursuing their Title VII claims in the District of Connecticut because they cannot satisfy the special venue requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

SIXTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendants’ Practices Consistent with Business Necessity) 251. Insofar as any of Defendants’ hiring, assignment, transfer, compensation or promotion policies, or any other employment policy or procedure utilized by Defendants, has had a statistically adverse impact on African Americans, such policies or practices nevertheless are lawful because they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Differential Treatment Based on Bona Fide Factors)

252. Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ Title VII claims are barred because any

alleged differential treatment of Plaintiff and putative class members by Defendants was

STM/297950.4

-26-

undertaken pursuant to a bona fide merit system, bona fide seniority system, or bona fide factors other than race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).

EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reasonable Care)
253. Defendants have taken reasonable care to prevent and remedy promptly any incidents of alleged discrimination and racial harassment brought to management’s attention. Defendants have policies banning discrimination and harassment in the workplace and a reasonable and available procedure for handling complaints thereof, which provides for prompt and effective responsive action. To the extent that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class failed to reasonably utilize or otherwise avail themselves of these policies and procedures, or to act reasonably in response to Defendants’ corrective and remedial actions, their claims of alleged discrimination and harassment, including common law claims based on such conduct, are barred. To the extent Plaintiff and/or the putative class members have used these policies and procedures and their alleged concerns have been dealt with promptly and effectively, their claims are barred and/or they have suffered no damages as a result.

NINETEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Actual or Constructive Notice)

254. Defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of any alleged racial

discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff and/or the putative class members. To the extent

that Defendants were aware of any allegedly discriminating and harassing behavior, Defendants

exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the alleged discrimination and

harassment.

STM/297950.4

-27-

TWENTIETH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Against Defendants’ Policies)
255. Any instances of discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct by managers of Defendants, the occurrence of which Defendants expressly deny, would have contravened Defendants’ policies and their good faith efforts to enforce and follow Title VII and other antidiscrimination laws.
TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing)
256. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims based on alleged termination practices because Plaintiff’s employment has not been terminated, and, therefore, cannot represent the interests of others.
TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Adverse Employment Action)
257. Plaintiff has not experienced an adverse employment action.
TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Class Conflicts)
258. Class or subclass certification would be inappropriate herein due to conflicts of interest between Plaintiff and purported class or subclass members, or between and among purported class or subclass members.

STM/297950.4

-28-

TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Satisfy Prerequisites Under Rule 23 – Arbitration Venue) 259. Plaintiff cannot satisfy the prerequisites under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”) because some or all of the claims of the named Plaintiff and putative class members are covered by arbitration agreements that require Plaintiff and putative class members to resolve their disputes with Defendants through arbitration brought at a location within twenty five miles from the location where the Plaintiff or putative class member works or most recently worked for Defendants.
TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Appropriate for Class Treatment)
260. The types of claims alleged by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the alleged class are matters in which individual questions predominate and, accordingly, are not appropriate for class treatment.
TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Neither Common Nor Typical)
261. The claims alleged by Plaintiff are neither common to nor typical of those, if any, pertaining to the alleged class Plaintiff purports to represent.
TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Class Treatment is Not Superior Method)
262. Plaintiff has not shown and cannot show that class treatment of the claims alleged herein is superior to other methods of adjudicating the controversy.

STM/297950.4

-29-

TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Inadequate Representatives)
263. The Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are inadequate representatives of any alleged class of persons they purport to represent.
TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Conduct Not Extreme or Outrageous)
264. Any and all claims by Plaintiff based in whole or in part upon any alleged physical or emotional injury or mental distress are barred because no conduct of Defendants was extreme or outrageous or undertaken with the intent of causing, or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
THIRTIETH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate)
265. The Complaint, and each and every purported claim alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part because each Plaintiff and putative class member has failed to mitigate or reasonably attempt to mitigate his or her damages, if any, as required by law.
THIRTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment)
266. The Complaint, and each and every purported claim alleged therein, is barred because any recovery from Defendants would result in Plaintiff’s or a putative class member’s unjust enrichment.

STM/297950.4

-30-

THIRTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legal Remedy Precludes Injunctive and Equitable Relief)
267. Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ claims for injunctive and other equitable relief are barred because Plaintiff and putative class members have an adequate and complete remedy at law.
THIRTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine)
268. Plaintiff and putative class members may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery of damages as alleged and prayed for in the Complaint by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.
THIRTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Absence of Intentional Discrimination Precludes Punitive Damages) 269. Defendants allege that they have not engaged in intentional discrimination with respect to Plaintiff and putative class members, and Defendants therefore cannot be liable for punitive damages.
THIRTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Absence of Malice, Reckless Indifference or Fraud Precludes Punitive Damages) 270. Defendants allege that they have not acted with malice, reckless indifference or fraud toward Plaintiff and putative class members and, therefore, Defendants cannot be liable for punitive damages.

STM/297950.4

-31-

THIRTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Would Constitute Denial of Due Process)
271. Plaintiff and putative class members are not entitled to recover any punitive or exemplary damages as prayed for in the Complaint: any such award as applied to the facts in this case would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under provisions of the United States and state Constitutions, including, but not limited to, the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
THIRTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Plead Facts Sufficient to Support Punitive Damages)
272. Plaintiff and putative class members are not entitled to receive punitive damages because Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to support such an award.
THIRTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendants’ Good Faith Efforts Preclude Punitive Damages)
273. Plaintiff and putative class members are not entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendants have made good faith efforts to prevent discrimination in its workplace.
THIRTY-NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendants’ Policies Preclude Punitive Damages)
274. Plaintiff and putative class members are barred from recovering punitive damages because Defendants had in place training and a policy to prevent discrimination and retaliation in its workplace, and made good faith efforts to implement and enforce that policy.

STM/297950.4

-32-

FORTIETH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Precluded – Individual Decisionmakers) 275. Plaintiff and putative class members are not entitled to receive punitive damages because, even if they were able to establish that any individual manager allowed unlawful bias to affect any employment decision, which Defendants expressly deny, Defendants, in light of their good faith efforts to prevent bias, are not liable for punitive damages based on any such individual decision.
FORTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Liability for Individual Defendants)
276. None of the individual defendants were Plaintiff’s employer under the governing law and, therefore, they are not proper parties to this action.
FORTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Capacity to be Sued)
277. GE Transportation, an unincorporated division of GE, lacks the capacity to be sued.
FORTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statutory Caps)
278. To the extent Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered damage or loss, their recovery is limited by the statutory cap set forth in Title VII.

STM/297950.4

-33-

FORTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Negligence)
279. If Defendants were negligent in any respect, which Defendants expressly deny, then any such negligence on the part of Defendants was less than that of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s recovery should therefore be diminished or barred.

FORTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity)
280. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusivity of the remedy provided by the Texas Workers’ Compensation laws.

FORTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure of Consideration)
281. With respect to all claims founded upon the alleged existence of a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, the existence of which contract is hereby denied, there has been a failure of consideration.

FORTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Frauds)
282. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by the statute of frauds. WHEREFORE, Defendants prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants; 3. That Defendants be awarded their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and

STM/297950.4

-34-

4. That Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and proper.

Dated: June 24, 2005

/s/ Patrick W. Shea Patrick W. Shea (ct 07071) Kenneth W. Gage (ct 12965) PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 1055 Washington Boulevard Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: (203) 961-7400 Facsimile (203) 359-3031 Email: patrickshea@paulhastings.com Email: kennethgage@paulhastings.com

OF COUNSEL:

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Glen D. Nager Allison B. Marshall JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-5464 Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 Email: gdnager@jonesday.com

STM/297950.4

-35-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a member of the Bar of this Court, hereby certifies that he has caused to
be served by overnight mail a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Answer on this 24th day of
June 2005, on the following:
Steven L. Wittels Jeremy Heisler Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP 545 Fifth Avenue Suite 960 New York, New York 10017
David W. Sanford Lisa Goldblatt Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP 2121 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037
Victoria de Toledo Casper & de Toledo LLC 1458 Bedford Street Stamford, Connecticut 06905
Grant Morris Law Offices of Grant Morris 2121 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037
/s/ Ray A. Wynter Ray A. Wynter (ct 25305)

STM/297950.4

-36-

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00788-PCD Document 33 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

and-l MARCEL "MARC" T. THOMAs; in-djvidually

on behalf of a class of similady sifuated Afdcan-

!

American employees,

'!

Plaintift;

- agablst--

GENElRAL EI.ECTRlC COMPANY, GE TRANSPORTATION, GE AViAT10N MATERIALS, L.P. afJrJa GEAM,

, , , , , , ,

JEFFREY R. IMMELT; DAVIDL. CALHOlJN,

, f , ,

DANIEL "DAN" C. HEINTZELMAN, CHARI.ENE T. BEGLEY,
JOHN "JACK" F. RYAN, MARC A. C81NI; WILLIAM "BILL" J. CONATY,
CLAUDIO X. GONZALEZ,

I
I ,
i
,•::,,•,I

ANDREA .JVNG, RALPH S. LARSEN,

, I ,

S.l\.J.vl NUNN, and DOUGLASA. WARNERm,

, :

!

Defeflllllllts.

i ,

- _ . _ - - - _..._-_._ .._-- . . _ - - - - _ . . . !i

Civ. No. 3:05-CV·00788 (PC»)

STIPULAT!QN..Qf:DISWSSAL.MfH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Marcel "Marc" r I homas IIIld Defendants General ElectIic C'..ompany,

GE hanslPortation, GEAviationMflteliaIs,LP, JeffieyR Immelt, DavidL Calhoun,
Daniel "Dan" Heintzelman, Cballene r Begley, John "Jack" Ryan, Marc A Chlni,

William ":Bill" J Conaty. Claudio X. Gonzal~ Andrea Tung, Ralph S Larsen, Sam
Nunn, and Douglas A Warner, m, through theil und(l!signed counsel, and pursuant to

FedeI,a] Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (aXl) hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice

of any and all claims flSseJ:ted by Plajutiff against the Defendants

Case 3:05-cv-00788-PCD Document 33 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2

:?-wa ~~l&)Lw
David ' Sanford Lisa Goldblatt SANFORD, W!1 IBIS & HEISL,ER, LLP
2121 K Street, N W
Suite 700 Washintgloo, DC 20037 I elephane: (202) 942-9124
:ay~"sl'~-~,8!2XQ:"\Jd.-.~_~_
GilUIt > onis
LAW OFFICES OF GRANt MORRIS
2121 K. StIeet, N W Suite 7010
Washington, D C, 200,)7 Telephone: (202) 661-3520 Facsimile: (202) 628,8189
Counsel for Plaintiff
By: r;f<i -~ . ,5t;:._~ ,,,,
~e1t.M;;o" T rhomas

• c '~7

BY;---C:!H~~"--" __"_____'
Steven

Jelemy ,eisler

SANFORD, WllIllLS & HIlISLER, LLP

545 Fifth Avenue

Suite 9~O
New York, N:Y 10017

Telephone: (646) 723-2947

Facsimile: (646) 7~

~'-'-"-

By:

__ ,,"_, .. _"""""' _ _

Victotia De Toledo

CASl'El< & Dl> l'OIJlDO

1458 Bedfold Street
Stamford, C r 06905

I e1ephone: (203) 325..8600

hcsimile: (203) 323,,5970

* i- By:
Glcm

' ::7k ;"7~ ~ J,ta6~

NagCl 7

7

Alison B Marshall

JONBSDAY

5] Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001-2113

1eJephonc: (202) 879..3939

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700

Goume1 fbr DifenrlanTJ

/ By: .c.'..)...'-~:t.{-~-~"j~¥-,-

Patlick W Shea

C_~7

Kenneth William Gage

PAUL, HAS!lNGS. JANO\'SJ('Y & WALKER 1055 Washingron Blvd, 9lh Floor
Stamford, cr 06901

Ielephone: (203) 961-74'34

:Facsimile: (203) 359- 30n

 
 SDSD District Version 1.3

3/19/08 6:31 AM

CLOSED, EFILE, STAYED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00788-PCD

Thomas v. General Electric Co et al Assigned to: Judge Peter C. Dorsey Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 05/17/2005 Date Terminated: 01/27/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Marcel T. Thomas Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated African-American employees

represented by David W. Sanford Sanford, Wittels & Heisler - Conn Ave (DC) 1666 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 202-742-7780 Fax: 202-742-7776 Email: dsanford@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grant E. Morris The Law Office of Grant Morris 2121 K Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 202-486-0678 Fax: 202-628-8189 Email: grantemorris@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy Heisler Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP-NY 545 5th Avenue, Suite 960 New York, NY 10017 646-723-2947 Fax: 646-723-2948 Email: jheisler@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 1 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3

3/19/08 6:31 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa A. Goldblatt Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP-DC 2121 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 202-942-9136 Fax: 202-628-8189 Email: lgoldblatt@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP-NY 545 5th Avenue, Suite 960 New York, NY 10017 646-723-2947 Fax: 914-273-2563 Email: swittels@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria De Toledo Casper & de Toledo 1458 Bedford Street Stamford, CT 06905 203-325-8600 Fax: 203-323-5970 Email: vdetoledo@cadetlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant General Electric Co

represented by Alison B. Marshall Jones Day-DC 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 202-879-7611 Fax: 202-626-1700 Email: abmarshall@jonesday.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Button Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP -

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 2 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3 https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

3/19/08 6:31 AM
NY 75 East 55th Street, 1st floor New York, NY 10022 212-318-6000 Fax: 212-319-4090 Email: christinebutton@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager Jones Day-DC 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 202-879-5464 Fax: 202-626-1700 Email: gdnager@jonesday.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLPIL 191 North Wacker Dr. 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 312-499-6046 Fax: 312-499-6146 Email: kennethgage@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 75 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 212-318-6405 Fax: 212-752-2542 Email: patrickshea@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT 1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203-961-7400 Fax: 203-359-3031
Page 3 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant GE Transportation
Defendant GE Aviation Materials LP also known as GEAM

3/19/08 6:31 AM
Email: raywynter@paulhastings.com TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 4 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3

3/19/08 6:31 AM

Defendant Jeffrey R. Immelt

Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 5 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3

3/19/08 6:31 AM

Defendant David L. Calhoun
Defendant Daniel C. Heintzelman also known as Dan

Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 6 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant Charlene T. Begley

3/19/08 6:31 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 7 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant John F. Ryan also known as Jack
Defendant Marc A. Chini

3/19/08 6:31 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 8 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant Claudio X. Gonzalez

3/19/08 6:31 AM
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 9 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant Andrea Jung
Defendant Ralph S. Larsen

3/19/08 6:31 AM
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 10 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant Sam Nunn

3/19/08 6:31 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 11 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Defendant Douglas A. Warner, III
Defendant William J. Conaty also known as

3/19/08 6:31 AM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison B. Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison B. Marshall (See above for address)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 12 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
Bill

3/19/08 6:31 AM
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Button (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glen D. Nager (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth William Gage (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick W. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray A. Wynter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/17/2005
05/17/2005 05/17/2005 05/19/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number B01099.), filed by Marcel T. Thomas.(Candee, D.) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Motions to Dismiss due on 8/17/05. Amended Pleadings due by 7/16/2005. Discovery due by 11/16/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 12/16/2005. Signed by Clerk on 5/17/05. (Candee, D.) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
3 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/17/05. (Candee, D.) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
4 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Peter C. Dorsey for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/19/05. (Pesta, J.)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 13 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
05/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/24/2005 06/24/2005
06/27/2005
07/14/2005
07/14/2005
07/15/2005 07/18/2005

3/19/08 6:31 AM
(Entered: 05/19/2005)
5 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Re: Motion Filing Procedure (Villano, P.) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth William Gage on behalf of all defendants (Gage, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick W. Shea on behalf of all defendants (Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Button on behalf of all defendants (Button, Christine) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Ray A. Wynter on behalf of all defendants (Wynter, Ray) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP. (Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
11 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt.(Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
12 NOTICE by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt Defendants' Certification of Compliance Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order on Motions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Defendants' Certification)(Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
14 MOTION for Leave for Attorney Glen D. Nager to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016029. by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
16 MOTION for Leave for Attorney Kenneth W. Gage to Appear pro hac vice. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016029. by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
13 MOTION for Extension of Time until 8/8/05 to respond to 1 Complaint & Motion to Compel Arbitration by Marcel T. Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Manual Filing)(Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Attorney Glen D. Nager to Appear pro hac vice

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 14 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
07/18/2005 07/20/2005
07/20/2005 07/21/2005 07/29/2005
08/01/2005
08/03/2005
08/05/2005
08/08/2005 08/08/2005 09/06/2005

3/19/08 6:31 AM
. Signed by Clerk on 7/18/05. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Attorney Alison B. Marshall to Appear pro hac vice . Signed by Clerk on 7/18/05. (Pesta, J.) Modified on 7/21/2005 (Pesta, J.). (Entered: 07/18/2005)
18 MOTION for Leave for Attorney Grant Morris, Lisa Goldblatt, Steven L. Wittles, David W. Sanford & Jeremy Heisler to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Marcel T. Thomas. Filing Fee $25.00 each. Receipt Number N016081. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Affidavit # 3 Affidavit # 4 Affidavit # 5 Affidavit # 6 Affidavit)(Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Attorney Grant Morris, Lisa Goldblatt, Steven L. Wittles, David W. Sanford & Jeremy Heisler to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Clerk on 7/20/05. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Docket Entry Correction: Modified text of 17 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice to reflect correct attorney (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Alison B. Marshall on behalf of David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Glen D. Nager on behalf of David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
22 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt.Responses due by 8/24/2005 (Gage, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
23 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time. The time for any amendment to the complaint and for plaintiff's response to the motion to compel arbitration is extended to August 8, 2005. The parties will note the Supplemental Order entered herein. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 8/5/05. (Miller, K.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Sanford on behalf of Marcel T. Thomas (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa A. Goldblatt on behalf of Marcel T. Thomas (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
26 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 15 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3
09/28/2005 09/28/2005 10/04/2005
10/11/2005 11/22/2005
12/05/2005
12/06/2005
01/25/2006 01/27/2006

3/19/08 6:31 AM
THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Settlement/Status Conference set for Friday, 9/30/2005, at 11:30 AM in Chambers Room 107, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before PJO David E. Schancupp. See attached calendar for details. (Miller, K.) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
27 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay. Satus conference on 9/30/05 will be rescheduled. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 9/28/05. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Set Deadline: Status Report due by 12/2/2005. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
28 MOTION for Ray A. Wynter to Withdraw as Attorney by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt. (Wynter, Ray) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
29 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 28 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ray A. Wynter terminated. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 10/11/05. (Miller, K.) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
30 STIPULATION Re Filing of Amended Complaint by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, Marcel T. Thomas, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt. (Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
31 STATUS REPORT by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt. (Shea, Patrick) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by David L. Calhoun, Daniel C. Heintzelman, Charlene T. Begley, John F. Ryan, Marc A. Chini, Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam Nunn, Douglas A. Warner, III, William J. Conaty, General Electric Co, GE Transportation, GE Aviation Materials LP, Jeffrey R. Immelt re 31 Status Report, (Button, Christine) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
33 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Marcel T. Thomas. (Sanford, David) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
34 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting re 33 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Marcel T. Thomas, . Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 1/27/06. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

PACER Service Center
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 16 of 17

SDSD District Version 1.3

Transaction Receipt

03/19/2008 07:30:50

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: Kuznick

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:05-cv-00788-PCD

Billable Pages: 10

Cost:

0.80

3/19/08 6:31 AM

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242067563869626-L_195_0-1

Page 17 of 17