UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
DAVENPORT DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
FIRST STUDENT, INC.
Defendant.

)

) )

~ t' 3 02 CV 1 0 06 '.l

)

Civil Action No.

t..

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis ofretaliation, and to provide appropriate reliefto James

S. Doorley (hereinafter "Doorley"), who has been adversely affected by such practices.

As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph seven (7) below, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission alleges that the defendant, First Student, Inc., violated Title VII by

retaliating against Doorley after he complained to managers and the Human Resources department

that the Contract Manager to whom Doorley immediately reported was discriminating against and

harassing other employees based on their race and/or sex.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. JurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedpursuantt028U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343,

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII,

\

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofIowa.
PARTIES 3. The plaintiff; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), is the agency of the United States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement ofTitle VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I). 4. At all relevant times, upon information and belief, the defendant, First Student, Inc., has been continuously engaged in the business ofproviding contract school bus services in the state ofIowa, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, First Student, Inc., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSection701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Doorley filed a Charge with the Commission alleging unlawful retaliation by First Student, Inc., after DOClrley complained about race and sex discrimination and harassment, in violation of Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. First Student, Inc., has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices include,but are not limited to: (a) In an effort to comply with First Student, Inc.'s "open door" policy, in November, 1999, and in January, 2000, Doorley confronted his direct report manager, Robert Smith, about
2

Smith's discriminatory, harassing and disrespectful behavior toward women and minority employees, including the use of offensive racial epithets and sexually harassing comments. Despite these complaints by Doorley, Smith's inappropriate behavior continued.
(b) In May, 2000, due to Smith's continued discriminatory and harassing conduct; Do.orley complained about Smith's inappropriate behavior to both the Director of Human Resources, Larry McDonald, and a regional manager, Ron Howard.
(c) On or about June 19, 2000, First Student, Inc. terminated Doorley's employment in retaliation for his opposition to Smith's discriminatory and harassing behavior toward women and minorities, in violation of Title VII.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to deprive Doorley of equal employment opportunities in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are done with malice and/or reckless indifference to Doorley's federally-protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Comission respectfully prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining First Student, Inc., and its officers, successors, and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which constitute retaliation for activity protected by Title VII;
3

B. Order First Student, Inc., to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order First Student, Inc., to make Doorley whole by providing appropriate backpay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other. affrimative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, re-instatement ofDoorley;
D. Order First Student, Inc., to make Doorley whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, job search expenses and medical expenses;
E. Order First Student, Inc:, to make Doorley whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practic,es, including injury to professional reputation, emotional pain, suffering, inconvemence, loss ofenjoyment of life, and humiliation;
F. Order First Student, Inc., to pay Doorley punitive damages for its 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 in the public interest; and
H. Grant the Commission its costs of this action.
4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

.-
Dated: June -.i.., 2002
~
Dated: June ~ 2002
5 Dated: June ,2002

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

/ Je P.Kamp
egional Attorney

&f2h

S~ .upe....r."viSOry. Trial At~to.rne. y

"/\I!
(! J

./ ~

:.,'./, /

/' I"l

_'

-

,.,;.;!A

Deborah J. Po

Senior Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Milwaukee District Office 310 West Wisconsin Avenue - Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292 (414) 297-3983

5

 
 Jan-1S-0S 10:S0

414 197 S146

T-S07 P.001/007 F-a1S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff,

VS.
First Student, Inc.,

Defendant.

Civil No. 3:02-cV~006:t3

-"'"
- - ,r'"\
c:J "3-'1
\-q ~! ' s:- -Pf-,

STIPULATION AND OI{Q~R mR"::.O

PROTECTIONS\ t:'? .~

co
-r. -'_

(t.f.nt J?"

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between plaintiffEqual Employment Opportunity Commission t'plaiutiff') and defendant First Student, Inc. ('''defendant'')(collectively known as the "Parties") as follows:
1. Parties may designate any documents or other information produced during discovery as "confidential" ifParties in good faith believe that the designated materials constitute confidential or proprietary information. (Hereinafter, such designated material is referred to as "Confidential Information.'')
2. Parties may designate material as confidential after making a good faith determination that the material contains: 1) private personnel information regarding First Student or its employees, former employees, or job applicaots; 2) aoy information about First Student's customerS/clients; 3) non-public financial infonnation; or 4) any personal aod private information regarding James DooTley. Private personnel information includes documents and information relating to employee compensation, employee finances, performaoce evaluations, personal notes, employee medical records, employee health insurance records, employee

01/23/03 TaU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

Jan-2S-0S 20:30 From-lelrai

414 297 3146

T-307 P.00S/007 F-823

discipline records, expense records, complaints, charges, and other personal and private
information.
3. IfParties believe that any material produced or disclosed in the course of
discovery does not contain any of the types of information described in paragraph 2, it may, at
any time, contest the applicability of this Order to such material by notifYing the attorneys and
identifying the material for which 11,e confidentiality designation is contested. UpOD response to
such notification. Parties shall have thirty (30) days to make a motion with respect to such
material. Any contested materials for which such a motion is not made or as to which requested
relief is not granted shall be deemed within the scope ofthis Order.
4. Parties may designate any information or documents as Confidential Information
by:
(a) imprinting the word "confidential" on the first page or cover page of any document produced;
(b) imprinting the word "confidential" next to or above any answer to an interrogatory;
(c) advising the court reporter that certain testimony is confidential and is to be separately transcribed and marked accordingly; or
(d) infonning all other counsel, in writing, that certain information is Confidential Information and is governed by this protective order.
S. Parties shall not give, show, make available, or communicate in any way
information designated as Confidential Information to anyone other than:
(a) Parties' attorneys and their office staffs; (b) Parties' agents or employees; (c) The Court and its staff;

-201/23/03 THU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

Jan-23-03 20:30

414 297 3146

T-307 P.004/007 F-823

(d) Outside consultants and experts retained by the Parties to assist in preparation for trial or settlement and the office staffs of such consultants and experts;
(e) Court reporters and witnesses to the extent necessary for taking testimony;
(f) Such other persons as the Court may specifically approve after notice and hearing; and
(g) Such other persons as the Parties may agree in writing. 6. Before disclosing Confidential Infonnation to outside consultants and experts retained to assist in preparation for trial or settlement, Parties' counsel shall obtain from these individuals an agreement in writing to be bOlUld by this StipUlation and Order for Protection. Anyone who signs such an agreement will be bound by this Stipulation. These agreements need not be disclosed to counsel, unless ordered by the Court or requested by Parties. 7. The people to whom paragraph 5 permits disclosute ofConfidential Information shall not use or communicate it for any purpose other than preparation for trial, trial, appeal, or settlement of the above captioned matter, with the exception that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and its agents, employees, attorneys and witnesses to the extent necessary for taking testimony, shall be permitted to usc or commumcat<: Confidential Information in the course of any EEOC investigations or any subsequent lawsuits that may arise from those investigations. Nothing in tins Order shall supersede EEOC's obligations and restrictions regarding document disclosure pursuant to the Freedom oOnformation Act or Title VII. 8. There shall be no reproduction of documents designated as Confidential Information except that, as required in the course ofthe litigation, copies, excerpts or summaries may be shown or given to those persons authorized by paragraph 5 to receive the Confidential Infonnation.
-3-
01/23/03 THU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

Jan-23-03 20:30 From-l.,a!

414 297 3146

T-30r P.005/00r F-B23

9. Confidential Information required to be filed with the Court shall be filed in a sealed envelope that bears the caption of this action and a legend declaring that its contents are subject to a protective order and shall be available for inspection only by the Court and by those persons authorized by this Order to receive Confidential Information.
10. This Stipulation and Order for Protection is without prejudice to any right of Parties to make any lawful use of information lawfully obtained apart from the discovery process, and the fact that information obtained apart from the discovery proces~ is also contained in Confidential Information shall have no effect on Parties' right to make any lawful use of such information.
11. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order for Protection shall be deemed to prevent the Parties' attorneys as part of their discovery and investigation in this matter from questioning, to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, people who might reasonably be expected to have knowledge or information about topics that are discussed in Confidential Information.
12. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order for Protection shall prevent any party from seeking a modification of this Order or objecting to discovery that it believes to be otherwise improper.
13. This Order shall be effective retroactively to the date on which the above captioned lawsuit was filed.
14. The obligations and responsibilities ·ofthe Parties and the Parties' counsel under this Order shall continue in effect after the conclusion of this case.

-4-
01/23/03 THU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

Jan-23-03 20:30 From-Lsiai

414 29T 3146

T-30T P.006/00T F-823

;<.? ' Dated:70I1\.j<l/' y

2003

I

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

1 1 L "J"MISSION I/)

i/ .. '
.

-t ~~!Itr i

(-v[-~L£J......

Deborah J. P~S, senior Trial Attorney

EEOC - Milwaukee District Office 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292 Telephone: (414) 297-3983 Facsimile: (414) 297-3146

Attorney for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

-5-
01/23/03 THU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

Jan-2S-03 20:31

414 297 3146

T-307 P.007/007 F-823

Dated:

FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

-----------------------------~~ =:J

Holly M. Robbins, Lead Counsel hrobbins@faegre.com
2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minueapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600

Angela J. Morales amorales@faegre.com
400 Capital Square 400 Locust Street Des Moines, IA 50309-2331 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 Facsimile: (515) 248-9100

Attorneys for Defendant
First Student, me.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

~\,~,c"'J

~.

Dated:

teliStat ag;strateJudge

-601/23/03 THU 19:29 [TX/RX NO 5289]

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FIRST STUDENT, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 3:02-cv-10063 RULING ON DEFENDANT FIRST STUDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFF EEOC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

FILED 4/24/2003 4:00:07 PM, USDC, Southern District of Iowa

The above resisted motions are before the Court (#s 15 & 9). They deal with the same subject matter, certain discovery requests propounded by First Student. First Student requests oral argument on its motion to compel, however, the briefs are very thorough and the Court does not believe determination of the motions would be aided by oral argument. Accordingly, the Court has considered the motions on the motion papers.
Together the motions raise three issues: (1) whether the EEOC must produce requested medical and psychological history information concerning the person on whose behalf it sues, Mr. James Doorley; (2) the need for supplemental discovery responses on the economic losses claimed on behalf of Mr. Doorley; and (3) the validity of the EEOC's asserted "deliberative" and "conciliation" privileges as they may apply to disputed documents. The Court will consider each of these subject areas in turn.

Medical and Psychological History The Complaint alleges First Student retaliated against
Mr. Doorley after he complained about racial and/or sexual discrimination and harassment. The retaliation allegedly resulted in mental and emotional pain and suffering for which the EEOC seeks recovery on Doorley's behalf. The Complaint also seeks recovery of Doorley's medical expenses, however, in its interrogatory answer, the EEOC states Mr. Doorley did not seek treatment for the claimed emotional distress and accordingly no medical expenses are claimed for such treatment. Rather, the claim is for general emotional distress damages. Mr. Doorley has testified to certain physical symptoms which he attributes to his emotional distress, including sleeplessness, weight gain and headaches.
In its second set of discovery requests, First Student propounded an interrogatory which asked the EEOC to identify all health care professionals who had examined or treated Mr. Doorley in the last ten years, including the dates of treatment and examinations and the purpose of each treatment and examination. In a related document request First Student asked, essentially, for all medical records pertaining to treatment or examination within the requested ten-year period. The EEOC was given the option of producing authorizations allowing First Student to obtain medical records. The EEOC objected on the basis of discovery relevancy, violation of the physician-patient privilege, privacy, breadth and
2

burden. At Mr. Doorley's deposition EEOC's counsel directed Mr. Doorley not to respond to questions about his medical and mental health history.
As the Court understands the EEOC's responses to the discovery requests as clarified in its brief, Mr. Doorley has not been treated or examined by any mental health professional or counselor within the requested ten year time period, and accordingly there are no mental health records to produce.
In resisting First Student's motion to compel and seeking a protective order the EEOC argues, respectively, that First Student is not entitled to "unfettered access" or "unlimited discovery" of medical and psychological information. The Court agrees, but it does not necessarily follow that First Student is entitled to no medical information. Generally, a party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is "relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The EEOC, on Doorley's behalf, claims damages for a mental or emotional injury. As a result, First Student "is entitled to discover whether there have been other stressors relating to plaintiff's mental and physical health during the relevant time period which may have contributed to the claimed emotional distress." Gatewood v. Stone Container Corp., 170 F.R.D. 455, 460 (S.D. Ia. 1996). People do not compartmentalize the things that affect their emotional state. Worry and anxiety may
3

have many, interrelated causes. If, for example, Mr. Doorley was suffering from a serious illness at the time he complains of employment-related emotional distress, First Student could argue the illness independently contributed to his emotional injury and was the cause of his physical symptoms. The relevance of medical discovery is not negated by the fact Mr. Doorley has not sought care or treatment for the claimed emotional distress. On the other hand, because of the privacy interest involved, First Student is not entitled, as the EEOC says, to unfettered or unlimited disclosure of medical or mental health information. Id. There is a balance to be made.
First Student is entitled to discovery of medical information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence bearing on Mr. Doorley's claim of emotional injury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Subject to the limitations of reasonableness in light of the competing interests, Mr. Doorley's physician-patient privilege and right of privacy are waived by the allegation of emotional injury. See Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000); Sanchez v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 131, 136 (E.D. Pa. 2001); EEOC v. Danka Indus., Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1138, 1142-43 (E.D. Mo. 1997); Gatewood, 140 F.R.D. at 460; see also Iowa Code § 622.10.
The Court agrees with the EEOC that the ten-year period requested by First Student is overly broad. Long ago, resolved
4

medical conditions are unlikely to have had any relationship to Mr. Doorley's emotional reaction to the alleged retaliation. It follows discovery of such information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. On the other hand, allowing discovery only from the date of the first claimed retaliatory act as the EEOC proposes is too limited. Conditions which originated before the claimed retaliation may have continued to have emotionally distressing effects at the time of the alleged retaliation. The Court believes the past five years from the date hereof is sufficient for temporal relevancy.
Only serious medical conditions and/or those of some duration can reasonably be expected to have contributed in a material way to Mr. Doorley's emotional health. Accordingly, similar to the result in Gatewood, and subject to a suitable protective order, the EEOC will be required to answer the relevant interrogatory and produce medical records, and Mr. Doorley will be required to respond in testimony (1) with respect to conditions which resulted in surgery, in-patient hospitalization, or involved illness not cured within six months or treated for six months or more, or which were life threatening or disabling in any way, and (2) with respect to any complaint, condition or record involving the same or similar physical symptoms Mr. Doorley has attributed to
5

the emotional distress claimed in this case.1 At the EEOC's request, the Court will review in camera specific records subject to production under this Order concerning which Mr. Doorley claims a particular interest in maintaining the privacy of the information that outweighs the need for discovery. The motion to compel and the motion for protective order are granted in part and denied in part in conformity with the scope of disclosure hereby permitted. Economic Loss Information
First Student propounded an interrogatory which sought the EEOC's calculation for each item of damages. The EEOC is seeking back pay for Mr. Doorley and has requested reinstatement rather than front pay. In resisting the motion to compel the EEOC says that it has not been able to completely calculate the back pay amount because First Student had not, to the date of EEOC's resistance, produced complete information about its bonus system. The EEOC did in response to the interrogatory reveal the method by which it calculated back pay. Concerning front pay, the EEOC responds front pay will only be an issue if the Court determines reinstatement is not appropriate and that it would invade the Court's discretion to advance a front pay calculation.
1Again, the Court has assumed from the EEOC's statements that Mr. Doorley was not examined or treated by a mental health professional or for any mental health reason during the relevant time period, and that there are therefore no mental health records. If there are any mental health records within the relevant time period, they should be produced subject to the opportunity for in camera review. See Schoffstall, 223 F.3d at 823.
6

Presumably by now the EEOC has received the bonus information necessary to make a complete calculation of claimed back pay. The motion to compel is granted to require the EEOC to supplement its answer to Interrogatory No. 1 of First Student's first set of interrogatories to provide a calculation of back pay claimed. The answer may, of course, note the continuing accumulation of back pay and the insufficiency, if any remains, of pay and benefit information provided to it, but the EEOC will make its best dollar estimate of the claimed back pay. With respect to front pay, though the EEOC is seeking reinstatement whether that form of equitable relief is a viable alternative will not be determined until trial, too late for front pay discovery. If the Court decides to award front pay the EEOC undoubtedly will have a figure in mind. It does not invade the Court's authority for the EEOC to provide information about what it will claim for front pay in the event the Court determines that form of relief is most appropriate.
The motion to compel is granted with respect to back pay and front pay information as above. Privileges
The EEOC has produced a privilege log in which it identifies a number of documents withheld on the basis of the government deliberative and conciliation privileges. First Student describes the documents as those identified as 00001-00006, 00009,
7

00014-00015, 00024-00040, 00061-00064, 00094-00098, 00107. The EEOC has also objected to certain interrogatories and document requests on the basis of the privileges. The Court assumes the numbered documents identified are those documents within the scope of the objected to discovery requests (Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7-13 of First Student's first set).
The parties dispute the scope and extent of both privileges and both suggest it would be appropriate for the Court to make an in camera review of the disputed documents. The Court believes it is appropriate to do so in light of the privileges claimed. The EEOC shall produce the documents for in camera inspection within the time period provided below. The Court does not understand First Student to be seeking those documents withheld by the EEOC solely on the basis of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, and these need not be produced with the in camera materials. However, documents in connection with which the attorney-client privilege and/or work product production are claimed in addition to the deliberative or conciliation privileges should be produced for inspection.
In view of the foregoing, the following orders are entered:
1. First Student's motion to compel and the EEOC's motion for protective order are granted in part and denied in part;
8

2. Supplementation to answers to interrogatories and requests for production relating to medical records and information shall be made by the EEOC in conformity with the foregoing within thirty (30) days of the date hereof. The EEOC may, at its or Mr. Doorley's election, provide patient authorizations to First Student's counsel to obtain medical records. The parties shall confer and agree on an appropriate protective order which, in general, limits the disclosure of Mr. Doorley's medical records and information to persons with a need to know for use solely in connection with this action;
3. Within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, the EEOC shall produce claimed privileged documents within the scope of the discussion above for in camera review by the Court. Within the same time period, the EEOC may produce specific medical records subject to disclosure under this ruling as discussed above. The Court strongly encourages counsel to confer to minimize the submission of in camera medical records as many types of medical records may not be of much use to First Student;
4. Both sides having prevailed in part, the Court elects not to undertake an apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to the motions, hence no party is awarded fees or expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(C).
9

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 24th day of April, 2003.
10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FIRST STUDENT, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 3:02-cv-10063 ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF CLAIMED PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS

FILED 6/24/2003 2:38:21 PM, USDC, Southern District of Iowa

In my Ruling of April 24, 2003 on First Student's Motion to Compel, I deferred decision on the EEOC's privilege claims pending in camera review of the disputed documents. The EEOC has since provided the documents and I have reviewed them in light of the authorities and arguments in the parties' motion papers. I find and conclude as follows.
The EEOC has produced a revised privilege log which raises a number of privileges: attorney-client, work product, government deliberative, and conciliation. The more familiar attorney-client and work product privileges are discussed below to the limited extent applicable. The EEOC's principal objections are based on the government deliberative privilege and conciliation privilege.
The government deliberative, or deliberative process privilege, "protects communications that are part of the decisionmaking process of a governmental agency." United States v. Farley,

11 F.3d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-52 (1975)). The privilege is narrowed by temporal and contextual limitations. The material must be "predecisional" and "deliberative." Broderick v. Shad, 117 F.R.D. 306, 311 (D.D.C. 1987).
Here, the temporal limitation is satisfied because all of the documents for which the deliberative privilege is claimed precede the relevant agency decisions, the April 24, 2002 probable cause determination and the May 21, 2002 decision to abandon conciliation. The question is whether the documents are deliberative in nature.
Deliberative material is that which reflects "deliberative or policy-making processes" and does not include purely factual information. EEOC v. Fina Oil & Chem. Co., 145 F.R.D. 74, 75 (E.D. Tex. 1992) (quoting in part Skelton v. U.S. Postal Serv., 678 F.2d 35, 38 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting in turn EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87-89 (1973)); Broderick, 117 F.R.D. at 311. Consistent with the purpose of the privilege to protect the unfettered exchange of information within an agency, "the test is whether disclosure would serve only to reveal the evaluative process by which a member of the decision-making chain arrived at his/her conclusion." Fina Oil, 145 F.R.D. at 74.
The claimed conciliation privilege is not truly a "privilege," but a statutorily-derived limitation designed to
2

promote the EEOC's conciliation function, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). If the EEOC determines there is "reasonable cause to believe" that a charge is true, it is to attempt to resolve the charge by informal methods, including conciliation. The statute limits the disclosure and use of information acquired in connection with this process.
Nothing said or done during and as a part of such informal endeavors may be made public by the Commission, its officers or employees, or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding without the written consent of the persons concerned. The prohibition against disclosure to the "public" of things said or done or during the conciliation process has been held to pertain to persons other than the parties. See EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590, 598 & n.13 (1981). Though the statute does not prohibit the EEOC from disclosing to one party in a conciliation statements made by the other, it does not create a right to disclosure.
The provision's overarching purpose is to promote the informal negotiation and resolution of employment disputes within the EEOC's authority. The informal dispute resolution process is best served by an environment in which the parties can be candid in the discussion of their positions and expectations with the EEOC. The disclosure of communications to an opposing party which reflect a party's evaluations of and opinions about the charge, and what the party hopes to accomplish through the settlement process, run
3

counter to this purpose. I appreciate that the EEOC's function as both mediator and advocate gives it a complete review of what occurred in the conciliation process that the employer does not have. However, this does not give the EEOC an unfair advantage in the litigation, and it is still the case that the disclosure of statements made by an opposing party during conciliation is counterproductive to the efficacy of the process.
Against this interest First Student would gain very little from learning about what Mr. Doorley had to say to the EEOC during the conciliation process. The statute provides his statements are not admissible in evidence. The documents with respect to which the privilege is claimed furnish little or no factual information. They are relevant to the litigation claims and defenses only in the secondary sense that they concern potential resolution of the dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). I agree with those courts which have held that generally, excepting purely factual information, what passes between the parties and the EEOC during the conciliation process should not be discoverable. See Olitsky v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 964 F.2d 1471, 1477 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 909 (1993); Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 881 (5th Cir. 1981); Mayfield v.
4

President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, 2000 WL 1706949 (E.D. Mo. 2000).1
With these principles both in mind, I will address each of the disputed documents.
Doc. No. EEOC 00001. This document is a completed form referring Mr. Doorley's case for review by an attorney. The deliberative privilege does not apply because the document reveals no evaluative information or information about the deliberative process. See Fina Oil, 145 F.R.D. at 76. The attorney-client and work-product privileges do not apply because the document is merely a form referral to counsel requesting review. It reveals no more than the purpose for which review was sought by an attorney, which
1 On April 24, 2002 the EEOC made its reasonable cause determination. (First Student Ex. W). On May 2, 2002 the EEOC's district director signed off on a notice to First Student that the EEOC had determined its efforts to conciliate the charge had been unsuccessful. (Id. Ex. X). The notice was dated May 21, 2002 and presumably would not have been sent until that date. Between April 24 and May 21 the EEOC, through its investigator Kevin Gleason, had a number of discussions with Doorley and First Student concerning settlement proposals. (See EEOC Doc. Nos. 00061-64). This was not the first attempt at conciliation, however. Gleason had attempted to conciliate the charge before the reasonable cause determination was made, beginning it appears from the documents in the late Spring and Summer of 2001. (See EEOC Doc. Nos. 00094-98, 00107). First Student argues that because the statute provides the EEOC's informal conciliation efforts are to follow the reasonable cause finding, only those documents created between that finding and the EEOC's notice that conciliation had been unsuccessful can be protected by the conciliation privilege. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(b). I do not believe the statute should be viewed as setting rigid temporal boundaries for the conciliation period. Regardless of when on the continuum informal conciliation occurs, the process ought to be accorded the protection envisioned by the statute.
5

is not privileged. See Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 603 (8th Cir. 1977).
Doc. No. EEOC 00002. This is a form action code sheet. The document is not subject to the claimed deliberative privilege because it reveals no evaluative information or information about the deliberative process.
Doc. No. EEOC 00003. This document is a copy of a rubber stamp with various action codes and dates noted on it, as well as some initials of persons involved. The claimed deliberative privilege does not apply because the document reveals no evaluative information or information about the deliberative process.
Doc. Nos. EEOC 00004, 00005, 00006. This document is a redacted case log. The redactions concern the routing of the file to various persons and identifies those who conducted reviews. The redactions are not subject to the claimed deliberative privilege because they reveal no evaluative information or information about the deliberative process.
Doc. No. EEOC 00009. This is an intake case log which records the dates certain actions were taken within the agency pertaining to Mr. Doorley's discrimination charge. The document is not subject to the claimed deliberative privilege because it reveals no evaluative information or information about the deliberative process.
6

Doc. No. EEOC 00014. This document contains investigator Kevin Gleason's explanation for the failure of conciliation efforts. It is substantively evaluative in nature and reveals Gleason's role in the deliberative process. As such it is protected from disclosure by the deliberative privilege.
Doc. No. EEOC 00015. This document contains redacted handwritten notes of EEOC attorney Jean Kamp concerning the contents of a proposed conciliation agreement and further work to be performed. It is not subject to the claimed attorney-client privilege because there is no evidence Kamp's notes were communicated to a privileged person. They are, however, her work product and, while minimally substantive, they reveal enough evaluative information to also fall within the deliberative privilege.
Doc. No. EEOC 00024-25. This is a litigation review memorandum by EEOC trial attorney Brian Tyndall to a Commission enforcement manager. It discusses the merits of possible litigation against First Student. It clearly is an attorney-client communication. It contains opinion work product which "enjoys almost absolute immunity" from disclosure. Baker v. General Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1054 (8th Cir. 2000). The document also reveals the EEOC's evaluative process prior to commencement of this action, and is protected by the deliberative privilege.
7

Doc No. EEOC 00026. This document is a brief communication from investigator Kevin Gleason to EEOC attorney Jean Kamp concerning the possibility of litigation. It is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. It is also evaluative in nature and thus protected by the deliberative privilege.
Doc. Nos. EEOC 00027-33. This document is a "predetermination interview" in which EEOC investigator Kevin Gleason summarizes Mr. Doorley's allegations and First Student's response. It also contains Gleason's analysis of the evidence and a recommendation. Its purpose and content is evaluative in nature and therefore the document is subject to the deliberative privilege.
Doc. No. EEOC 00034. This document is purely a back-pay calculation. It is factual in nature and reveals nothing about the evaluative process by which the EEOC made its decisions in this case. It does not refer to conciliation efforts between the parties. Accordingly, the claimed deliberative and conciliation privileges do not apply.
Doc. No. EEOC 00035. This document is a memorandum concerning an offer to settle, Doorley's reaction to it, and an evaluation of the parties' settlement positions authored by investigator Gleason. It is both evaluative in nature and recites the status of conciliation efforts at that point. It is protected
8

from disclosure by both the deliberative and conciliation privileges.
Doc. No. EEOC 00036. This document contains handwritten pay calculations by investigator Gleason. The document is not privileged for the same reason Doc. No. EEOC 00034 is not privileged.
Doc. Nos. EEOC 00037-39. The privilege log refers to this document as research by investigator Gleason, but it is no more than a publicly available copy of the official syllabus of a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It is not subject to the claimed deliberative privilege.
Doc. No. EEOC 00040. This document is a "charge assessment" whereby investigator Gleason communicates his assessment of the reasonable cause issue to an EEOC district director. It is substantively evaluative and its disclosure would intrude on the government's decision-making process. The document is subject to the deliberative privilege.
Doc. Nos. EEOC 00061, 00062-64, 00094-96, 00097-98, and 00107. These documents are handwritten notes, or redacted portions of handwritten notes, of investigator Gleason concerning his discussions with Doorley during the conciliation process about settlement offers made by First Student and what Doorley hoped to obtain from the process. Various of the documents also reflect Gleason's assessment of the settlement positions of the parties.
9

Very little factual information is reflected in the documents. In the Court's judgment, all of the documents are subject to the deliberative or conciliation privilege, and in some instances both, because they reflect the basis and, to a degree, analysis underlying the EEOC's decision to terminate conciliation efforts, and would reveal Doorley's discussions with the EEOC concerning various settlement proposals and possibilities, communications at the core of the conciliation process.
The underlying motion to compel is granted with respect to document Nos. EEOC 00001-6, 00009, 00034, 00036-39. The motion is denied with respect to all other documents on the privilege log. To the extent the motion is granted, the subject documents shall be produced within ten (10) days of the date hereof.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 24th day of June, 2003.
10

 
 ~t'l" I =i.\8l l5 U 'a L:::::s ~
I AUG - 4 2003 \

-_ __ ...

.•......

.".. _ - - '

riLED 'DES riO!Nf::S. ICWA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA ti3AUG I I Ali 9: 34

DAVENPORT DNISION

:~LEP,f'. (J,£,. Di~nRlc:T Ct.lU!H 50UTHE:tH U!5TRICT OF fA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST STUDENT, INC.
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No, 3 02CV10063

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

)

AND ORDER

)

)

)

This action was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("Commission") on June 6, 2002, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §

1981 a. In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that First Student violated Title VII by

retaliating against James Doodey after he allegedly complained to managers and the Human

Resources department that the Contract Manager to whom Doodey immediately reported was

discriminating against and harassing other employees based on their race andlor sex. First

Student denies that it retaliated against Doodey and denies that the Contract Manager to whom'

Doorley reported was discriminating against and harassing other employees based on their race

andlor sex.

The Commission and First Student (the "Parties") have agreed to settle these claims in

order to reach an amicable resolution of this matter and avoid further litigation. The terms of the

agreement are set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the
parties for purposes of entering and enforcing this Consent Decree. 2. The terms of this Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and
just. 3. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is
not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII, and will be in the best interest of the Parties, those for whom the Commission seeks relief, and the public.
4. This Consent Decree resolves all claims arising out of the Charge of Discrimination filed by James DoorIey, EEOC Charge No. 260-AI-0733, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under Title VII that were made or could have been made by Doorley in relation to the Charge. The Parties further agree that this Consent Decree does not, however, resolve any other claims or Charges that may be pending with the Commission other than the Charge specifically referred to in this paragraph.
5. This Consent Decree, the Exhibits and the DoorIey Release of his Title VII claims comprise the full and exclusive agreement of the Parties with respect to the matters discussed herein. No representations or inducements to compromise $s action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Consent Decree (including the Exhibits attached hereto). This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
-2-

Scope of Consent Decree 6. This Consent Decree shall be applicable to all of First Student's employees at its Iowa City facility and to all officers, managers and human resources personnel responsible for supervising the Iowa City location for three (3) years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Consent Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purpose.
General Injunctive Provisions 7. Sexual and Racial Harassment. During the term of this Consent Decree, First Student and its officers, agents, and managers (including supervisory employees), are hereby enjoined from engaging in any behavior that harasses or intimidates employees on any basis prohibited by Title VII, and will not condone and will enforce its policy of "zero tolerance" for acts of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of race or sex. 8. Retaliation. During the term ofthis Consent Decree, First Student and its officers, agents, and managers (including supervisory employees), are hereby enjoined from taking any adverse action or retaliation against any employee or former employee for exercising the right to oppose any practice made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII or to make a charge, testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Monetary Relief 9. Within 20 days after the signature of the Consent Decree and Order by the Court, First Student shall make the following payments:
-3-

A total of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00) payable in two equal installments to James Doorley as compensation for alleged emotional distress damages and other compensatory damages, including injury to reputation. The first installment offorty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) shall be paid within ten (10) days of entry of this Consent Decree. The remaining payment of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) shall be paid on April 5, 2004. First Student shall issue a form 1099 for these amounts.
The checks shall be mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, to James Doorleyat 710 Spring Street, Iowa City, IA 52246. A copy of the check shall be mailed simultaneously to the undersigned counsel for the Commission.
10. Neither the Commission nor First Student makes any representations, or assumes any responsibility for any tax liability, assessments, interest, penalties and/or costs that Doorley mayor may not incur under local, state and/or federa1laws by reason of the settlement funds paid under this Consent Decree.
Specific Non-Monetary Relief 11. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in this Consent Decree, First Student will implement and enforce the following procedures and practices:
a. Complaint Procedures As described in Exhibit B to this Consent Decree, First Student shall provide its employees with convenient, confidential (to the extent possible) and reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of sexual harassment, race harassment and/or retaliation. As described in Exhibit B to this Consent Decree, First Student shall maintain personnel responsible for receiving, investigating, issuing appropriate discipline regarding complaints of sexual harassment, race harassment and retaliation. Their names, responsibilities, work locations, and
. -4-

telephone numbers must be routinely and continuously posted for the duration of this Consent Decree.
b. Training Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, First Student shall provide training to aU of its Iowa City personnel, including but not limited to the Contract Manager, Regional Vice President and all Human Resources personnel or other employees responsible for supervising the Iowa City location, at its expense, relating to First Student's obligation to maintain a work environment free from discrimination and harassment on the basis ofrace or sex and regarding First Student's obligation not to retaliate against individuals who complain about discrimination in the workplace. This training will also instruct all employees on the policies and procedures of reporting, responding to, and investigating claims of racial or sexual harassment or retaliation. First Student shall retain an independent company specializing in the provision of education and training to employees regarding sexual harassment, race harassment, and retaliation to provide such training. Within thirty (30) days of completion of the training, First Student must send to undersigned counsel for the Commission written verification that the training was satisfactorily completed. The training will be repeated annually while this Consent Decree remains in effect, however, the training conducted in the second and third years of the Consent Decree will be provided by in-house representatives ofFirst Student who have previously completed the training provided by the outside consultant. In-house representatives shall be bound by the same training requirements as the outside consultants, however, appropriate updates to the sexual harassment, race harassment and retaliation training must be added. Within thirty (30) days of
-5-

completion of the training, First Student must send to undersigned counsel for the Commission written verification that the training was satisfactorily completed..
c. Record-keeping and Reporting For three (3) years from the date of this Consent Decree, First Student shall docwnent and maintain records related to every Complaint that it or any manager or supervisor receives alleging sexual harassment, race harassment and retaliation, at the Iowa City location, or those locations associated with the supervision ofthe Iowa City location. A "Complaint" is defined as any allegation or statement that can be reasonably interpreted as relating to sexual harassment, race harassment andlor retaliation, including but not limited to any oral or written allegation or statement: (a) by a person subject to such a violation; (b) by a person witnessing such a violation; andlor (c) by a supervisor, manager or senior management official reporting such a violation. First Student shall also provide the undersigned counsel for the Commission within seven (7) business days after completion of any investigation regarding a Complaint, a Report ofthe Complaint. The Reports shall include the following information for each Complaint: the name, address, and telephone nwnber of all employees who rendered a Complaint; the date and nature of each Complaint; the identity of each person to whom each Complaint was made; and the action taken by First Student in response to each Complaint. The Commission may, at its discretion, inspect and copy any docwnents maintained by First Student underlying each Complaint. The Commission shall give written notice to First Student regarding the Commission's intention to inspect the documents, and First Student shall have ten (10) days to comply with such request. In addition, ifupon review of the Reports, the Commission has reason to believe that the investigation was not conducted properly, it has, at its discretion, the
-6-

right, upon reasonable notice, to interview witnesses and/or hire an external investigator at its

expense.

d. Neutral Reference

When and if First Student is contacted by a prospective employer of James

Doorley for an employment reference, First Student shall provide a neutral reference that states:

James Doodey was employed with First Student as a bus driver from August of 1997

until August of 1998 and as a dispatcher from August of 1998 until June of2000.

Mr. Doorley's final rate of pay was $

per hour.

First Student shall not disclose to any other employer or potential employer that contacts

First Student seeking a reference any facts or circumstances surrounding Doorley's charges of

retaliation or the events relating to the charges or this lawsuit. Doorley agrees to direct any such

prospective employer to contact only First Student's Director ofHuman Resources.

Posting ofNotices

12. Within two (2) weeks after entry of this Consent Decree, First Student shall post:

(1) the notice attached as Exhibit A; (2) all First Student policies and procedures regarding

sexual haraSsment, race harassment and retaliation; (3) the names, responsibilities, work

locations and telephone numbers ofthe personnel charged with receiving, investigating and

taking appropriate disciplinary action in response to complaints of sexual harassment, race

harassment and retaliation, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) above; and (4) the existence and

function ofFirst Student Corporate Human Resources including the name, telephone number and

address at which First Student Corporate Human Resources may be reached and the employees'

right to contact First Student Gorporate Human Resources, (collectively the "Notices"). These

Notices shall be posted in prominent and conspicuous locations where notices to employees are customarily posted in First Student's Iowa City facility, and those facilities where supervisors,
-7-

mangers and hwnan resources personnel reside who are responsible for or supervise the Iowa City location, and shall be individually distributed to First Student employees responsible for implementing aspects of this Consent Decree. The Notices shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree. In the event that the persons and/or departments to whom individuals should make complaints alleging sex-harassment, race harassment and/or retaliation change during the term of the Consent Decree such that the information contained on the Notices is no longer accurate, First Student shall promptly revise the Notices so that they contain the correct information.
13. First Student shall provide a copy of the Consent Decree to any employee who requests one.
Dispute Resolution and Compliance 14. In the event that either party to this Consent Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Consent Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged non-complying party in writing ofsuch non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged noncomplying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. In the event that, upon the expiration date of this Consent Decree, a dispute is pending pursuant to this paragraph, then the term ofthis Consent Decree shall be extended., with respect to the issue in dispute only, until such time as such dispute is resolved by the Parties or the Court.
-8-

15. First Student agrees that the Commission may review compliance with this

Consent Decree. As part of such review, the Commission may inspect the premises, interview

employees and examine and copy documents. The EEOC shall provide notice seven (7) days in

advance of an inspection.

Costs and Notices

16. Each Party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorneys' fees associated with

this litigation, and neither Party shall seek reimbursement for any outstanding litigation costs.

17. Except as is otherwise provided for in this Consent Decree, all notifications,

reports and communications to the Parties required under this Consent Decree shall be made in

writing and shall be sufficient as hand-delivered or sent by first class mail to the following

persons:

For EEOC:

For First Student:

Deborah J. Powers, Esq. Senior Trial Attorney EEOC 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

Thomas A. Secrest, Esq. First Student, Inc. 705 Central Avenue, Suite 500 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-5755

Any party may change such addresses by written notice to the other party, setting forth a
new address for this purpose. Notwithstanding the provisions for notification contained in this
paragraph, the Parties may send each other such notifications, reports and communications by facsimile transmission.

~ SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this L-day of

2003.

-9-

H norable Ronald. ngstaff .ef United States District Court Judge
Southern District ofIowa

Agreed to in form and content:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 297-3983 Facsimile: (414) 297-3146

J anP. Kamp riOnal Attorney
FOR THE DEFENDANT FIRST STUDENT, INC.
-
Associate General Counsel Director of Labor Relations First Student, Inc.

Dath
Date

-10-

EXHIBIT A

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF FIRST STUDENT, INC.

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (''EEOC''), entitled EEOC v. First Student. Inc, Case Number 3 02CVI0063, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

In the lawsuit, EEOC alleges that First Student violated Title VII by retaliating against an employee, James Doorley, when it tenninated his employment because he alleges that he complained to managers and the Human Resources department that the Contract Manager to whom he immediately reported was discriminating against and harassing other employees based on their race and!or sex. First Student denies that it retaliated against Mr. Doorley and denies that discriminating or harassing conduct occnrred.

By agreement ofthe parties and without making any detennination about the merits of the case, United States District Court Chief Judge Ronald E. Longstaff has entered a consent decree which provides:

•

First Student agrees to make a payment to Mr. Doorley.

First Student agrees not to condone sexual harassment, race harassment or retaliation against persons who oppose such harassment and to enforce its policy of zero tolerance regarding sexual harassment, race harassment, and retaliation. In other words, First Student will not harass or retaliate against employees because they have opposed practices they believe to be discriminatory, or have participated in any manner in an investigation or court case under Title VII.

First Student agrees to provide mandatory annual sexual harassment, race harassment and retaliation training to its employees in its Iowa City location, and all those locations responsible for supervising the Iowa City location, and to make all employees in the Iowa City location, and those employees supervising the Iowa City location, aware of First Student's zero tolerance policy forbidding any such discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and providing for disciplinary action against violators.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for three (3) years from the date shown below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or about First Student's compliance with its provisions may be directed to First Student Settlement,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800, Milwaukee, WI 53203,1-800-669-4000.
Dated:

"

August 1, 2002

TO:

First Student Employees

FROM:

Bruce Lyskawa President, First Student, Inc.

RE:

Harassment Free Workplace

705 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-5755 Tel 513-241-2200 Fax 513-381-0149 www-firstgroupamElrica.com
First Student"

We value the diversity of our employees at First Student, Inc. and believe that fostering an environment that respects employee differences is critical to First Student's success. We feel ilis important to have a team that reflects the diversity of our customers and the communities in which we do business. We expect each of you to uphold and encourage an atmosphere that supports and welcomes the unique qualities and contributions of all our employees.
We firmly believe that our employees must be able to work in an environment that is free of harassment and discrimination. There is "zero tolerance" for any form of harassment, but also unintentional and careless acts that may contribute to creating a hostile environment for some employees_ For example, employees should not tell jokes or stories which are sexually offensive or discriminatory as to race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Employees should not make offensive gestures of sexual nature and should not make unwanted or otherwise inappropriate comments about the physical appearance of another person_ Our work place should be free of pictures, cartoons or other illustrations that are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate. In addition, it is important that all company events and meetings, including meetings with and entertainment of customers, take place at locations that do not offend any employees who may wish to participate_ For example, meetings and company-sponsored entertainment at "adult" clubs in inappropriate.
Observing these policies and valuing the differences of our employees are critical to our success. These
policies are not intended to take the enjoyment out of doing our jobs, but rather are intended to promote a
harassment free workplace by setting the standard for our expected behavior.
Any employee who feels he/she is the victim of workplace harassment, or witnesses unlawful harassment or abuse, whether from management, co-workers, or third parties, should promptly report the matter to their immediate supervisor or Contract Manager. If the employee feels uncomfortable discussing the issue with local management, the employee should contact the Vice-President of Human Resources, Rick Vilines at 513-419-3262, or the Director of Human Resources, Larry Whitler at 513-419-3298, at the Corporate Office.
No adverse action or retaliation will take place against any employee who reports issues of workplace harassment.
AFlrstGroupAmericar; Company

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - JULY 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement08-03.html

EEOC v. First Student, Inc. No. 3-02CV10063 (S.D. Iowa August 11, 2003)
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a nationwide busing company, discharged charging party, a Dispatcher, in retaliation for his complaints that the manager of the Iowa City, Iowa facility where he worked used racial epithets toward black employees and sexually harassed female employees. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $80,000 in compensatory damages to charging party.

1 of 1

6/1/2007 4:46 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

TERMED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Davenport)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv-10063-REL

EEOC v. First Student Inc Assigned to: Senior Judge Ronald E. Longstaff Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 06/06/2002 Date Terminated: 08/11/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Deborah J Powers EEOC 310 W Wisconsin Avenue Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292 414 297 3983 Fax: 414 297 3146 Email: deborah.powers@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jean P Kamp EEOC MILWAUKEE DISTRICT OFFICE 310 W WISCONSIN AVE STE 800 MILWAUKEE, WI 53203-2292 414 297 1860 Fax: 414 297 3146 Email: jean.kamp@eeoc.gov

Rosemary J Fox EEOC MILWAUKEE DISTRICT OFFICE 310 W WISCONSIN AVE STE 800 MILWAUKEE, WI 53203-2292 414 297 4131 Fax: 414 297 3146 Email: rosemary.fox@eeoc.gov

V. Defendant

1 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

First Student Inc

represented by Holly M Robbins FAEGRE & BENSON 2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER 90 S SEVENTH ST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3901 Fax: 6127661600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A Giudicessi FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 801 GRAND AVE SUITE 3100 DES MOINES, IA 50309-2331 515 248 9000 Fax: 248 9010 Email: mgiudicessi@faegre.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reid Carron FAEGRE & BENSON 2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER 90 S SEVENTH ST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3901 612/766-7000

Date Filed 01/10/2007 01/04/2007
08/11/2003 08/05/2003 07/07/2003
07/07/2003

#

Docket Text

69 RECEIPT FOR SEALED DOCUMENTS to be destroyed by Deborah J Powers (plaintiff) (don, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
68 SEALED DOCUMENTS WITHDRAWAL LETTER to Rosemary J Fox, Jean P Kamp, Deborah J Powers Plaintiff's documents only. Withdrawal of Sealed Documents due by 1/25/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Release Form) (don, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
67 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER by Judge Ronald E. Longstaff signed 8/8/03; a total of $80,000 in two equal installments to be paid to J Doorley [See Order for specs] dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
REMARK: Consent Decree and order sent to DSM this date (rmj) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
66 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters; case settled, closing documents due on or before August 4, 2003. Trial and Final pretrial conference is canceled. ; Dismsl papers ddl 08/04/03 , ; Jury trial canceled ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) canceled (cc: all counsel) (bp) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
65 LETTER to court from defendant First Student Inc (bp) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

2 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

06/27/2003 06/25/2003 06/25/2003 06/25/2003 06/24/2003
06/24/2003
06/24/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/18/2003 06/18/2003 06/18/2003 06/18/2003

64 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters Rule 16(b) Telephone Hearing 6/30/03 @ 3:00; said call to be placed by dft's counsel; will discuss scheduling of settlement conference (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
63 **FILED UNDER SEAL** STATEMENT by plaintiff [62-1] in support of order, [61-1] (rmj) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
62 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters granting motion for leave to file privileged documents under seal [61-1] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
61 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file privileged documents under seal before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
60 ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (cc: all counsel) (rmj) Modified on 06/25/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 1/4/2007 (bp, ). (Entered: 06/25/2003)
59 ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF CLAIMED PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters re [30-1], re [15-1] motion to compel discovery, re [9-1] motion for protective order (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
58 **FILED UNDER SEAL** AMENDMENT to Appendix by plaintiff to [57-1] (rmj) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
57 APPENDIX filed by plaintiff EEOC [53-1] re: memorandum (bp) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah J. Powers [53-1] regarding memorandum (bp) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
55 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by plaintiff EEOC [53-1] in support of memorandum (bp) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
54 REPLY by plaintiff EEOC re [39-1] statement to material facts (bp) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
53 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to motion for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff; Oral argument requested [37-1] (bp) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
52 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Smith [49-1] regarding resistances to motions for continuance before Judge Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
51 AFFIDAVIT of Holly M Robbins [49-1] regarding resistances to continuance motions before Judge Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
50 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support [49-1] of resistance to plf's Rule 56(f) motion for continuance and resistance to plf's motion for extension of time to resist summary judgment before Judge Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
49 RESISTANCE by defendant to Plf's Rule 56(f) motion for continuance and resistance to Plf's motion for extension of time to resist summary judgment before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters [44-1] Oral argument requested (rmj)

3 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

06/18/2003 06/11/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003 05/28/2003 05/27/2003
05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003

(Entered: 06/19/2003)
48 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters granting motion to extend time to file a resistance to motion for summary judgment until June 23, 2003 [47-1] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
47 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment until June 23, 2003, before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (bp) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
46 APPENDIX filed by EEOC [44-1] re: motion to extend discovery ddl to respond to Dft's motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
45 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in support [44-1] of motion to extend discovery ddl to respond to Dft's motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
44 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to extend discovery ddl to respond to Dft's motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
43 ORDER CONCERNING PLF'S MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters re [42-2]; Previous order is rescinded; Motion granted in part and denied in part [See Order] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
42 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters granting motion to amend Scheduling Order, dispositive deadline is September 12, 2003 and discovery deadline is August 15, 2003. Trial and final pretrial conference remains as previously scheduled, March 15, 2004 and February 13, 2004. [31-1] ; Dispositive Motion ddl set for 9/12/03 ; Discovery ddl August 15, 2003 (cc: all counsel) (bp) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
41 AFFIDAVIT of Angela J. Morales [37-1] regarding motion for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff (rmj) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
40 APPENDIX filed by defendant First Student Inc [37-1] re: motion for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff(rmj) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
39 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS by defendant [37-1] in support of motion for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff (rmj) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
38 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support [37-1] of motion for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff (rmj) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
37 MOTION by defendant First Student Inc for summary judgment before Judge Ronald E. Longstaff; Oral argument requested (rmj) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
36 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Smith (rmj) (Entered: 05/19/2003)

4 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

05/19/2003 05/09/2003 05/09/2003 05/09/2003 05/05/2003 05/05/2003 04/24/2003
03/25/2003 02/14/2003
02/04/2003 02/03/2003 01/31/2003
01/23/2003 01/22/2003

35 AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Howard (rmj) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
34 AFFIDAVIT of atty Holly M. Robbins [33-1] regarding Objection/Opposition to Pltf EEOC's Mot to Amd Scheduling Order (lh) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
Text not available. (Entered: 05/12/2003)
33 OBJECTION/Opposition by Deft First Student Inc to [31-1] Pltf's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (lh) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
32 AFFIDAVIT of Rosemary J Fox, Supervisory trial atty (rmj) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
31 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to amend Scheduling Order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
30 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters granting in part and denying in part First Student's motion to compel discovery [See order] [15-1], granting in part and denying in part EEOC's motion for protective order [See order] [9-1] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
29 ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters Conference was held on 3/25/03; trial remains set for 3/15/04 in Davenport (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
28 ORDER RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters re [25-3] order ; Settlement cnf (MAG) 3/25/03 @ 9:00 in Des Moines Federal Courthouse; the parties shall comply with the requirements for settlement conference previously ordered (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
27 PROTECTIVE ORDER/STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR PROTECTION by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters: [See order] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
26 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (bp) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
25 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTS by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters ; Settlement cnf (MAG) 3/11/03 @ 9:00 in Des Moines; Each party shall provide The Court a statement concerning settlement at least 3 days before the conference; Telephone Hearing SATISFIED , (cc: all counsel) (rmj) Modified on 01/31/2003 (Entered: 01/31/2003)
24 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant First Student Inc re [15-1] motion to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
23 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters ; Rule 16(b) Telephone Hearing 1/30/03 @ 9:30 to determine whether a settlement conference should be held; said call to be placed by plf's counsel (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

5 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/06/2003 12/27/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/12/2002 12/12/2002 12/12/2002 12/12/2002 09/23/2002
09/18/2002

22 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah J Powers [15-1] regarding EEOC's opposition to Dft's motion to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
21 RESISTANCE by plaintiff EEOC to motion to compel discovery/Memorandum in Opposition to motion before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters [15-1] (rmj) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
20 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to extend time to respond to Dft's motion to compel and ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters granting motion [20-1] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
16 DECLARATION by defendant First Student Inc [15-1] re motion to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
19 APPENDIX filed by defendant First Student Inc [15-1] re: motion to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
18 MEMORANDUM by defendant First Student Inc in support [15-1] of motion to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
17 MOTION by defendant First Student Inc to exceed page limitation and ORDER granting motion [17-1] (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
15 MOTION by defendant First Student Inc to compel discovery before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
14 MEMORANDUM by defendant First Student Inc in support [13-1] of its resistance to motion for protective order (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
13 RESISTANCE by defendant First Student Inc to motion for protective order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters [9-1] (rmj) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
12 CERTIFICATE REGARDING INFORMAL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTE by plaintiff EEOC; parties are unable to reach agreement without the intervention of the Court (rmj) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
11 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah J Powers [9-1] regarding motion for protective order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
10 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support [9-1] of motion for protective order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
9 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order before Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters (rmj) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
8 ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ; Five-day Jury trial 3/15/04 in Davenport, IA; Telephonic Final pretrial cnf (MAG) 2/13/04 at 9:00; said call to be placed by plf's counsel /s/ JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters; dispositive mtn ddl set 5/19/03; Case ready for trial as of 9/1/03; estimated length of trial - 5-day jury trial; Discovery ddl set for 4/7/03 (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 09/18/2002)

6 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM

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

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731734534344044-L_3...

09/16/2002
08/15/2002 08/07/2002
08/07/2002 08/05/2002 06/28/2002 06/06/2002

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER SUBMITTED by plaintiff EEOC, defendant First Student Inc; Report not adopted, referred to Magistrate. (rmj) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
6 STATEMENT of Interest by Deft First Student Inc [1-1] in support of Complaint (lh) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
5 ORDER granting motion for attorneys Reid Carron and Holly M. Robbins, Minneapolis, MN to appear pro hac vice [4-1] /s/ JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (rmj) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
4 MOTION by defendant First Student Inc for attorneys Reid Carron and Holly M. Robbins, Minneapolis, MN to appear pro hac vice (rmj) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
3 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by defendant First Student Inc complaint [1-1] (rmj) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons and complaint, upon defendant First Student Inc on 6/18/02 (rmj) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
1 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND (Summons not issued) Rule 16 Dismissal Notice set for 10/4/02; Dismissal ddl (service) set for 10/4/02 (rmj) (Entered: 06/06/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/01/2007 16:41:38

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:02-cv-10063-REL Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 6/1/2007

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

0.32

7 of 7

6/1/2007 4:43 PM