RECEf\6:iDHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Iqqq SEP· IbPI: I 8 NORTHERN DIVISION

FILED
S£lll~~

Plaintiff,
vs.
ALADAN CORPORATION/ LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP
Defendants.

U.

$.

CLERK blSTRtCT

comrr

]

MIDDLE DI5T. OF AL.A.

]

N ]
]

civil

Action

No.

Cf9-T- 10'69-

]

]

]

]

]

COMPLAINT

]

]

]

]

JURy TRIAL DEMAND

]

]

NATURE OF THE ACTION

\

"

This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, to correct unlawful employm~nt practices on the basis

1

of race and to make whole Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary

J

Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and a class of employees aggrieved

by the unlawful practices. The Defendant discriminated against
i'
Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver~ Joann Ford and other
/
similarly situated' individuals by sUb~ecting them to racially

hostile harassment, sexually hostile harassment, different terms

and conditions of employment based upon race and discharge based

upon race and/or retaliation.

,,
I

_ " - - _ . _ - - ....~ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - -

~--------_.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28. U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §§ 704 (a), 706 (f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of . 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981A.
2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being committed within the juridiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.
PARTIES
3. The Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the II Commission 11 ), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 706 (f) (1) 0 f Tit 1 e VI I, 42 U. S . C . § 2000 e - 5 (f) (1) .
4. At all relevant times, the Defendant, Aladan Corporation/London International Group (the 11 Employer If ) has been doing . business in the state of Alabama and the City of Eufaula, and has had at least fifteen (15) employees.
5. At all relevant times, the Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employe+ engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e- (b), (g) and (h).
2

.'~ -,
.~~
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford and Alicia Green filed Charges of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least on or about March 5, 1995, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Eufaula, Alabama facility in violation of §§ 703(a) (1), 704(a) and 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1), 3 (a) and 8 (c) These practices include subjecting the Defendants' employees to racially hostile harassment, sexually hostile harassment, different terms and conditions of employment based upon race and discharge based upon race and/or retaliation.
8. The effect of the practices complained of above has. been to deprive Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other similarly 8ituated individualS of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race, sex and in retaliation for their protest of racial harassment.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally
3

protected rights of Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race, sex or which retaliate against persons because they refuse to submit to racial and/or sexual harassment and/or because they report the racial and/or sexual harassment. B. Order the Defendants to institute and carry out policies] practices and pr.ograms which provide equal employment opportunit:Les for all of their employees regardless of race or sex and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment . practices. C. Order the Defendants to -make whole Loretta Johnson, Malinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other similarly situated individuals adversely affected or aggrieved by the unlawful employment practices described above by providing; where appropriate, back pay with prejudgment interest, in amo1..1.nts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices] including but not limited to reinstatement.
4
-

D. Order the Defendants to make whole Loretta Johnson,

Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other

similarly situated individuals adversely affected or aggrieved by

the unlawful employment practices described above by providing·

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, including

medical expenses and job search expenses.

E. Order the Defendants to make whole Loretta Johnson,

Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other,

similarly situated individuals adversely affected or aggrieved by'

the unlawful employment practices described above by providing them

wi th compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including pain and

suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, isolation, depression,

loss of credit, and loss of enjoyment of life.

F. order the Defendants to pay Loretta Johnson, Molind&

Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and other similarly

situated individuals adversely affected or aggrieved by the

unlawful employment practices described above punitive damages for

their malicious and/or reckless conduct, in an amount to be

determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary

and proper.

,I

H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact

raised by the Amended Complaint.

5

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

.....

..=. -_"_-....._ _2'!C".:Id:i!·~"7'WCW·.,.""'i..Xf·WW~

,1,.......
Respectfully submitted, C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel (Designate) GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMJVlISSION 1801 ilL" Street, Washington, DC
JILL LOLLEY VINCENT Supervisory Trial Attorney
K. AGEE Trial Attorne
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1900 Third Avenue, North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2397 Telephone: (205) 731-1299.

_""

6

.....

......_ _....._ .......

" " " " ' _......

. , . . " . ~ ~ t ~ . : : ; . r . : . ~ . ~

 
 .." '

cc; {',~rl;]Q;IDNrTEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT "".~' -'FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

, \l!~1 _? A \0: ~RTHERN DIVISION
lUUU J'J"\ i-

BARBARA STRJ$ptERVfki~~~:~':'

~

FILeD '~

: { JUN 7~(·1

'"

CLERK

U. S. DISTRICT COUR' :

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

MANDERVILLJ?:,ANt5\lAtl;'QiIJ'EUNE

]

MASSEY

Plaintiffs,

]

]

A

J Civil Action No: CV~99,8-674-N

]

VS.

]

]

LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC, ]

formerly known as Schmid Laboratories, LLC

]

]

Defendant.

]

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff,
VS • .
ALADAN CORP.! LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP
Defendant.

] ] ] ] Civil Action No. CV-99-T-I089-N ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

I. INTRODUCTION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e~, guarantees workers that they will be free from employment discrimination on the basis of sex and race.

,•

'>·:@i:.7"~D-<j/,,·, "

.. . . . ,......

- 0 , " ";0'

,

E00 .......... t, "

i

I~

~~

zzm...t.c_=_.

a r c. =. . .r.m. . a. .T. .'. . . . .

m_...'--_ T., ..........·•..''.''''jllM.·'.... .

~'~I'.'..... .

_

On July 2, 1999 Plaintiffs Barbara Streeter, Jacqueline Massey and Teresa Manderville filed a Complaint against London International Group, LLC (an entity now known as SSL U.S. Manufacturing, LLC) (LIG) alleging retaliation, harassment on the basis of their race and sex, and discrimination on the basis of their race and sex in violation of Title VIl of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 1IG filed an Answer denying the allegations and raising
various defenses. On September 16, 1999, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed
suit in this Court against Aladan Corp. (a corporation separate and apart from LIG that no longer exists) and LIG. The EEOC's Complaint alleged that LIG's Eufaula facility discriminated against Loretta Johnson, Malinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and a class of similarly situated individuals by subjecting them to a racially hostile environment, a sexually hostile environment, different terms and conditions of employment based upon race and discharge based upon race and/or retaliation.
Aladan was never served. LIG was served in early January, 2000 and on or about March 3~ 2000 LIG timely filed an Answer in which it denied the alleged unlawful conduct against Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green and a class of similarly situated individuals, if any, and raised various defenses.
On or about March 16,2000 Loretta Johnson, Malinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green, Barbara Streeter, Teresa Manderville and Jacqueline Massey (hereinafter the Plaintiff~ Intervenors) filed a Complaint in Intervention alleging that they were discriminated against on the basis of a racially and sexually hostile environment, sexual harassment, retaliation and disparate treatment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C.
2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - , ._ _. . . . . -

. . . . . . . ~ ~ . . ; , _ _ . : : a ; '

,it~

Section 1981. LIG filed an Answer to the Complaint in Intervention, denying th~ unlawful conduct alleged by Plaintiff-Intervenors, and raised various defenses.
On or about April 4, 2000 LIG filed a Motion to Consolidate the two cases. The Court hereby grants LIG's Motion to Consolidate.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS The Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Intervenors and the Defendant, being desirous of settling this action by Consent Decree, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court concerning questions of the employment practices of the Defendant as outlined above. This Decree, being entered into with the consent of the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors and LTG, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case, and shall in no manner be construed as an admission by LIG of any violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 u.S.C § 1981, orany other applicable federal or law. LTG is entering into this Decree for the sole purpose of avoiding the ex:pense and uncertainty of further litigation and continues to say that it has not violated any person's rights under the law. This Decree is binding upon the EEOC, thePlaintiff-Xntervenors and LIG as to the iss)..les resolved herein. In the.event LIG closes, sells, or otherwise. transfers the Eufaula facUity to a person or entity not a party to this Decree ("Third Party"), LIG shall be relieved from aU non-monetary obligations under the Decree. LIG further agrees that it will inform the EEOC of any such closure, sale or transfer ofthe Eufaula facility so that EEOC will be informed of the consequent cessation. of non-monetary relief under the Consent Decree. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Consent Decree, the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors and LIG all agree that in the event of a sale or transfer of the Eufaula facility to any Third Party, StIch, Third Party will not be bound by ,any
3

--------------------~---~------------.-. - - . ..=...",.!~~G':.o~

i
I

--~-------~----_._------_.~--,-_:._-------

I

provision of this Decree, by successorship or otherwise, absent the Third Party's express and written assumption of any such provision. The claims resolved by this Decree are those which were alleged in Charges of Discrimination numbers 130- 97-1947, 130-97-1949, 130-97·2110, 130-97·2846, i30~ 97-1946 and 130-98~2047, and all other claims asserted in the Complaint and/or Complaint in Intervention in the above styled lawsuits. The EEOC and LIG agree that this Consent Decree does not resolve any charges which may be pending with the EEOC, or which may be filed in the future with the EEOC, other-than those charges specifically referted to in this Consent Decree.
The Court being fully advised of the premises does hereby ORDER, ADJUDGE and· DECREE as follows:
II. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS A. TIlis Court has jurisdiction to decide this controversy as to the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors and LTG. This Court will retain jurisdiction for the next eighteen (18) mon:~1s so that any dispute arising out of the administration of this Decree can be adjudicated. ThisDec.ree shall expire by its own terms eighteen (18) months after its execution. B. LTG will immediately post the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "AII)n a prominent and conspicuous place, at its Eufaula facility, visible to all employees. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree. C. As a condition of receipt of any monetary payment the Plaintiff-Intervenors shall be required to sign a Settlement Agreement, General Release and Waiver as agreed upon by Defendant's counsel and Plaintiff-Intervenors' coupse!. . D. LTG will pay to the Plaintiff-Intervenors through their counsel the amount of $500,000.00 as monetary settlement ofthese lawsuits and EEOC Charge numbers 130-97-1947, 130-
4

~.,--._._-------~

=..=..=....=..=...=...-.""·:m.:.;... . _.J.I.C.Q.l'·._.~.';".'..

rtU".li:,""-»""'''''''''W:J:1<'·,'wrOO·V","'''rp=m:::'~

97-1949, 130-97-2110, 130-97-2846, 130-97-1946 and 139-98-2047. The settlement amount will be for compensatory damages and attorney's fees as the parties have mutually agreed and the court hereby determines the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any backpay. The payments to the PlaintiffIntervenors will be made to their counsel no later than fourteen days from the date of the signing of this Consent Decree, provided, however, that notwithstanding any other provision of this Decree, no money shall be released to any Plaintiff-Intervenor until LIG receives the fully executed and notarized original Settlement Agreement, General Release and Waiver agreed to by counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors and Defendant.
E. Within thirty days of the receipt of Settlement Agreements set forth in paragraph D, above, a copy of the check(s) and the certified mail receipt and correspondence evidencing payment will be mailed by LTG to Pamela K. Agee, Senior Trial Attorney,EEOC, Birmingham District Office, 1900 Third Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.
F. By December 1,2000, LIG will pay $125,000 in compensatory damages-to individuals who are identified by the EEOC as aggrieved individuals, in amounts to be determined by the EEOC. Each check shall be sent to each identified individual by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. At the same time that LIG. pays. the ide, ntified aggrieved individuals LIG. shall send a copy to the EEOC, c/o Pamela K. Agee, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 1900 Third .Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, of each check mailed to said individuals as proof of payment. Upon LIG's receipt of proof of delivery, LIG shall send the EEOC, c/o Pamela K. Agee, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 1900 Third Avenue North, Binningham, AL 35203, a copy of each return receipt. This payment will be for settlement in full of EEOC Charge numbers 130-97-1.947, . 130-97-1949, 130-97-2110, 130-97-2846, 130-97-1946 and 130-98-2047 and this lawsuit for the
5

aggrieved individuals identified by the EEOC. No later than November 15,2000 the EEOC will

provide the Defendant with executed Releases, a sample copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit

"B", of those individuals that it has identified as aggrieved individuals.

G. The Defendant shall not retaliate in any manner against the Plaintiff-

Intervenors or any person who participated in this lawsuit or in the investigation of EEOC Charge

of Discrimination numbers 130- 97-1947,130-97-1949,130-97-2110,130-97-2846, 130-97-1946

and 130-98-2047.

H. Within three months of the signing of this Decree, LIG will establish and

distribute a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation to

all current and any new employee hired thereafter at its Eufaula facility.

I.

Every six months, for the duration ofthis Decree, LIG will report to the EEOC

any complaints of racial or sexual harassment that it has received at its Eufaula facility, the res.ults

of the investigation and what, if any action it took in response to the complaint.

J.

LTG shall continue to utilize inEufaula its Equal Opportunity and Harassment

Policy with the issue date of August 28,1990 and revision date of February 10, 1994.

K. .Within three months of the signing of this Decree, LIG will provide training

to its Eufaula management employees on federal employment laws and specifically Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in the form of at least one four hour seminar by instructotS

of its choice who are competent to so. (The Defendant may use, but is not required to use, the

EEOC's Employer Specific Training for the training.) The employees who attend the trainil1g

sessions will be required to sign an attendance roster. The Defendant llgrees that copies of said raste]:

and an outline or program of the training course shall be mailed to Pamela K. Agee, Senior Trial

6

Attorney at 1900 3rd Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL '35203 within 30 days of each training session. LTG shall provide a similar training session during the last six months of the Decree period. Unless the Eufaula facility is closed, sold or otherwise transferred to a Third Party, this provision shall remain in effect during the duration of the Decree.
L. Within three months of the signing of this Decree LIG will provide training to its non-management Eufaula employees on Federal Employment Laws and specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in the form of at least one hour seminar by instructors of its choice who are competent to so. (The Defendant may, but is not required to use the EEOC's
E!I1ployer Specific Training for the training.) The employees who attend the training sessions will
be required to sign an attendance roster. The Defendant agrees that copies of said roster and an outline or program of the training course shall be mailed to Pamela K. Agee, Senior Trial Attorney at 1900 3rd Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203 within 30 days of each training session. LTG shall provide a similar training session during the last six months of the Decree period. Unless the Eufaula facility is closed, sold or otherwise transferred to a Third Party, this provision shall remain in effect during the duration of the Decree.
M. Within three months of the signing of this Decree LTG will provide trainingl to those individuals responsible for investigating harassment complaints, in Eufaula, on how to
investigate sexual harassment and racial harassment complaints and on the appropriate actions to
take upon the completion ofthe investigation. LlG shall provide a similar training session during the last six months of the Decree period. Unless the Eufaula facility is closed, sold or otherwise transferred to a Third Party, this provision shall remain in effect during the duration of the Decree.
7

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

.,.~""'''''''''''."...·.........

=. . .~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~

N. Within three months of the signing of this Decree, LIG will institute a program wherein thereafter it will train all new Eufaula employees on sexual harassment, racial harassment, retaliation and the zero tolerance policy, including giving each new employee a copy of the policies and discussing the policies with each new employee. Unless the Eufaula facility is closed, sold or otherwise transferred to a Third Party, this provision shall remain in effect during the duration of the Decree.
O. Within three months of the signing of this Decree, LIG will establish and distribute in its Eufaula facility a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation to all current and any new Eufaula employees hired thereafter. Unless. the Eufaula facility is closed, sold or otherwise transferred to a Third Party, this provision shall remain in effect during the duration of the Decree.
P. LIG has asserted that it has a policy of providing only neutral references for its employees and former employees. Based upon that assertion, LIG will provide a neutral reference for those Charging Parties and aggrieved individuals identified by the EEOC in the future who have left the employment ofLIG. That reference shall include name, date of hire, last date of employment held and position(s) held and shall state that this is LIG's policy concerning aU reference requests.
Q, LIG will follow its policy ofproviding only a neutral referenc.c if any potential
employer contacts it about the Charging Parties and aggrieved individuals identified by the EEOC in the future, LIG will not disclose any documents relating to the Charging Parties and aggrieved individuals identified by the EEOC in the future concerning any disciplinary andlor discharge
8

information except by court order or as required by the United States government to establish

compliance for the purposes of goverrunent contracts.

R. 11G will provide the EEOC with the name, last known address, phone number

and social security number of all female and African-American employees employed at its Eufaula

facility between January 1, 1997 and the present within 30 days of the signing of this Consent

Decree.

S. 11G will pay the costs of notice publication in the MQntgQmelY Advertis.e:r

and Eufaula Tribune for three consecutive Sundays.

T, LTG will pay the cost of the mediation of this case.

U. LTG, the EEOC, and the Plaintiff·Intervenors shall each be responsible for

their own attomeys' fees and costs in this litigation.

If the terms and conditions of this Decree are violated or breached during the life of chis

Decree, as set forth above, the parties may petition the Court for further Orders, adjudication and

relief in this matter.

DONE and ORDERED this ,., .fI1 day of

~_,a,

_

~TATES JUDGE

By Consent:

FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

C. GREGORY STEWART General COl.IDsel

9

· - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ ". .

..m..:.w.z....

.' ...._ _. . . .".. . . .

.... '7PU"1t::l1""""""·-;.'I:l:'",tN··1fIT';;z;:·~·-X'~~:au:

_ - - - - _ . _ - .~--------~_..

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General COlillsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 ilL" Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20507
PAMELA K. AGEE Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Birmingham District Office 1900 Third Avenue, North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2397
d~~ ~IAN~~ '-
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS' ATTORNEY IN FACT Roberson & Roberson Suite 300 Lakeview School Building 808 29th Street, South Birmingham, AL 35205
10

FOR LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC (NOW KNOWN AS SSL U.S. MANUFACTURING, LLC):
R. DAVID PROCTOR STEVEN M. STASTNY LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC'S ATTORNEYS IN FACT
Lehr Middlebrooks Price & Proctor, P.C. 2021 3rd Avenue, North Suite 300 Birmingham, AL 35203

11

----

"r_·_=_==_.
~

'...

. . .. _""1w_rT ~· ~·~~~

NOTICE
AS REQUIRED UNDER THE TITLE TIl OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED
LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC agrees to the following:
1. Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment, beca~se of such person's sex and/or race.
2. London International Group, LLC supports and will comply with such federal laws in all
respects am;l will not discriminate against any employee because of the person's sex and/or·
race.
3. London International Group, LLC affirms that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee by sex and/or race in work envirOlID1ent or in any other tenns and
conditions of employment. It further affirms that it is unlawful for an employer to in any
manner retaliate against any individual who opposes or assists one in opposing sex and/or race discrimination in any term or condition of employment.

Signed this _ _ day of

--,-, 2000.

London International Group, LLC

EXHIBIT A

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_......""""'ormmr_..r.t..._n

n'_='C"'

_.._.

..

_...

.

.

.

.

'.=..._..-.........,.......... .. ......,m..........

""""''''''.......,'''''··h~ ,~_--~~3oiWr

RELEASE

I,

, for and in consideration of the promise by London International

Group, LLC to pay to me the gross sum of $

, agree to the following:

I,

, hereby release and forever discharge London International

Group, LLC, SSL Americas, Inc., SSL U,S. Manufacturing, LLC and their employees, agents,

directors, officer, successors, associate and affiliates and each of them, from any and all Title VII

claims asserted in Civil Action # CV-99-T-1089-N and EEOC Charge Numbers 130- 97-1947, 130-

97-1949,130-97-2110,130-97-2846,130-97-1946 and 130-98-2047.

I understand that London International Group, LLC has not admitted liability to me or to anyone else by the payment recited herein or otherwise.

It is my understanding that by signing this Release and accepting the monetary relief provided hereunder, that I am in effect resolving any and all claims that I may have for reinstatement to any position with London International Group, LLC, SSL Americas, Inc" or SSL U. S. Manufacturing, LLC.

This document and the Consent Decree filed in this lawsuit recite the full and complete tenns

ofthis agreed Release given by myself,

, to London International Group,

LLC, SSL Americas, Inc. and SSL U.S. Manufacturing, LLC,

Sworn and subscribed before me this_ _day of

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:

13969.wpd

EXHIBITB

13

,2000.
~

-----,-------------....,.

........._ ... _:1'

·mn.....,..··""~~~w

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

FILED .,.J. L.
MAR22.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

CLERK U. S. DISTRWT OOURT
MIDDLE DIST. OF AL.A.

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action Number: 99-T-1089-N

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ALADANI LONDON INTERNATIONAL )

GROUP, LLC, etc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

,

1

COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

COME NOW the Plaintiff-lntervenors,Loretta Johnson ("Johnson"), .

Molinda Jacobs ("Jacobs"), Mary Culver ("Culver"), Joann Ford ("Ford"), Alicia

Green("Green"), Barbara Streeter ("Streeter"), Teresa Manderville ("Manderville"), and

[

Jacqeline Massey ("Massey") (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as

"Plaintiff-Intervenors"), and bring the present action against the defendant by stating as'

follows: 1.

I. JURISDICTION
f
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

1343(4), 2201, 2202, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq., a,nd 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, as

amended, This is a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Act of

Congress known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended, including the "Civil

Rights Act of 1991" and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, as amended. The jurisdiction of this

court is invoked to secure protection of and redress deprivation of rights secured by 42
,.

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, providing for injunctive and other relief against race discrimination, sexual and racial harassment and retaliation.
2. The Plaintiff-Intervenors have fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action under Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended by the "Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. All Plaintiff-Intervenors, except Massey and Manderville, timely filed charges of discrimination alleging racially and sexually hostile work environments, racially disparate treatment, sex harassment and retaliation within 180 days of the last discriminatory act. Intervenor-Plaintiffs Manderville and Massey rely upon the EEOC charges filed by the other plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors under the "Single-Filer Rule." Plaintiff-Intervenor Streeter has received her Right to Sue from the EEOC and' filed her original lawsuit within 90 days from her receipt thereof. The EEOC filed the present suit on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenors Johnson, Ford, Green, Jacobs and Culver based upon their EEOC charges. Therefore, no Right-to Sue letters have been issued to those plaintiff-intervenors.
II. PARTIES 3. All plaintiff-intervenors are female African-Americans who were employed by the defendant at its Eufaula, Alabama facility at all times relevant hereto. 4. Defendant, London International Group, L.L.C. formally known as Schmid Laboratories, LLC., is sUbject to suit under Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended by the "Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. At all times relevant hereto tne
2

==:m:

-

.'\
defendant was the employer of the plaintiff-Intervenors. The defendant employs at least (15) persons.
III. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Hostile Environment 5. The plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-4 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein below. 6. There existed at all times relevant hereto, at the Eufaula location of the defendant, a racially and sexually hostile work environment which effected minorities and females. This hostile environment included, but was not limited to, the prevention of blacks from receiving promotions; the dissemination of racially and sexually explicit flyers and cartoons over a period of time; sexual harassment by male co-workers and supervisors; racially insensitive and derogatory remarks made by white supervisors and other male employees; writing up and/or disciplining blacks for conduct which would not result in discipline for white employees; requiring black employees to take written tests to transfer to identical jobs on a different shift; refusal to appropriately respond or to take corrective action when complaints were made concerning all of the above actions; and finally a policy of retaliating against any employee who complained about the above-described actions. 7. Systematic discrimination existed at the defendant company against both minorities and females as a result of the policies and procedures being follovved and
3

implemented at the defendant company. The defendant did not act in good faith in response to any complaints about discriminatory behavior. In fact, the defendant failed and refused on numerous occasions to investigate or take disciplinary action against persons it knew were engaging in the types of behavior described above.
8. The above-described actions on the part of the defendant constitute a . violation of Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended, including the "Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C.§ 1981, as amended. In addition, the effect of Defendant's discrimination as outlined above has been to deprive the plaintiff-intervenors of the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by similarly situated white persons in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended.
9. The Plaintiff-Intervenors have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, financial hardship, mental distress, emotional pain and anguish as a consequence of the defendant's unlawful discriminatory conduct.
10. The wrongful conduct of Defendant described above was carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of PlaintiffIntervenors, thereby entitling Plaintiff-Intervenors to punitive damages.
B. Sexual Harassment 11. The plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-10 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein below.
4

""%10

'"

1\. ..

,(-"<:..
't-::J

12. Plaintiff-Intervenors Ford, Massey, Green, Johnson and Culver were subjected to sexual ~arassment during their employment by, among others, Roger Hall ("Hall"), a white male supervisor.
13. Hall had a history of sexual harassment toward female employees and the defendant was on notice of Hall's behavior. Hall had been found by the defendant to have violated both its sex and racial harassment policies prior to the harassment against the above-named plaintiff-intervenors. Hall was known, among other things, to . have dated subordinates; rub his penis against female employees; distribute sexually graphic cartoons in the workplace; and distribute racially offensive cartoons in the workplace. By its own admission, the defendant should have terminated Hall, yet did not even suspend or counsel Hall as their so-called "harassment policy" required. Instead, they gave Hall a raise and he moved to another shift and began sexually harassIng a new group of employees, including the plaintiff-intervenors referenced above. Hall eventually left the employ of the defendant voluntarily and is eligible for rehire.
14. Said Plaintiff-Intervenors have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, financial hardship, mental distress, emotional pain and anguish as a consequence of the defendant's unlawful cQnduct.
15. The wrongfUl conduct of Defendant described above was carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of PlaintiffIntervenors, thereby entitling Plaintiff-Intervenors to punitive damages.

5

W S ' ' '. . . . ..,mc

- - - - - ------.

'l. . .

t.J

C. Retaliation 16. The plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-15 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein below. 17. The defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliating against any employee who complained about any discriminatory or harassing behavior. In fact, the plant manager at the Eufaula facility, Lou Pasqueriello, called a series of meetings with all plant employees and informed them that he did not want to hear any further complaints of race discrimination unless the person making such a complaint could prove to him that the discrimination had occurred. If the employee could not "prove" the allegation then the employee would be terminated. 18. Every plaintiff-intervenor, except Manderville, was terminated after complaining about various forms of discrimination or harassment. 19. The terminations of all such plaintiff-intervenors were in retaliation for making good faith complaints of discrimination and harassment, and any proffered reasons to the contrary are pretextual. 20. The wrongful conduct of Defendant described above was carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of PlaintiffIntervenors, thereby entitling Plaintiff-Intervenors to punitive damages 21. Said Plaintiff-Intervenors have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, financial hardship, mental distress, emotional pain and anguish as a consequence of the defendant's unlawful discriminatory conduct.
6

.., (
D. Disparate Treatment 22, The plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-21 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein below. 23. Plaintiff-Intervenors, including Manderville, also allege that there terminations were carried out in a discriminatory manner in that even had they engaged in the conduct attributed to them by the defendant, which they deny, similarly situated white employees were not terminated for the same or similar conduct. 24. The wrongful conduct of Defendant described above was carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of PlaintiffIntervenors, thereby entitling Plaintiff-Intervenors to punitive damages. 25. Plaintiff-Intervenors have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, financieJ hardship, mental distress, emotional pain and anguish as a consequence of the defendant's unlawful discriminatory conduct.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-intervenors respectfully pray that this Court assume jurisdiction of this action and after trial: (A) Issue a declaratory judgment that the employment policies and practices, conditions, and customs of the defendant are violative of the rights of the p\aintiffintervenors as secured by Title VII of the Act of Cong ress known as the "Civil Rights Act
of 1964," as amended, including the "Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) Sli
7

..........

I, ('

tJ

;

i

~1

seq., 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, as amended. (8) Grant the plaintiff·intervenors a permanent injunction enjoining the
defendant, its agents, successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with the defendant and at the defendant's request from continuing to violate Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended, including the "Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, as amended.
(C) Enter an Order requiring the defendant to make the plaintiff-intervenors whole by awarding them the position they would have occupied in the absence of race discrimination, back-pay (plus interest), declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, compensatory and punitive damages, lost seniority and benefits,
(D) The plaintiff-intervenors further pray for such other relief and benefits as. the cause of justice may require, including, but not limited to, an award of costs, attorney's fees and expenses.

OF COUNSEL:
ROBERSON & ROBERSON LAKEVIEW SCHOOL BUILDING 808 29TH STREET SOUTH SUITE 300 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35205 (205) 939-5410

CHRIS A E. ROBERSO ~O~"""'.Jv
Alabama State I. D. #: 416·13-6581
Attorney for Plaintiff·lntervenors

8

_nnE=-n

._4

· '. ,\

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff-Intervenors hereby demand trial by st~
OF~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served counsel for all parties to this action with a copy· of the foregoing document by depositing same in the lr'J1!t¥d _$tates mail, properly addressed with postage thereon pre~paid, on this the ~ay of March, 2000.

\
\

Jerome C. Rose, Esquire Jill Lolley Vincent, Esquire Pamela K. Agee, Esquire EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1900 Third Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2397 Telephone: (205) 731-1299 '

R. David Proctor, Esquire M. Terry Price, Esquire Steven M. StastflY, Esquire LEHR, MIDDLEBROOKS, PRICE & PROCTOR, P.C. Post Office Box 370463 Birmingham, Alabama 35237
/
o

9

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

https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?308251367551646-L_9...

CLOSED, MEMBER
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-01089-MHT-SRW

EEOC v. Aladan Corporation Assigned to: Judge Myron H. Thompson Referred to: Mag. Judge Susan Russ Walker Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Date Filed: 09/16/1999 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by C. Gregory Stewart Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 "L" Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 "L" Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome C. Rose Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1130 22nd Street South Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205-731-1039 Fax: 731-2101 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill L. Vincent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1130 22nd Street South Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205-731-1039 Fax: 731-2101 LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 5

3/19/2007 12:12 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court: ALMD - Docket Report
V. Intervenor Plaintiff Loretta Johnson
Intervenor Plaintiff Molinda Jacobs Intervenor Plaintiff Mary Culver Intervenor Plaintiff Joann Ford Intervenor Plaintiff Alicia Green
2 of 5

https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?308251367551646-L_9...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela Karen Agee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1130 22nd Street South Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205-731-1039 Fax: 731-2101 Email: pamela.agee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson Roberson & Roberson 8 Office Park Circle Suite 150 Birmingham, AL 35223 205-871-1115 Fax: 871-5115 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
3/19/2007 12:12 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court: ALMD - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara Streeter Intervenor Plaintiff Teresa Manderville Intervenor Plaintiff Jacqeline Massey V. Defendant Aladan Corporation/London International Group
3 of 5

https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?308251367551646-L_9...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian E. Roberson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert D. Proctor U S District Court 750 Hugo L Black U S Courthouse 1729 5th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 205-278-1980 Fax: 278-1986 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Michael Stastny Ford & Harrison LLP 2100 Third Avenue North Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205-244-5900 Fax: 205-244-5901 Email: sstastny@fordharrison.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Price Ford & Harrison LLP 2100 Third Avenue North, Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205-244-5900
3/19/2007 12:12 PM

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

https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?308251367551646-L_9...

Fax: 205-244-5901 Email: tprice@fordharrison.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/16/1999 09/16/1999 09/17/1999 09/27/1999 01/06/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000
03/17/2000
03/22/2000
03/22/2000
03/22/2000 04/05/2000 05/10/2000

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (ydw) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
1 DEMAND for jury trial by EEOC (ydw) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
CASE reassigned to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ag) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
File referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Aladan Corporation (ydw) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
3 ANSWER and Deenses to Complaint by Aladan Corporation (Attorney Terry Price, Robert D. Proctor), referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) Modified on 03/06/2000 (Entered: 03/06/2000)
4 ORDER, setting Rule 16 Status Conference 8:45 3/21/00 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; Counsel for all parties must be present; the attorney must notify the court and all other attorneys of the arrangement at least two days prior to the status conference; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to SC, HC and YG. (ydw) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
5 MOTION to Intervene by Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green, Barbara Streeter, Teresa Manderville, Jacqeline Massey (w/Complaint-in-Intervention attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
6 ORDER granting [5-1] motion to Intervene by Loretta Johnson, Molinda Jacobs, Mary Culver, Joann Ford, Alicia Green, Barbara Streeter, Teresa Manderville, Jacqeline Massey ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial Conference for 4/2/01 before Judge Myron H. Thompson; jury trial set for 5/14/01 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; Motion Filing deadline on 1/2/01 ; Discovery cutoff 3/19/01 ; set amended pleading deadline for 6/5/00; Mediation Notice deadline on 7/1/00 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to SC, HC, YG and CAC. (ydw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
8 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by against Aladan Corporation; jury demand (ydw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
9 NOTICE of filing of motion to consolidate by Aladan Corporation; referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 04/10/2000)
10 ANSWER by Aladan Corporation (Attorney, David Proctor, Steven Michael Stastny), to [8-1] intervenor complaint; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson

4 of 5

3/19/2007 12:12 PM

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

https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?308251367551646-L_9...

06/07/2000
06/07/2000 06/07/2000 03/02/2001

(ydw) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
11 CONSENT DECREE ORDER, ADJUDGE and DECREE as follows: Case Consolidated with Lead Case 99-A-674-N; this court has jurisdiction to decide this controversy as to the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors and LIG; this court will retain jurisdiction for the next eighteen (18)months so any dispute arising out of the administration of this can be adjusdicated. this Decree shall expire by its own terms eithteen (18)months after its execution; As a condition of receipt of any monetary payment the Plaintiff-Intervenors shall be required to sign a Agreement, General Release and Waiver as agreed upon by defendant's counsel and Plaintiff-Intervenors' counsel; LIG will pay to the Plaintiff-Intervenors through their counsel the amount of $500,000.00 as monetary settlement of these lawsuits and EEOC charge numbers 130-97-1947,130-97-1949,130-97-2110,130-97-2846,130-97-1946 and 139-98-2047; by 12/1/00, LIG will pay $125,000 in compensatory damages to individuals who are identified by the EEOC as aggrieved individuals, in amounts to be determined by the EEOC; Within 3 months of the signing of this Decree, LIG will establish and distribute a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation to all current and any new employee hired thereafter at it Eufaula facility, as further set out; LIG will pay the costs of notice publication in the Montgomery Advertiser and Eufaula Tribune for three consecutive Sundays; LIG will pay the cost of the mediation of this case; LIG, the EEOC, and the Plaintiff-Intervenors shall each be responsible for their own attorneys' fees and costs in this litigation; If the terms and conditions of this Decree are violated or breached during the life of this Decree, as set forth above, the parties may petition the court for further Orders, adjudication and relief in this matter; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies mailed to counsel; furnished to SC. {Edited 03/01/01 - Case Consolidated hhc} (ydw) Modified on 03/01/2001 (Entered: 06/07/2000)
Case closed (ydw) (Entered: 06/09/2000)
Consolidated Member Case. Lead Case Number: 2:99cv674 h(hc) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
Case closed h(hc) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/19/2007 12:11:46

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

nniles

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:99-cv-01089-MHT-SRW

Billable Pages:

3

Cost:

0.24

5 of 5

3/19/2007 12:12 PM

 
 EEOC SETTLES LAWSUIT AGAINST LONDON INTERNATIONA...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-12-00.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, June 12, 2000

CONTACT: Cynthia G. Pierre (205) 731-1182 Jill Lolly Vincent (205) 731-1279 Pamela Agee (205) 731-1299
TTY: (205) 731-0175

EEOC SETTLES LAWSUIT AGAINST LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION AND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT

BIRMINGHAM - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a $625,000 settlement with London International Group, LLC (LIG) in a lawsuit charging the Eufaula-based plant, which manufactures condoms, with subjecting a class of employees to a hostile work environment in which they have been subjected to numerous racially and sexually derogatory cartoons and comments since 1995.
"This settlement sends a strong message to employers in Alabama and across the country that workplace discrimination comes at a high price," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "It is an unfortunate reality that discrimination still exists in the 21st century workplace, more than three decades after passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964," she added. "As the Commission prepares to commemorate its 35th anniversary in July, employers should be aware that the EEOC will remain vigilant in its mission of eradicating workplace discrimination wherever and whenever it occurs."
In addition to monetary relief for eight named plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals, LIG has agreed to implement and widely distribute a "Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy" on discrimination to its current workforce and all new hires at its Eufaula plant. The company, a manufacturer of gloves and condoms, will also provide training for management and hourly employees on discrimination prevention, as well as conduct internal staff training on how to properly investigate charges of discrimination.
The complainants alleged that they brought the situation to the attention of management but that no effective action was taken to correct the discriminatory conduct and alleviate the problem. EEOC's resolution of the suit also includes claims of individuals represented by Birmingham attorney Chris Roberson of the law firm Roberson and Roberson, which joined the suit in March 2000 as plaintiff-intervenors. In order to determine whether other workers are eligible to take part in the settlement, Jill Lolley Vincent, Acting Regional Attorney for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office, urged other LIG employees who believe they were discriminated against to contact the EEOC at (205) 731-2252 or (205) 731-1299.
EEOC filed suit against LIG and Aladan Corp. (a separate company which no longer exists) on September 16, 1999, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The lawsuit charged LIG with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by subjecting a class of workers to a racially and sexually hostile work environment, different terms and conditions of employment based on race, and discharge based on race.
"The Commission is seeing a rising national trend in cases involving egregious harassment of a racial and sexual nature," said EEOC General Counsel C. Gregory Stewart. "We will continue to strategically utilize our litigation resources to pursue and remedy such instances of employment discrimination."
Cynthia G. Pierre, Director of the EEOC's Birmingham District Office, said: "LIG worked cooperatively with the Commission to reach a fair and equitable resolution in this case. All the parties are to be commended, as the company is implementing policies and procedures to greatly increase its ability to effectively address problems of racial and sexual harassment at the plant."
Acting Regional Attorney Vincent, who was also responsible for prosecuting the case, said, "This settlement is a win-win outcome because the charging parties and other aggrieved individuals at the facility will be able to get on with their lives, while the company will be greatly improving the quality of life for its employees which will increase the morale and productivity of its workforce."
This is the second major settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit by the EEOC's Birmingham District Office in the past year. In July 1999, the EEOC settled a class action suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., for $3.2 million, the largest settlement ever by the agency's Birmingham office involving racial and sexual harassment. The EEOC's Birmingham office has enforcement jurisdiction for Alabama and Mississippi.

1 of 2

5/29/2007 1:43 PM

EEOC SETTLES LAWSUIT AGAINST LONDON INTERNATIONA...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-12-00.html

In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 12, 2000.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

5/29/2007 1:43 PM

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

[F I LED,

___
f

MACR 0l2E~00R1 JK•~

~ u. S. DISTRICT COU~T

~ MIDDLE OlST. OF ALA.

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-T-I089-N

)

ALADAN CORPORATION/LONDON

)

INTERNATIONAL GROUP,

)

)

Defendant.

)

BARBARA STREETER, TERESA

)

MANDERVILLE, AND JACQUELINE

)

MASSEY,

)

Plaintiffs,

l CNIL ACTION NO. 99-A-674-N /

vs.

)

)

LONDON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC, )

fonnedy known as Schmid Laboratories, LLC, )

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Dissolve Consent Decree and Dismiss Action, filed by the parties on February 28,2001, the motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Consent Decrees entered in these cases on June 7, 2000 are DISSOLVED, and these actions are DISMISSED with prejudice, the parties to bear their own attorney's fees and costs as paid.

EO 0 _Z.......o.?..~~(},____
02\

~day DONE this

of March, 2001.

~~~
W. H OLD ALBRITTON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CIVIL APPEALS OtECKllST

1.

u.s.c. AppMItbk Qnfm: CNtI of ~ hive furirdictfon conf....... and strictly IinIhd by lfatule:

AppMI, fmm FlMI Orden PyIN!!l 1p 21

t 1191: Only finII iudsmenll for orden of cistrict courts (or rmal orden of

boriruptcy courts which .........",.., by. d.trict (OUIf under 21 U.S.c. • 158) usually &Ie ..,.,.bJe. A-final- order is
one which endl the litiptlon on as merIIl and INvet noIhins for the district court tD do but execute the judpnent. Amqistr.te's
report and recommendltlon II not ....Iy final until iudpMnl thereon II entered by.district court judie. Compatt Fed.R.App.P.

5.1, 28 U.S.c. • 636(c).

'ne&lft .ndvintmultlpMpartlel or_It""e"', .Iud...- ato fewer than II ",.tits o,.,lIe";ms is not. fina~ appuIable

cledsion. Fed.LOY.P• •)does penwit Ihtdhtrfct court to....., dinct entryof the ludpnent u fewertMnaD of the c"ims
or partin. Sec ""'" , , . . I", Y. Mat.. 701 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Or. 19as),"", IImisd 464 U.s. .93 (1983). Certain

matten, such as .Homey'l feet.nd COlIs, are coIIater.l.nd do nat.ffect lhe time f••ppali"l from the ludsment on the merits.
("'1). 'uchanan v, SlwhIps. Ins.. 495 U.s. 26S, 11)8 S.Ct. 1130,99 LEd ld 2a9 (1988); 'udirjch y. Becton. 485 U.s. 196, 108 S.CI.
1717,100 LEd 2d 17'

Pu,..,., Appctfl

to 21 w.e. f 129Jb) tad fUr 5: 1htcertlftcate specified In 21 U.s.c. t 1292(b) must be obtained before.n

eo.,. application for lave to appeal .. flied In lhe of Appeals. Denial or refutal b,1IIe dillrict court to issue the certiflC.te II not

itself appealable.

·.,.rji.... AppuII Purawd to 21 u.s.c. I 19291a)i Punuanl to thil ....ute, appeals are permitted from orden

continuifta,

modifyina,refuIi."diIIaIvI"'injundionsorrefUli..toclls.lftormodifylnjundlons ••• • This5laluledoesnolpermit&ppNIJ

from temporary reslraw.. onIen.

Mpgh punytnt 1p Judklllh CrutM £pptlpm \0 "" flntIIy RuIr. These United attptlons 1ft discuued In many caltl,
Includlns (but nat IJrnlltd 10)= Cghmy.!ItncfidtI '. . .rill lttn Corp., 337 U.S. 541,69 S.a. 1221,93 LEd 2d 1521 (1949); forprv. Conrad.' How.{47 U,5J 281 (1I4CQD!a*YI Unlled States ani c.p., 379 U.S. 141,152,15 5.CI.301, 311,13 Ud 2d "9 (19M); AIIInt" ft!kr.ISlyInp • Lw Ago. Qf fL LtM"""I, V. 8M", EIsIm!n hlne Wtbbtr. Inc., 890 F,2d 371
v, (11th Cir. 1989). Co",,.,. Cogpm "'" LW"... llyJgy. 437 U.S. 463, 98 5.n 2454, 57 LEd 2d 351 (1978), CulM",,"
'ercKplCe Corp. y. Muactmal Corp.. 415 u.s. 271, 101 S.Ct. 1133, 99 LEd 1d 296 (1918)

2.

rlf!N! for filinJ: To be eHectiw. noalce 0# ....., mUll be timely liltel. TimelY"'ine is Jurisdictional. II. civil CoUtS fRAP 4(.hnd

"(c) let the foUowi", time limits:

dm ERAP Un: The notice of apPWl'Iqulnd by flAP 3 -must be filed with lhe of the di,trid cOMrt within 30 dtys .fter the
d.,. .ppea. d.leof entry of the judlment or order appealed from; but If Ihe United States or.. officer or -seneY therlof is. ptrty, the notice
of .ppuJIMV be filed by alldl wfdain 60 .fter sucb fltry •I • - (Emp.... addtcO To be elfeclM, the notice of
Bener.lly must be filed in the district collft derlc'. office within the time permitted. If. nolice of appNlI. mliled, it must be timely received and fi.... by the district coarl to be effective. FlAP 4(c) ,.fishes spedtl tilinl provisions for noIices of tppe.1 filed by an inmate confined In an institution, II discussed below.

FRAP «IIQ): -If one party timely fit•• notice of .ppNl, any other party m.y file • notice of IPJ)HI within 14 d.ys .fter the date when lheb notice WII filed, or within thttime otherwise prescribed by thl. Rule4(t), whichever period 'ast uplres." (Emphasis added)

fMP '1lW tod fIA' @)(I: The IIiIrk1court has powerto fJdend the lime to ae a notice of tppuI. Uncler fRAP 4(1)(5) the
tlmemaybe....... lf• ...aonlwnt.....,ftledwl... JOda,. aftererplratianofthe time otherwise permitted to file notice ofappeII. UNSer flAP 4ClM(6)thetllllellllY........... if thtdlstrlct court finds upon moIIon that a party has not ftCeived notice of ent". of the ,.."..., or order .... tIuIr _ parlr would be pNjudictd Ityan tit.......

fIWJ Met: "If.. Inmate confined In .. inIdIutlon files • dice of appulla either • civil case or I criminal case, the notice of
'ft appeal .. timely if It II depotlled dlelnltlbdlon'llntemil maillysttlllOft or before the lut day for fili... nmely fin,. may be
shown...,. noIIrIzed .......01'... 41ec:11radan(fn c:ampIInce with ZI U.s.c. t 1746) settinl forth the elm of depostt ami
ItItina that flnt<fall postqe ....... prepaid.

3.

FgnnII of NqIke of AwtI: Fonn 1, FlAP AppendIx of FormI, is ••1IitU1. fOl'll'lll. IIIIIa FRAP 3~.

A. sinale nota of appal.,. be mat froat I <slnaiel JIIdpneaI or order by hIIo or more penoN whole ~nterest, lite auch AI to

mtke joinder practicable ••• - (fRAP!(bD

4.

CUed pf Notice of AImII: AdlslrId ccut loses JurlJCIIctIon ~,) to act 1ft.the fili", of • timely notice of appeIf, except

farlClionl in aid of appellate judJcltdlanfalFaLR.Ciw.P. 60) or to rule on atfrMlymaUon ofthec,pe IpICJlled In FIAP<I(a)(4)