Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERICK LITTLE 21251 Owlsnest Circle Germantown, MD 20876
LAWRENCE WHITTED 1819 P Street SE, Apt. C-11 Washington, DC 20020
TIMOTHY McCLOUGH 5023 Kimi Gray Court, SE Washington, DC 20019
GERALD TUCKER 17340 Rocky Mountain Lane Dumfries, VA 22026
LEROY QUARLES 2610 Fort Drive Suitland, MD 20746
FITZGERALD STONEY 4716 Alabama Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20019 MARCELLO VIRGIL 2405 18th Street, SE Washington, DC 20020
LEON McKENZIE 1193 46th Place, SE Washington, DC 20019
and
LOUIA McKENZIE 4528 Buchanan Street Hyattsville, MD 20781
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.

Case No.: ___________________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 42
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION 7307C Highland Street Springfield, VA 22315 EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. 1200 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 and FIRST TRANSIT, INC. 600 Vine Street Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202
Defendants.
This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiffs Erick Little, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Leon McKenzie, Louia McKenzie, and Marcello Virgil (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek to remedy the violation of their rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 12-1401 et seq., against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) and WMATA’s contractors Diamond Transportation (“Diamond”), Executive Personnel Services, Inc. (“EPSI”), and First Transit, Inc. (“First Transit”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief with respect to other matters, as follows:
2

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 42
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This class action lawsuit calls on WMATA and its contractors to adopt a fair and nondiscriminatory background screening policy. While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for employers when screening job applicants, WMATA’s background check policy is overly broad, unjustifiably rigid and unduly harsh. It results in the unnecessary firing of current employees who have a demonstrated track record of successful employment and the denial of employment to applicants who are well-qualified to perform the jobs at issue safely and effectively. The policy disqualifies many job applicants and employees based on criminal history that is not related to the job at issue or occurred so long ago—in some cases, 20 or 30 years in the past—that it is irrelevant to any fair determination of employee honesty, reliability, or safety. For example, under WMATA’s policy, a person who has ever had a felony conviction for drug possession is permanently disqualified from employment in a wide range of jobs, including bus operator and custodian, even if the applicant has been drug-free and held a steady job for ten or 20 years. 2. WMATA’s policy leads to grossly unfair results for many qualified, hard-working applicants and employees, including, for example, Plaintiffs:
Erick Little, a 47-year-old man who worked as a bus driver for Montgomery County’s Ride-On Transportation Service (“Ride-On”), had his job offer as a bus operator for WMATA withdrawn based on a conviction for simple drug possession that was more than 25 years old and stemmed from an incident when he was just 19 years old; Lawrence Whitted, a 58-year-old man, was fired from his job as a MetroAccess driver for a WMATA contractor, even though he had performed the job
3

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 4 of 42
successfully for more than five years, based on a drug-related conviction from 1989, which he had disclosed when he initially applied for the job; and Marcello Virgil, a 45-year-old man, was fired from his job as a custodian with a WMATA contractor and denied an equivalent position with WMATA (which came with better pay and benefits) based on a drug-related conviction that was 15 years old, even though he disclosed the conviction before he started work for the contractor, and his supervisors had encouraged him to apply for the position at WMATA. The above are just a few examples of qualified individuals who have been barred from employment under WMATA’s policy. Excluding these qualified individuals is unwarranted and unfair. 3. WMATA’s policy is far more restrictive than necessary to protect public safety. The federal Transportation Security Administration, which hires individuals to screen passengers at airport checkpoints, uses background screening standards that are less onerous than WMATA’s. Moreover, several of WMATA’s member jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, have more flexible background screening policies than WMATA does. And other transit authorities, such as the Chicago Transit Authority, have policies that affirmatively seek to hire individuals with criminal records. 4. WMATA’s policy is not only overly harsh, it also has a discriminatory effect on qualified African-American workers. The number of Americans who have a criminal record has increased dramatically in recent decades. Historically and at present, African-Americans have been hardest hit by this national trend because of racial profiling and other discriminatory policies and practices in our criminal justice system. For this reason, African-Americans in the
4

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 5 of 42
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are more likely to have criminal convictions than members of other racial groups. Racial disparities in rates of arrests and convictions are not explained by disproportionate rates of criminal activity. A recent study revealed that, while rates of drug use in Washington, D.C. are roughly equal across all races, African Americans are arrested for drug offenses far more often than individuals of other races. Accordingly, WMATA’s use of criminal background checks unfairly and disproportionately limits opportunity for qualified AfricanAmerican employees and applicants in violation of federal and local antidiscrimination laws. This lawsuit seeks equal opportunity for all who have been wrongly fired or denied employment because of WMATA’s overbroad and unnecessarily punitive background screening policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. WMATA was created in 1967 by an interstate compact between the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop and operate a regional transportation system. Through its network of Metrorail, Motorbus, and MetroAccess systems, it serves a population of approximately five million people in the District of Columbia; the Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges; the Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun; and the Virginia cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. WMATA operates the second-largest heavy rail transit system, the sixth-largest bus network, and the fifth-largest paratransit service in the United States. WMATA serves a diverse population: of its bus passengers, 59% are African American, 19% white, 10% Latino, 4% Asian, 2% multiracial, and 1% Native American. 6. WMATA is a major employer in the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. WMATA employs directly or through third-party contractors over 12,000 workers who drive and operate buses and trains; maintain and repair buses and trains; perform janitorial services at its
5

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 6 of 42
facilities and administrative offices; perform landscaping services at its facilities and administrative offices; perform track, equipment, and electrical repair; and perform training services. Positions at WMATA can provide a middle-class income and offer valuable training and promotional opportunities, including for workers without formal higher education.
7. For more than 30 years, WMATA hired and promoted qualified employees, including some employees who had prior criminal convictions. For example, WMATA employed qualified formerly incarcerated individuals to assist them in re-entering society successfully through its contract with EPSI. Prior to 2009, WMATA disqualified job applicants from positions having direct contact with the public only if they had two felony convictions within three years, or three felony convictions within ten years for any crime against person, property, or society. See Metro News Release, “Metro implements stricter hiring standards” (attached as Exhibit A). Misdemeanor convictions were considered on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given to the nature of the offense, the time lapse since the offense, and efforts at rehabilitation.
8. On August 19, 2009, WMATA announced a stricter policy (“2009 Policy”) that disqualified a much broader class of job applicants. See WMATA Pre-Employment Background Check Standards (attached as Exhibit B). WMATA’s 2009 Policy disqualified, among others: (i) all applicants, “except positions having direct contact with the public,” who had a single felony conviction of any kind or two misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or a crime against person, property, or society within the last five years, (ii) all applicants for “positions having direct contact with the public” who had a single felony conviction of any kind or two misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or a crime against person, property, or society
6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 7 of 42
within the last ten years, and (iii) all applicants who had a conviction for a “crime of violence,” regardless of the time lapse since the offense.
9. On December 22, 2011, WMATA expanded the policy to exclude an even broader class of workers.
10. Specifically, on that date, WMATA promulgated a revised policy (“2011 Policy” or “WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy”) that applies to job applicants and to certain existing employees, including those who are under consideration for new positions with access to the general public or employees who have been on a non-work status, such as on medical leave, for 90 days or longer. See WMATA Policy 7.2.3 Background Screenings (attached as Exhibit C).
11. WMATA’s 2011 Policy disqualifies from employment individuals with a far broader set of criminal convictions than the 2009 Policy. Specifically:
(a) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any position (regardless of whether the position requires interaction with the public) all individuals with a felony conviction for the sale or distribution of a controlled substance, no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
(b) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any position (regardless of whether the position requires interaction with the public) all individuals with any type of conviction (misdemeanor or felony) for possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
(c) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any public-facing position, including bus operators and janitors, all individuals with a felony conviction involving any violence no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
7

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 8 of 42
(d) The policy disqualifies from employment in any position all individuals with a single misdemeanor conviction in the last five years or felony conviction in the last ten years for property crimes, including vandalism, receiving stolen goods, theft, burglary, or larceny.1
12. Existing employees of WMATA can be terminated as a result of a criminal background screening—even if they disclosed their criminal history when they applied to work for WMATA and they have had no new criminal convictions during their employment—if they seek a new position within WMATA or if they take leave from work for 90 days or longer.
13. On its face, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy gives no consideration to individual circumstances, such as the specific conduct that led to the offense; whether the conviction resulted in probation, drug treatment, or community service; efforts at rehabilitation; or whether the conviction has been expunged.
14. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy does not distinguish between positions with widely divergent job functions or responsibilities. For example, the 2011 Policy uses the same list of disqualifying offenses for applicants for jobs ranging from station manager to bus operator to custodian.
15. WMATA requires its contractors, including Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit, to utilize the 2011 Policy in hiring, promoting, and terminating employees. At least 79 individuals have been disqualified pursuant to WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy from jobs with WMATA contractors.
16. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy is not only unfair and unnecessary, it also disproportionately excludes qualified African-American job applicants and
1 The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in fiduciary positions individuals with a felony conviction for a property crime.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 9 of 42
employees because the arrest and conviction rates in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are disproportionately higher for African Americans than for individuals of other races.
PARTIES I. Plaintiffs
17. Plaintiffs are individuals (i) against whom Defendants took an adverse employment action, (ii) who were deterred from applying for job openings, or (iii) who were deterred from taking medical or personal leave as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, as implemented by WMATA and/or its contractors, including Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit:
a. Plaintiff ERICK LITTLE is an African-American resident of Germantown, Maryland.
b. Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHITTED is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
c. Plaintiff TIMOTHY McCLOUGH is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
d. Plaintiff GERALD TUCKER is an African-American resident of Dumfries, Virginia.
e. Plaintiff LEROY QUARLES is an African-American resident of Suitland, Maryland.
f. Plaintiff FITZGERALD STONEY is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
g. Plaintiff LEON McKENZIE is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
9

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 10 of 42
h. Plaintiff LOUIA McKENZIE is an African-American resident of Hyattsville, Maryland.
i. Plaintiff MARCELLO VIRGIL is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
II. Defendants 18. Defendant WMATA is a governmental body created by an interstate compact
creating a tri-jurisdictional operation in the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
19. At all relevant times, WMATA has continuously been doing business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
20. Defendant DIAMOND is a transportation company headquartered in Northern Virginia. At all relevant times, Diamond has been a contractor for WMATA’s MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
21. At all relevant times, Diamond has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
22. Defendant EPSI is a company headquartered in Washington, D.C. EPSI is a staffing firm with a contract under a General Services Administration pilot program for federal agencies, and hires contract laborers for many entities, including WMATA. At all relevant times, EPSI operated under a subcontract with WMATA to provide janitorial and landscaping employees for WMATA administrative office buildings. Prior to the 2011 Policy, EPSI actively recruited individuals with criminal convictions to fill WMATA’s staffing needs.
10

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 11 of 42
23. At all relevant times, EPSI has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
24. Defendant FIRST TRANSIT is a transportation company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. At all relevant times, First Transit has been a contractor for WMATA’s MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
25. At all relevant times, First Transit has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 26. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this claim arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and under § 717 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were committed in Washington, D.C., and Plaintiffs were terminated from jobs that took place, or would have been based, in Washington, D.C. Additionally, venue is proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) because Plaintiffs Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Fitzgerald Stoney, and Marcello Virgil reside within this judicial district.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 28. On September 6, 2012, a member of the proposed class filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against WMATA based on the revocation of a contingent offer of his employment with WMATA. That
11

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 12 of 42
class member explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy used by WMATA because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
29. On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff Little filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA based on the rescission of a contingent employment offer. Mr. Little explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 15, 2014, Mr. Little requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General is now required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
30. On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff Whitted filed a Questionnaire with the EEOC based on the termination of his employment with Diamond. Mr. Whitted explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and Diamond because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On October 28, 2013, Mr. Whitted filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. Mr. Whitted alleged that the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and Diamond was racially discriminatory because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 15, 2015, Mr. Whitted requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
31. On January 4 and March 4, 2013, Plaintiff McClough timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA and EPSI based on the termination of his employment with EPSI. Mr. McClough explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and EPSI as constituting racial discrimination against him, and
12

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 13 of 42
African Americans as a class, in violation of Title VII and other applicable laws. On July 15, 2015, Mr. McClough requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
32. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff Louia McKenzie timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA and First Transit based on the denial of his employment with First Transit. Mr. McKenzie explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and First Transit as constituting racial discrimination against him, and African Americans and Latinos as a class, in violation of Title VII and other applicable laws. On July 15, 2015, Mr. McKenzie requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
33. In addition, Defendants have been on notice from the EEOC and other terminated employees and applicants for over a year of the class-wide discriminatory impact of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
34. The other Plaintiffs timely filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and requested Notices of Right to Sue on July 15, 2015. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue each Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
35. All other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been fulfilled. CLASS DEFINITION
36. Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following classes:
WMATA Class: All African-American persons who, since February 23, 2012, have been fired, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with WMATA as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
13

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 14 of 42
Contractor Classes: All African-American persons who: Diamond Subclass—since July 26, 2012 have been fired, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with Diamond as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. EPSI Subclass—since March 4, 2012 have been fired, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with EPSI as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. First Transit Subclass—since September 13, 2012 have been fired, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with First Transit as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
37. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (3) for violations of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code § 2-1402.01. The WMATA Class and Contractor Classes (collectively the “Classes”) consist of all terminated employees, employees deterred from applying for internal job openings, employees deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and applicants denied employment based on WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
38. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has harmed all members of the Classes. Plaintiffs estimate that members of the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
39. Defendants’ relationship with the members of the Classes and Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy with respect to members of the
14

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 15 of 42
Classes has been substantially uniform. Questions of law and fact will predominately be common to the Classes.
40. Defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Classes as a whole.
41. WMATA has adopted a single, uniform policy that is used for all employees and applicants to WMATA and its contractors.
42. There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, but are not limited to:
(a) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy violates Title VII;
(b) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy violates the District of Columbia Human Rights Act;
(c) Whether Defendants maintain a single, uniformly applied criminal background check policy;
(d) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy deters or excludes applicants, or causes employees to be terminated based on a past criminal conviction, who are otherwise eligible for employment;
(e) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to deter or exclude applicants, or terminate employees based on a past criminal conviction, has a disparate impact on African-American applicants and/or employees;
15

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 16 of 42
(f) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to deter or exclude applicants, or terminate employees based on a past criminal conviction, is job-related and consistent with business necessity;
(g) Whether less discriminatory policies exist that would meet Defendants’ legitimate business needs, if any; and
(h) What equitable and injunctive relief for the Classes is warranted. 43. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Classes: (1) each of the Plaintiffs either was terminated from employment or denied employment by Defendants; (2) each received or would have received a criminal background screening pursuant to WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy; (3) each was terminated from employment, deterred from seeking employment, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, or denied employment based on a criminal conviction; and (4) each has the same discrimination claim based on disparate impact. All of these claims are shared by each and every Class member. 44. Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have no conflict with one another or Class members. Plaintiffs are committed to the goal of having WMATA revise its hiring policy and practice to reduce or eliminate its discriminatory impact on African-American applicants and employees. 45. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action employment discrimination litigation. 46. This action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this legal dispute. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to
16

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 17 of 42
Plaintiffs and the Classes as a whole. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants’ common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and practice.
STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM I. Claims of the Plaintiffs
A. Erick Little 47. Plaintiff Erick Little is a 47-year-old African-American man whose job offer to work as a WMATA bus operator was unfairly revoked based on a 27-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful employment as a bus driver for Montgomery County’s RideOn. 48. In July 2013, Mr. Little received a contingent offer of employment for a position as a Bus Operator with WMATA after passing the requisite tests and physical examination. The offer was rescinded three weeks later due to the results of his criminal background check. 49. In 1987, Mr. Little was convicted of possession of a controlled and dangerous substance. Mr. Little was 19-years-old at the time of this offense. Mr. Little served six months in a work-release center and 12 months of probation. Mr. Little was also convicted of three misdemeanors in 1996, 2003, and 2006, respectively. Each of these convictions resulted in one year of probation. 50. Mr. Little disclosed his criminal history, including his 1987 conviction, to a WMATA employee during his interview, and was told, “I don’t think they should hold this against you since it was 27 years ago.” Following Mr. Little’s disclosure, WMATA extended a conditional offer. Notwithstanding the interviewer’s admission, WMATA subsequently rescinded the offer.
17

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 18 of 42
51. After Mr. Little’s offer was rescinded and he was informed of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, he was deterred from applying for further employment at WMATA given his criminal history.
52. Mr. Little is well-qualified to work for WMATA. At the time he applied for the Bus Operator position, Mr. Little was employed as a Bus Operator for Montgomery County’s Ride-On, a job in which he followed bus routes that are routinely used by WMATA bus drivers. Mr. Little has also worked as a commercial driver for various companies and municipal government agencies in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Currently, Mr. Little is employed as a truck driver by Montgomery County’s Department of Liquor Control.
B. Lawrence Whitted 53. Plaintiff Lawrence Whitted is a 58-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator based on a 24-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful work at MetroAccess for over five years prior to his firing. 54. Mr. Whitted was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance in 1989, 18 years before he was employed by Diamond and WMATA, for which he was sentenced to three years in an inpatient drug treatment program. 55. Mr. Whitted declined to pursue direct employment with WMATA or a different WMATA contractor because of the high likelihood he would be disqualified from employment under WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy. 56. Mr. Whitted is well-qualified to work for Diamond and WMATA. Mr. Whitted worked for Diamond for over five years. Mr. Whitted has also worked as a commercial driver for other companies in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
18

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 19 of 42
C. Timothy McClough 57. Plaintiff Timothy McClough is a 57-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at EPSI as a WMATA landscaper based on a 22-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful work as a landscaper and custodian for WMATA for over six years prior to his firing. 58. Mr. McClough was convicted of a drug-related felony in 1990, for which he served three and one-half years in federal prison and completed a drug rehabilitation program. In 2006, he was convicted of misdemeanor possession and received a sentence of 40 hours of community service and drug rehabilitation. 59. Mr. McClough is well-qualified to work for EPSI and WMATA and had been employed by these entities since 2006. D. Gerald Tucker 60. Plaintiff Gerald Tucker is a 35-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired by WMATA from his job as a train operator based on a nine-year-old misdemeanor weapons charge (for which Mr. Tucker was sentenced to probation), despite his successful work as a WMATA bus and train operator for over five years prior to his firing. 61. On January 25, 2013, Mr. Tucker, who is a single father, was terminated because he had accrued a number of unexcused absences to care for his young son. Initially, in May 2013, Mr. Tucker was notified by his union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 (“Local 689”), that he would be reinstated. On June 12, 2013, however, Mr. Tucker was notified that he would not be rehired due to his criminal record.
19

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 20 of 42
62. Mr. Tucker’s criminal history consists of only one misdemeanor in 2004, for which he pled guilty to brandishing a firearm. Mr. Tucker was sentenced to two years of probation, which he successfully completed.
63. On October 9, 2013, Mr. Tucker was informed by the union representative that he would be reinstated without back pay. Mr. Tucker was not provided a basis for his reinstatement and was given no assurances that his criminal background would not again be used in the future as a basis for disqualifying him from employment. As a result, Mr. Tucker is deterred from taking personal or medical leave and is deterred from applying for a new position within WMATA for fear that his criminal background will again result in termination of his employment.
E. Leroy Quarles 64. Plaintiff Leroy Quarles is a 53-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator based on a 25-yearold conviction for assault and robbery (for which Mr. Quarles was sentenced to probation), despite his successful work at MetroAccess for over three years prior to his firing. 65. Mr. Quarles, in conformance with WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, underwent a background check in May 2013. Near the end of May 2013, Diamond and WMATA were notified that Mr. Quarles had a disqualifying criminal conviction. 66. Mr. Quarles was convicted in 1988 of assault and attempted robbery, and sentenced to two years probation. Mr. Quarles successfully completed his sentence and probation. 67. Mr. Quarles continued to work as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator while Diamond appealed application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy on
20

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 21 of 42
Mr. Quarles’s behalf. On July 2, 2013, Mr. Quarles was removed from service as a result of WMATA’s policy. On July 16, 2013, Mr. Quarles was fired.
68. Mr. Quarles is well-qualified to work for Diamond and WMATA. Prior to being terminated, Mr. Quarles had worked for Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess bus driver/operator for three years.
F. Fitzgerald Stoney 69. Plaintiff Fitzgerald Stoney is a 62-year-old African-American man with more than 40 years of experience as a laborer, including numerous jobs laying rails for WMATA. He was unfairly denied a job as a mechanic technician at WMATA based on convictions that are decades old. 70. In January 2012, Mr. Stoney applied online for the mechanic technician position and, on February 25, 2012, at WMATA’s invitation, he sat for a three-part written assessment test. 71. Mr. Stoney did not receive a response from WMATA until April 2012. On April 13, 2012, WMATA sent Mr. Stoney a letter stating that it was denying his employment application due to the results of his criminal background check. Mr. Stoney never received any other explanation or communication from WMATA about his application. 72. Mr. Stoney’s criminal history is decades old and unrelated to the position of mechanic technician. In 1983, Mr. Stoney was convicted of armed robbery and was incarcerated until 1988. In 1994, he was convicted of misdemeanor simple assault, for which he did not serve any jail or prison time. 73. Mr. Stoney is well-qualified for the position of mechanic technician. He has been performing work similar to that required of a mechanic technician since 1971, when he joined
21

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 22 of 42
Laborers Local 456 (now Laborers Local 657). Through the union, Mr. Stoney received training for tasks including drilling and laying railroad tracks. He has since worked on a variety of contracts, including contracts that involved laying rails for WMATA, for more than 40 years.
G. Leon McKenzie 74. Mr. Leon McKenzie is a 52-year-old African-American man who was automatically disqualified for a job as a bus driver at WMATA based on a drug-related conviction from 1995, despite his long history of successful employment. 75. Early in 2013, Mr. Leon McKenzie applied online for a position as a bus operator at WMATA. WMATA invited him to sit for a three-part skills assessment test, which he passed. He then participated in a full-day job interview. 76. At the conclusion of the interview, in March 2013, Mr. Leon McKenzie received a contingent offer of employment as a bus operator. 77. On June 14, 2013, WMATA sent Mr. Leon McKenzie a letter stating that it intended to withdraw his job offer based on the results of his criminal background check. He received a second letter dated June 28, 2013, formally rescinding the offer. 78. After he received the letters, Mr. Leon McKenzie contacted the company that conducted the background check, First Choice Background Screening, and learned that he had been automatically disqualified based on a 19-year-old felony conviction. He requested, and was refused, a copy of the criminal background report that was the basis for his disqualification. 79. Mr. Leon McKenzie believes that the basis of his disqualification was his 1995 conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. 80. Mr. Leon McKenzie is well-qualified for the position of bus operator. He possesses a learner’s permit for a commercial driver’s license and has maintained steady
22

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 23 of 42
employment for over a decade as a staff accountant, construction worker, and skilled laborer. He also maintains a small roster of private accounting clients and volunteers as a tax preparer at his church during tax season.
H. Louia McKenzie 81. Plaintiff Louia McKenzie is a 47-year-old African-American man who was unfairly denied a position as a MetroAccess operator at First Transit—despite nearly four years of recent experience doing the exact same job at a different WMATA contractor—based on convictions more than 20 years old. 82. Mr. Louia McKenzie applied to First Transit after his former employer, MV Transportation, lost its contract with WMATA. First Transit responded to his application by asking him to report for a training program. He completed the training program and was scheduled to begin work on June 17, 2013. 83. On June 14, 2013, Mr. Louia McKenzie received a phone call from First Choice Background Screening informing him that his criminal background check would prevent him from beginning work as scheduled. 84. At no point prior to, or after, the retraction of his job offer did Mr. Louia McKenzie receive a copy of the report that First Transit used as the basis for its adverse action, a description in writing of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the report. 85. In 1991, Mr. Louia McKenzie was convicted of assault and robbery and was incarcerated until 2007. He successfully completed five years on parole from 2007 to 2012. He has had no other convictions since his release in 2007.
23

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 24 of 42
86. Mr. Louia McKenzie is well-qualified for the position of MetroAccess operator, having worked in the position for nearly four years leading up to his application to First Transit. From 2009 to 2013, he worked as a MetroAccess operator for MV Transportation, a former WMATA contractor. Before being hired by MV Transportation in 2009, Mr. Louia McKenzie disclosed his criminal history and was informed that it was not relevant because his convictions were more than ten years old at that time.
I. Marcello Virgil 87. Plaintiff Marcello Virgil is a 45-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job as a custodian with a WMATA contractor based on a drug-related conviction that was 15 years old, even though he disclosed the conviction before he started work. Mr. Virgil was also wrongly denied a custodian job at WMATA, which involved the same work for better pay and benefits, based on the same conviction, notwithstanding that his supervisor had suggested he apply. 88. Mr. Virgil was employed by EPSI as a WMATA seasonal landscaper from July to September 2011. In April 2012, he was rehired by EPSI as a WMATA seasonal landscaper and required to submit to a criminal background check. Mr. Virgil disclosed his prior conviction, agreed to the screen, and was cleared to begin work. In November 2012, Mr. Virgil was offered a year-round position at EPSI performing custodial services for WMATA. 89. In March 2013, Mr. Virgil completed an authorization form to allow EPSI to conduct another criminal background check so that it could renew his WMATA-issued identification card. Less than a week later, on March 21, 2013, Mr. Virgil was terminated due to his criminal background report—which included only the old conviction that he had already disclosed.
24

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 25 of 42
90. Prior to the termination of his employment, Mr. Virgil did not receive a copy of the report that EPSI used to terminate his employment, a description in writing of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the report.
91. Also in March 2013, Mr. Virgil applied for a full-time position as a custodian directly at WMATA. The custodian position involved the same work responsibilities that Mr. Virgil was already handling as an EPSI employee, but offered better pay and benefits. WMATA contacted Mr. Virgil and indicated that he would be scheduled for an interview in April 2013 contingent on the results of his criminal background check.
92. WMATA never scheduled Mr. Virgil for an interview. To Mr. Virgil’s knowledge, WMATA disqualified him from employment as a custodian based on his criminal background check.
93. Mr. Virgil was convicted of a drug-related felony in 1998, for which he was incarcerated for 22 months.
94. Mr. Virgil is well-qualified for the position of custodian at EPSI and WMATA; he was employed as a custodian at EPSI from 2012 to 2013 and would have performed substantially the same tasks at WMATA. Additionally, Mr. Virgil’s supervisor at WMATA had encouraged him to apply to WMATA based on his successful performance at EPSI, and his former supervisors at WMATA submitted a letter of recommendation on his behalf. II. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Unlawful
and Racially Discriminatory A. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Not Job-Related or
Consistent with Business Necessity 95. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive because it excludes workers on the basis of convictions that are irrelevant to any fair
25

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 26 of 42
determination of employee honesty, reliability, or safety in that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy:
(a) Excludes workers on the basis of convictions that occurred in the distant past. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy permanently disqualifies employees and job applicants with certain types of criminal convictions, such as distribution of a controlled substance, even if the worker has been drug-free and held a steady job for decades. For other types of convictions, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy disqualifies employees and job applicants with convictions within the last five or ten years—arbitrary cutoff dates that are not based on scientific or other evidence of whether the conviction is likely to predict worker wrongdoing. Although WMATA contends that its policy is necessary to combat employee fraud and wrongdoing, WMATA does not track—and has never tracked—how many instances of fraud, waste, abuse, criminal wrongdoing, accidents, or injuries have been caused by employees with a criminal record or whether such instances of misconduct are more or less frequently caused by employees with a criminal record as compared to other employees; and
(b) Excludes workers on the basis of convictions that are not sufficiently related to the duties of particular positions. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy categorizes all positions at WMATA and its contractors as (1) positions involving access to the general public, (2) positions involving fiduciary duties, or (3) other positions. These categories are overly broad and insufficiently tailored to the actual job responsibilities expected of WMATA employees in particular positions. For example, positions involving “access to the general public” include bus operator, custodian, station manager, cleaner/shifter, and revenue collector. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy fails to distinguish between
26

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 27 of 42
convictions that could be linked to specific risks associated with each of these positions and convictions that are wholly unrelated to the job at issue.
96. Nor does WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy provide for an individualized assessment to determine that the particular employee or job applicant’s criminal conviction is job-related, such that disqualifying the particular worker would be consistent with business necessity.
B. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Has a Discriminatory Effect on African Americans
97. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has a discriminatory effect on employment at Defendants WMATA, Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit.
98. The number of Americans who have an arrest or conviction record has multiplied in recent decades, leading to an increase in the number of job applicants and workers who may be disqualified by criminal background checks. An estimated 12 to 14 million Americans of working age are formerly incarcerated or have a felony conviction.2
99. African Americans have been disproportionately affected by these national trends because of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Recent statistics from the FBI show that African Americans accounted for more than 3 million arrests in 2009 (28.3% of total arrests), even though they represented only 12.9% of the general population.3 One study found
2 John Schmitt & Kris Warner, Ex-offenders and the Labor Market 2 (Ctr. for Econ. Policy & Research, Nov. 2010).
3 Crime in the United States, 2009 U.S. Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 2010) tbl. 43, http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html.
27

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 28 of 42
that in 2005, African Americans represented 14% of current drug users but constituted 33.9% of persons arrested for drug offenses.4
100. WMATA’s employees and job applicants come from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the District of Columbia and neighboring counties and cities in Maryland and Virginia.
101. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, a disproportionate number of persons arrested, convicted, and incarcerated are African American, compared to the demographics of the population. According to information published by the D.C. Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission (“Commission”), historically, on an annual basis, over 90% of the persons convicted of a crime in Washington, D.C. have been African American, despite constituting roughly 60% of the total population in the 1990s and 2000s. For example, between 1993 and 1998, 95% of the individuals convicted were African American. Of the 17,332 individuals convicted and sentenced during the 1993 to 1998 period, 15,331 were African American, 624 were white, and 193 were other races.5 Similarly, between 1996 and June 2002, African Americans represented 94.1% of criminal convictions.
102. The data published by the Commission indicates that these historical trends of disproportionate convictions of African Americans continue to this day. From 2009 to 2012, over 90% of the persons convicted of crimes in the District of Columbia were African American, despite African Americans constituting roughly 50% of the total population in 2010:
4 Marc Mauer, Justice for All? Challenging Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, Am. Bar Ass’n (2010).
5 Information about race was missing from 1,193 cases.
28

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 29 of 42

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percentage 96.2% 96.6% 95.3% 92.4%

103. African Americans in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are incarcerated at rates significantly higher than whites. According to U.S. Census data, in each of the jurisdictions served by WMATA, a disproportionate number of persons detained in local jails in 2010 were African American compared to the demographics of the population:

Jurisdiction Washington, D.C.

Percentage Black
(Population) 50.7%

Percentage Black
(Detained) 87.4%

Montgomery Cnty., Md.

17.2%

54.8%

Prince George’s Cnty., Md. 64.5%

79.05%

Arlington Cnty., Va.

8.5%

57.17%

Fairfax Cnty., Va.

9.2%

38.11%

City of Alexandria, Va.

21.8%

52.75%

104. Based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, African Americans are incarcerated at 19 times the rate of whites in the District of Columbia. African Americans also experience disproportionate rates of incarceration in Maryland and Virginia (5.5 and 5.9 times

29

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 30 of 42
the rate of whites, respectively).6 Stated differently, African Americans are overrepresented in prisons and jails. African Americans represent 68% of Maryland’s incarcerated population but only 29% of the state’s total population. Similarly, African Americans constitute 58% of incarcerated individuals but only 19% of the total population in Virginia.7
105. By barring individuals with certain types of convictions from employment, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has had a disparate impact on African-American workers by precluding them from obtaining or retaining their employment with WMATA and its contractors, or by deterring them from seeking advancement opportunities or taking medical or personal leave. Simply stated, more African Americans are precluded from obtaining employment or have otherwise experienced adverse employment action from WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy more frequently than individuals of other races.
C. Less Restrictive Alternatives Are Available to Achieve WMATA’s Legitimate Business Needs
106. There are a variety of less discriminatory alternatives that Defendants could adopt that would be fair and nondiscriminatory without compromising public safety.
107. Less discriminatory alternatives include removing or limiting significantly the use of permanent disqualification based on certain criminal convictions; modifying the cutoff dates for certain criminal convictions based on available scientific or other evidence of whether the conviction is likely to predict future worker wrongdoing; limiting disqualification based on prior criminal convictions to convictions that are sufficiently related to the particular job at issue; and
6 Marc Mauer & Ryan S. King, Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity 11 (Sentencing Project, July 2007).
7 Prison Policy Initiative, 50 State Incarceration Profiles.
30

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 31 of 42
providing employees and applicants the opportunity to rebut presumptive disqualification by explaining why their criminal history is no longer relevant.
108. Flexible background screening policies are workable. WMATA previously utilized a more flexible background screening policy, and, despite its assertions that inflexible disqualifiers are necessary to combat worker fraud and wrongdoing, there is no data regarding employee misconduct that could support WMATA’s adoption of more restrictive policies in 2009 and 2011.
109. Several other local regional transportation organizations, including Arlington Transit, Annapolis Transit, Veolia Transportation, and Ride-On, utilize comparatively flexible background screening policies. Plaintiffs include individuals who work or have worked for Ride-On in Montgomery County, MD, which does not permanently disqualify individuals from employment based on prior criminal convictions.
110. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that transit authorities adopt the federal standard, developed for the Transportation Security Administration, which include narrower bases for disqualification than WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy. Likewise, the District of Columbia does not permanently disqualify individuals from employment based on prior criminal convictions except in limited circumstances, such as convictions involving violent sex crimes.
111. Defendants have not adopted any of the less discriminatory alternatives described above despite knowledge of the adverse and unjust impact that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has had, and continues to have, on workers.
112. At a September 12, 2013, meeting of the WMATA Board of Directors, a number of employees who had been terminated from, or denied reinstatement to, positions at WMATA
31

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 32 of 42
because of criminal convictions that predated their employment with WMATA gathered to express their frustration about WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to the Board of Directors. Following the meeting, those employees—together with current members of WMATA’s workforce, members of WMATA’s largest union, and other concerned community members—protested outside of WMATA headquarters to express their belief that WMATA’s 2011 Policy is unfair and discriminatory.8 WMATA declined to revise its policy to address the concerns raised at the September 12, 2013 meeting and protest.
113. On January 7, 2014, Councilmember Muriel Bowser introduced Proposed Resolution 20-619, “Sense of the Council on the Need for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to Update its Personnel Policies to Encourage the Employment of Returning Citizens Resolution of 2014,” which calls on WMATA to adopt a fair and nondiscriminatory background screening policy and to take affirmative steps to hire job applicants with prior criminal convictions. On February 19, 2014, the Committee on Economic Development held a public roundtable at which several workers, union members, and other concerned community members testified, and many others attended, to support the adoption of Proposed Resolution 20619. On April 29, 2014, the Committee on Economic Development issued a Committee Report recommending approval of Proposed Resolution 20-619 by the full Council. WMATA declined to revise its policy to address the concerns raised by Proposed Resolution 20-619, the public roundtable, and the committee report.
114. In April 2012, the EEOC issued enforcement guidance on employers’ consideration of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions (“EEOC
8 See Dana Hedgpeth, Metro union workers protest, Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2013).
32

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 33 of 42
Guidance” or “Guidance”).9 In the Guidance, the EEOC discussed how employers’ use of criminal history information can, in some instances, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, explaining that policies that are facially race-neutral can result in disparate impact liability under Title VII if they disproportionately impact racial minorities (or other protected groups) and are not job-related and consistent with business necessity.
115. The EEOC Guidance encourages employers who choose to rely on criminal background checks to consider three factors in order to ensure that their use of the checks is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity: (1) the nature and seriousness of the offense, (2) the amount of time that has passed since the offense, and (3) whether the offense has any relationship to the job at issue. The Guidance also recommends that employers give job applicants the opportunity to explain why they are qualified despite the past criminal offense.
116. Alternatively, the EEOC recommends that employers validate their criminal records policies under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.
117. Upon information and belief, WMATA has declined to revise its Criminal Background Check Policy in light of the EEOC Guidance.
9 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (April 25, 2012). The EEOC previously issued guidance on these matters in 1987 and 1990. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Feb. 4, 1987); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Statement on the Use of Statistics in Charges Involving the Exclusion of Individuals with Conviction Records from Employment (July 29, 1987); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Sept. 7, 1990).
33

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 34 of 42
D. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Produces Absurd and Grossly Unfair Results
118. As a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, employees of WMATA and its contractors have been terminated, or had job offers rescinded, from positions that they have performed—often for many years—without issue, including:
The rescission of a job offer as a bus operator to Mr. Little (who was employed as a bus driver by Ride-On in Montgomery County at the time) based on a 27-yearold conviction for drug possession committed when he was 19-years-old and for which he served six months in a work-release center and 12 months of probation; The firing of Mr. Tucker as a train operator based on a nine-year-old misdemeanor conviction, for which he was sentenced to probation; The firing of Mr. Quarles as a MetroAccess driver based on a 25-year-old conviction, for which he was sentenced to probation; The firing of Mr. Whitted as a MetroAccess driver because of a 24-year-old conviction for which he was sentenced to treatment in an inpatient drug rehabilitation facility; The firing of Mr. McClough as a building custodian because of a 23-year-old conviction and a seven-year-old misdemeanor drug possession conviction for which he was sentenced to drug treatment and community service; The rescission of a job offer as a mechanic technician to Mr. Stoney (who has 40 years of relevant work experience) based on a 30-year-old felony and a 19-yearold misdemeanor, even though he has worked successfully since 1994 as a laborer, including laying rails for WMATA; The firing of Mr. Virgil as a custodian based on a 15-year-old drug conviction;
34

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 35 of 42
The rescission of a job offer as a MetroAccess driver to Mr. Louia McKenzie (who had previously worked as a MetroAccess driver for approximately four years) based on a 23-year-old conviction; and The rescission of a job offer as a bus operator to Mr. Leon McKenzie based on a 19-year-old drug conviction, despite his having worked successfully for more than ten years as a staff accountant, construction worker, and skilled laborer. 119. As a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, WMATA employees are deterred from taking medical leave for fear that they will be denied the opportunity to return to work in positions where they have performed—often for many years— without issue. For example, Mr. Tucker has been deterred from taking medical and/or personal leave. 120. As a result of WMATA’s Policy, WMATA employees are deterred from applying for internal job postings at WMATA, and qualified applicants are deterred from applying for employment at WMATA and/or its contractors. For example, Mr. Little, Mr. Whitted, and Mr. Leon McKenzie have been deterred from applying for positions for which they are qualified at WMATA and/or its contractors.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I: Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (All Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 121. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 122. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Classes. 123. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has harmed,
35

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 36 of 42
and continues to harm, Plaintiffs and the Classes, and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
124. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has a disparate impact on African Americans, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendants’ policy and practice of denying and/or terminating employment based on a criminal conviction could be justified as a business necessity, which it cannot, less discriminatory alternatives exist that would serve any legitimate purpose.
125. Plaintiffs and the Classes have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the Classes are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions.
126. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs and the Classes substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
Count II: Violations of D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq. (Plaintiffs Quarles and Whitted against Diamond; Plaintiffs McClough and Virgil against EPSI; Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit)
127. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 128. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Classes. 129. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has harmed, and continues to harm, Plaintiffs and the Classes, and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq.
36

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 37 of 42
130. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has a disparate impact on African Americans, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendants’ policy and practice of denying and/or terminating employment based on criminal convictions could be justified by business necessity, which it cannot, less discriminatory alternatives exist that would serve any legitimate purpose.
131. Plaintiffs and the Classes have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the Classes they seek to represent are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions.
132. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. Count III: Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-
2202, for violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that WMATA’s Criminal Background
Check Policy Is Unlawful (All Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 133. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 134. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Classes. 135. Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., which makes unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of race. 136. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Classes in violation of Title VII when they fired them and/or denied them employment.
37

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 38 of 42
137. As a proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered losses in compensation and earning capacity. As a result of those actions and consequent harm, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered such damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
138. There is a real and actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Records Policy is an ongoing violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. that is preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining employment at WMATA.
139. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
Count IV: Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 for violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401 et seq., that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Unlawful
(Plaintiffs Quarles and Whitted against Diamond; Plaintiffs McClough and Virgil against EPSI; Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit)
140. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 141. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Classes. 142. Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged violated the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq., which makes unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of race. 143. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Classes in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act when they fired them and/or denied them employment. 144. As a proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered losses in compensation and earning capacity. As a result of those actions
38

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 39 of 42
and consequent harm, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered such damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
145. There is a real and actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Records Policy is an ongoing violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq., that is preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining employment at WMATA.
146. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401 et seq.
Count V: Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (Plaintiff Virgil Against EPSI;
Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit) 147. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 148. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf. 149. Defendants EPSI and First Transit willfully took adverse action against Plaintiffs Virgil and Louia McKenzie, without providing prior notice in writing containing (1) a copy of the consumer report that formed the stated basis of the adverse action, (2) a description of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and (3) an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the consumer report.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Classes pray for relief as follows: 150. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Classes;
39

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 40 of 42
151. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Erick Little, Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Leon McKenzie, and Louia McKenzie as representatives of the WMATA Class;
152. Designation of Leroy Quarles, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Marcello Virgil, and Louia McKenzie as representatives of the Contractor Classes;
153. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel; 154. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.01 et seq.; 155. A permanent injunction against Defendants, and all officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth herein; 156. An order that Defendants institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for Plaintiffs and Class members who would be eligible for employment under the EEOC Guidance and that Defendants eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices; 157. An order restoring Plaintiffs and Class members to their rightful positions as employees, and requiring that applicants be given priority consideration for hire in job vacancies in the positions for which they are qualified; 158. An order for back pay and benefits lost by Plaintiffs and the Classes; 159. An order for compensatory damages for emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs and the Classes;
40

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 41 of 42

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 1 Filed 07/30/14 Page 42 of 42

Arnold & Porter LLP John A. Freedman (DC Bar No. 453075) Brandie N. Weddle (application pending, DC Bar No. 982859) Narda Pelham (DC Bar No. 1004368) 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 202-942-5316 John.Freedman@aporter.com
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
Sherrilyn Ifill* Christina A. Swarns* ReNika C. Moore* Ria Tabacco Mar* 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006
* application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming

Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Mathew Handley (DC Bar No. 489946) Dennis Corkery (DC Bar No. 1016991) 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
Johnathan J. Smith* 1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

42

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 184 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA )

TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC) (consolidated with 15-98 (RMC))

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Opinion issued contemporaneously with this order, it

is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

Complaint, Dkt. 117, is DENIED without prejudice as moot; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. 124,

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court hereby certifies the following distinct

classes:

Appendix A Class: All African-American persons who, since February 23, 2012, have been denied employment with WMATA, or terminated or otherwise permanently separated from their positions, suspended with or without pay, and/or denied employment with any third-party contractor or subcontractor as a result of Appendix A.

Appendix C Class: All African-American persons who, since February 23, 2012, have been denied employment with WMATA, or terminated or otherwise permanently separated from their positions, suspended with or without pay, and/or denied employment with any third-party contractor or subcontractor as a result of Appendix C.

1

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 184 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 3
Appendix F Class/MetroAccess Class: All African-American persons who, since January 1, 2013, have been denied employment with WMATA, or terminated or otherwise permanently separated from their positions, suspended with or without pay, and/or denied employment with any third-party contractor or subcontractor as a result of Appendix F; and appoints counsel for Named Plaintiffs as Class Counsel; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that WMATA’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Bendick’s report and testimony, Dkt. 132, is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Initial Report of Dr. Stixrud, Dkt. 135, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All legal conclusions contained in Dr. Stixrud’s report are excluded; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that WMATA’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Farber’s reports and testimony, Dkt. 138, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Dr. Farber’s reports and testimony are only admitted to the extent they are directly related to the class covered by Appendix F; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that WMATA’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Siskin’s report and testimony, Dkt. 139, is DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Stixrud’s Declaration, Dkt. 162, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All legal conclusions contained in Dr. Stixrud’s declaration are excluded; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint proposed schedule for merits discovery and a joint status report addressing the need or utility of consolidating this case with Derricote v. WMATA, No. 15-cv-114; Walker v. WMATA, No. 15cv-1298; and Lawton v. WMATA, No. 17-cv-168 no later than April 21, 2017; and it is
2

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 184 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 3

FURTHER ORDERED that the Courtroom Deputy shall set a status conference for a date after April 21, 2017.

Date: March 31, 2017

/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

3

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN )

AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., )

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF THE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS,
APPROVAL OF THE NOTICE PLAN, AND SCHEDULING OF A HEARING

WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (“WMATA”) and the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action (the “Settling Parties”)

entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which is subject to review

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and which, together with the exhibits

thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed Settlement of the claims alleged in the

Third Amended Complaint, on the merits and with prejudice, upon the terms and conditions set

forth in the Settlement Agreement; and all capitalized terms used herein having the meanings as

set forth and defined in the Settlement Agreement; and the Court having read and considered the

Settlement Agreement and the accompanying documents; and the parties to the Settlement

Agreement having consented to the entry of this Order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 7th day of December, 2017 that:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and for the limited

purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby conditionally certifies as the “Civil Damages

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 6
Class” a class consisting of the individuals who fall within the scope of the Appendix A Class, the Appendix C Class, and the Appendix F Class, as those classes were certified by the Court on March 31, 2017 (Docket No. 183) and have suffered economic loss as a result of the application of the Background Screening Policy. The Court conditionally certifies the Civil Damages Class as a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the purpose of awarding damages to individual members of the Civil Damages Class. This certification does not affect the Court’s March 31, 2017 certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) sub-classes, which remains in effect. Excluded from this definition of Civil Damages Class are any Civil Damages Class members who “opt-out” of this class in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, previously-designated Class Representatives Plaintiffs Erick Little, Gerald Tucker, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Leroy Quarles, Timothy McClough, Leon McKenzie, and Louia McKenzie are certified as Settlement Class Representatives solely for the purposes of the Settlement.
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court hereby grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
4. The Court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The form and method set forth in the Settlement Agreement of notifying the class members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, and constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto.
5. The Court further appoints Settlement Services, Inc. as the Claims Administrator and directs the Claims Administrator to mail the Notice within thirty (30) calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Order date.
2 of 6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 6
6. The Court further approves the following deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to take relevant actions, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement:
a. Any person in the Settlement Class who intends to opt out from the Civil Damages Class must submit a signed written request for exclusion as soon as possible but postmarked no later than March 19, 2018 to:
John A. Freedman (Class Counsel) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20001 and Kathleen Kraft (WMATA Counsel) Thompson Coburn LLP 1909 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006. At a minimum, any request for exclusion must include the person’s full name; current address and telephone number (the address of an attorney alone is insufficient); a statement that the person wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class and from participating in the proposed Settlement; and the person’s signature. b. Any member of the Settlement Class who intends to object to the fairness of the Settlement Agreement and/or the Settlement, must file any such objection by mailing it as soon as possible but postmarked no later than March 19, 2018 to: Office of the Clerk of Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Reference: Civil Action No 14-cv-01289-RMC
3 of 6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 6
Along with a copy to: John A. Freedman (Class Counsel) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20001 and Kathleen Kraft (WMATA Counsel) Thompson Coburn LLP 1909 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006. Any objection to the Settlement Agreement must include the objector’s full name, address, and telephone number (the address of any attorney alone is insufficient); a signature of the objector; all documents on which the objection is based; the case number (14-01289-RMC); a statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for such objection; a list of all persons who will be called to testify in support of the objection; and a statement whether the objector intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing scheduled by the Court. If the objector intends to appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing described below through counsel, the objection must also state the identity of all attorneys representing the objector. c. All Short Form or Long Form Claims (with supporting documentation) identified in the Notice shall be filed with the Claims Administrator by personal delivery or regular U.S. mail as soon as possible and must be received by March 8, 2018. d. All other dates set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 7. Settlement Class members requesting exclusion from the Civil Damages Class shall not be entitled to receive any payment as described in the Settlement Agreement and Notice. 8. The Parties shall submit a Motion for Final Approval on or before April 6, 2018.
4 of 6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 5 of 6
9. A hearing (the “Settlement Fairness Hearing”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) is hereby scheduled to be held before the Court on April 18, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. for the following purposes:
(a) to finally determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court;
(b) to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Settlement Agreement should be entered, dismissing the Complaint in the Action filed herein on the merits and with prejudice, and to order the release of claims to the WMATA Parties as required by the Settlement Agreement by both the Settlement Class and those persons settling individual claims;
(c) to consider Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses;
(d) to consider the application of the Claims Administrator for the payment of the services, costs and expenses associated with claims administration;
(e) to consider the application for service award payments to the Class Representatives, Sidney Davis, and Joyce Short; and
(f) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. 10. Pending the Settlement Fairness Hearing, all deadlines for this matter are stayed. 11. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement Agreement with or without modification, and with or without further notice of any kind. The Court further reserves the right to enter its Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Complaint in the Action on the merits and with prejudice regardless of whether it has awarded attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.
5 of 6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 230 Filed 12/07/17 Page 6 of 6
12. Each Settlement Class member shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claims released by the Settlement Agreement (the “Released Class Claims”), and shall release the WMATA Parties from the Released Class Claims upon the Effective Date of the Settlement as detailed in the Settlement Agreement.
13. In the event that the Court or any appellate court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are inadequate, and the Parties fail to reach agreement upon new settlement terms that can obtain court approval, the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall be void. In addition, in that event, the Settlement Agreement and this Preliminary Order certifying the Civil Damages Class and the Class Representatives for purposes of the Settlement shall be null and void, of no further force or effect, and without prejudice to any party, and may not be introduced as evidence or referred to in any actions or proceedings by any person or entity; and each party shall be restored to her, his, or its respective position as it existed prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement and pursuant to its terms.
14. The Court shall retain sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the Lawsuit and the Settling Parties to resolve any dispute arising from the interpretation, enforcement, or implementation of the Settlement Agreement.

Date: December 7, 2017

SO ORDERED:
/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

6 of 6

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 50 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA )

TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC)

ORDER

For reasons set forth at the status conference held in open court on January 23,

2015, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII, the D.C. Human Rights Act,

the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Defendants Executive

Personnel Services, Inc., First Transit, Inc., and Diamond Transportation Services, Inc.

(collectively, the Contractor Defendants) are STAYED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Contractor Defendants shall be treated as third

parties for the purposes of discovery and are subject to discovery involving Plaintiffs’ claims of

discrimination; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendant Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority are directed to meet and confer and file their report pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) no later than February 17, 2015; and it is

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 50 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by the Contractor Defendants [Dkts. 16, 25, and 44] are DENIED as moot.

Date: January 26, 2015

/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 53 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA )

TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC) (consolidated with 15-98 (RMC))

ORDER

The factual issues and legal claims raised by Plaintiff, Galen Pendergrass, in Civil

Case No. 15-98, are related to those in Little v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA), Civil Case No. 14-1289. Therefore, Mr. Pendergrass’s case will be consolidated with

Little v. WMATA. Mr. Pendergrass will be considered one of the plaintiffs in Little v. WMATA

and will be represented by plaintiffs’ attorneys in that case. The Deputy Clerk is ordered to send

a copy of the Complaint in Little v. WMATA, Civil Case No. 14-1289, to Mr. Pendergrass.

Plaintiffs’ counsel in Little v. WMATA are directed to contact Mr. Pendergrass for purposes of

representation. Going forward, all filings shall be made in Little v. WMATA, Civil Case No. 14-

1289. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Civil Case Number 14-1289 and Civil Case Number 15-98 are

hereby CONSOLIDATED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall CLOSE Civil Case

Number 15-98 and TRANSFER the parties in those cases to the earlier case, Civil Case Number

14-1289; and it is

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 53 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that from this date forward all pleadings shall be filed only in the earlier case, Civil Case Number 14-1289. The parties are advised not to elect to “spread text” when filing on ECF, as this will result in repetitive docketing and emails.

Date: February 10, 2015

/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA )

TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC)

OPINION

Defendants Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA),

Diamond Transportation (Diamond), and Executive Personnel Services, Inc. (EPSI) have moved

to strike the class allegations brought by Plaintiffs Erick Little, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy

McClough, Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Leon McKenzie, Louia McKenzie, and Marcello Virgil (collectively, Plaintiffs).1 For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’

motions will be denied.

I. FACTS Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on July 30, 2014, seeking relief under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1681, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 12-1401 et seq.

Compl. [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiffs challenge WMATA’s background check policy, which disqualifies

from employment individuals with a criminal history. They argue that the policy

disproportionately excludes African-American job applicants and employees because arrest and

1 The remaining Defendant, First Transit, Inc. (First Transit), has not moved to strike. 1

conviction rates in Washington, D.C. are higher for African Americans. Id. ¶¶ 1, 16. The proposed classes “consist of all terminated employees, employees deterred from applying for internal job openings, employees deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and applicants denied employment based on WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.” Id. ¶ 37.
Plaintiffs sued WMATA and its contractors, Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit (the Contractor Defendants), which currently serve or at one time served as staffing agencies for WMATA, referring employees to work as MetroAccess drivers or operators, or janitors and landscapers in WMATA’s administrative office buildings. Id. ¶¶ 20, 22, 24. WMATA “requires all of its contractors, including Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit, to utilize the [background check] policy in hiring, promoting, and terminating employees.” Id. ¶ 15. The Contractor Defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, including that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims against them and that they were not responsible for WMATA’s policy. See Diamond Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 16]; First Transit Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 25]; EPSI Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 44].
While Diamond and First Transit’s motions to dismiss were pending,2 Plaintiffs sought to schedule a Rule 26(f) conference; Defendants objected, asserting their belief that a Rule 26(f) conference was not yet “practicable,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1), and that in any event, the parties were not required to meet and confer until after the Court issued a scheduling order. See Weddle Decl., Exs. A-M [Dkt. 67-13].
2 At that time, EPSI had not yet moved to dismiss. On October 20, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for partial default judgment against EPSI. Pl. Mot. for Default Judgment [Dkt. 39]. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, see 12/2/14 Minute Order, and EPSI subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.
2

On October 17, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a telephone conference seeking a ruling on whether discovery should proceed and Defendants should be required to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference notwithstanding the motions to dismiss. See Notice of Request for a Telephonic Conference [Dkt. 38]. The Court held a telephone conference on October 22, 2014, after which it issued a Minute Order directing that:
[P]ursuant to the telephone conference held on October 22, 2014, all discovery shall be stayed pending decision on the motions to dismiss of Defendant Diamond Transportation Services and First Transit. It is further ordered that, within 14 days of a decision on the motions to dismiss, the parties shall file a joint report addressing the status of the case and the issues set forth in Local Rule 16.3. 10/22/14 Minute Order. On January 23, 2015, the Court held a status conference to address the pending motions to dismiss and the role of the Contractor Defendants. During that conference, the parties agreed that the Contractor Defendants should be treated as third parties for the purposes of discovery. On January 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order directing that the Contractor Defendants be treated as such and ordered that they be subject to discovery involving Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims. See Order [Dkt. 50]. The Court denied the Contractor Defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot and stayed all claims against them. Id. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiffs and WMATA to meet and confer and file a report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Also on January 26, 2015, the Court issued its template Order for an Initial Scheduling Conference. See Order [Dkt. 51]. In that Order, the Court directed counsel to “confer at least 21 days prior to the [date of the Initial Scheduling Conference] and submit their Report addressing all topics listed in Local Rule 16.3(c) no later than 14 days following their
3

meeting.” Id.3 Local Civil Rule 16.3 sets forth a list of 14 topics to be discussed by the parties at the pre-scheduling conference meet and confer. See LCvR 16.3(c). One matter to be discussed is “[i]n class actions, appropriate procedures for dealing with Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P. proceedings, including the need for discovery and the timing thereof, dates for filing a Rule 23 motion, and opposition and reply, and for oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing on the motion and a proposed date for decision.” LCvR 16.3(c)(10).
On February 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 16.3(c). See Meet and Confer Statement [Dkt. 54]. However, the parties disagreed on the scope of discovery and filed separate memoranda in which Plaintiffs requested discovery on issues relating to both class certification and the merits and WMATA sought to limit initial discovery to class action issues. See Pl. Meet and Confer Mem. [Dkt. 55]; WMATA Meet and Confer Mem. [Dkt. 56]. WMATA proposed a discovery schedule that contemplated discovery and briefing on class certification. Meet and Confer Statement at 10. WMATA also explicitly reserved the right to object to a motion for class certification on the ground that Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), which requires a plaintiff to move for class certification within 90 days of filing its complaint unless the court has extended that deadline, foreclosed Plaintiffs’ right to seek class certification. Id. at 3 (“WMATA’s positions in this Joint Report are subject to WMATA’s reservation under, and to the applicability of, Local Rule 23.1(b).”); see also WMATA Meet and Confer Mem. at 2 (“WMATA discusses class certification issues in this memorandum and the Joint Report to address a situation where Local Rule 23.1(b) is not applied but does not waive its rights under Local Rule 23.1(b) to object to a class certification motion.”).
3 The Initial Scheduling Conference was originally set for March 17, 2015, but was later vacated to address the status of a potential class member. In light of the instant matter, it has not yet been rescheduled.
4

On February 24, 2015, WMATA filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ class action
allegations and to bar a future request for class certification. See WMATA Mot. to Strike [Dkt.
62].4 Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that “the deadline to file a motion for class certification under
Local Rule 23.1(b) has not expired” because this Court’s “previous orders staying the case and
then extending the deadline for the parties to agree to a case schedule, which, under Local Rule
16.3 includes timing for the filing of a class certification motion, stayed Plaintiffs’ time to file a
motion for class certification.” Pl. Opp. [Dkt. 67] at 3. Alternatively, in the event the Court
were to find that the deadline had expired, Plaintiffs requested that “the Court construe this
Opposition as a motion for an extension of time under Rule 6(b) and, in the interest of justice,
extend Plaintiffs’ time to file a class certification motion until a date to be established at the
Initial Scheduling Conference.” Id. at 4. WMATA filed its Reply [Dkt. 70] and the matter is
now fully briefed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs Failed to File a Timely Motion for Class Certification.
Local Civil Rule 23.1(b) provides:
Within 90 days after the filing of a complaint in a case sought to be maintained as a class action, unless the court in the exercise of its discretion has extended this period, the plaintiff shall move for a certification under Rule 23(c)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the case may be so maintained. In ruling upon the motion, the court may allow the action to be so maintained, may deny the motion, or may order that a ruling be postponed pending discovery or other appropriate preliminary proceedings. A defendant may move at any time to strike the class action allegations or to dismiss the complaint.
4 Diamond and EPSI also filed Motions to Strike the class allegations. Diamond Mot. to Strike [Dkt. 59]; EPSI Mot. to Strike [Dkt. 63]. Both parties contend that they have standing to seek dismissal of class allegations because they could be required to reinstate all former employees in the putative class as part of any potential remedy. See Diamond Reply [Dkt. 71] at 2-3; EPSI Response to Order of the Court [Dkt. 72] at 1-2.
5

LCvR 23.1(b). “Local Rule 23.1(b) and its predecessors have been strictly applied in this
Circuit.” Howard v. Gutierrez, 474 F. Supp. 2d 41, 53 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing cases); Batson v. Powell, 912 F. Supp. 565, 570 (D.D.C. 1996) (“As this Court has made clear, the 90–day limit of Local Rule 203(b) has been ‘strictly enforced in this Circuit.’”) (quoting Weiss v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 729 F. Supp. 144, 148 (D.D.C.1990)), aff’d, 203 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The D.C. Circuit has held that “strict enforcement” of the 90-day limit “implements the policy of Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that the status of class actions should be determined quickly.” Black Panther Party v. Smith, 661 F.2d 1243, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 30, 2014, and did not ask to extend the time period for filing a motion for class certification until March 9, 2015, when they filed their opposition to WMATA’s motion to strike. See Pl. Opp. at 7. Indeed, Plaintiffs maintain that the deadline for filing has not yet expired; they argue that the Court stayed the deadline to file their Rule 23 motion when it stayed discovery pending a decision on the Contractor Defendants’ motions to dismiss and ordered the parties to submit a joint report addressing all issues set forth in Local Rule 16.3 within 14 days of the decision. See 10/22/2014 Minute Order. The stay was continued, Plaintiffs contend, when the Court issued its Order for an Initial Scheduling Conference on January 26, 2014, in which the Court directed counsel to confer and “address[ ] all topics listed in Local Rule 16.3(c).”5 See ISC Order at 1.
5 As noted above, Local Rule 16.3(c) requires that the parties discuss “[i]n class actions, appropriate procedures for dealing with Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P. proceedings, including the need for discovery and the timing thereof, dates for filing a Rule 23 motion, and opposition and reply, and
6

The Court recognizes that its Orders may have confused Plaintiffs’ counsel. Upon receiving the Contractor Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court stayed all discovery pending a decision on those motions. 10/22/14 Minute Order. This Order did not expressly address Plaintiffs’ obligation to move for class certification under Local Rule 23.1(b), but it cited to Local Rule 16.3(c), thereby requiring the parties to meet and confer prior to an initial scheduling conference to discuss, among other matters, “dates for filing a Rule 23 motion.” LCvR. 16.3(c). The Court reaffirmed the meet and confer requirement after it ruled on the status of the Contractor Defendants. See ISC Order at 1. As a result of their meet and confer, both WMATA and Plaintiffs submitted a joint report agreeing that pre-certification discovery will be necessary prior to any class certification motion. Thus, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conclusion that its obligations to file a class motion were suspended until such discovery was allowed cannot be said to be unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court’s comments at the January 23, 2015 status hearing did not help elucidate matters for Plaintiffs. See 1/23/15 Hearing Tr. at 15-16 (Dkt. 52) (The Court: “The plaintiffs would like this to be a class action. I don’t know about that yet, you know, we’re going to wait and see how this thing develops to see if we have a full class action. But I don’t think we should take your small contractors through defense of a class action lawsuit.”).
However, none of the Court’s Orders referred to an extension of the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. Despite any passing confusion, Plaintiffs never asked for, or received, an extension of time to file a timely class certification motion under Local Rule 23.1(b). The law is clear and the Rule has serious consequences.
for oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing on the motion and a proposed date for decision.” LCvR 16.3(c)(10).
7

B. Plaintiffs Have Made a Showing of Excusable Neglect. A district court may forgive a party’s failure to file a timely certification motion if
that party makes a showing of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect”). See Howard, 474 F. Supp. 2d at 55-56. In deciding whether to grant a motion for an extension of time on the ground of excusable neglect, the Court may consider (1)”the danger of prejudice to the [other party],” (2) “the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,” (3) “the reason for delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,” and (4) “whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The determination of whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. “Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat elastic concept and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Id. at 392 (internal quotations omitted).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to request an extension of time to file a motion for class certification constitutes excusable neglect. First, Defendants have suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay. While WMATA reserved the right to raise a timeliness objection, it clearly still contemplated the future filing of a class certification motion. See Meet and Confer Statement at 6-7 (WMATA’s position that discovery should be limited to issues related to class certification), 10 (WMATA’s proposed schedule for class discovery and motions on class certification). And although the parties disagree on its exact scope, they concur that some discovery is warranted before a class certification motion should be filed. At base,
8

WMATA’s argument is an attempt to strike class allegations not because Plaintiffs have failed to seek class certification, but rather because they failed to request an extension of time to file their motion. See WMATA Reply at 11-12.6
Second, the scope of the case has shifted. This case began against WMATA and three small contractors. At an initial in-court conference, after discussion of the allegations, the governing legal precepts, and the roles and finances of the contractors, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to proceed against WMATA only and to treat the contractors as third parties. This alteration in the litigation plan undoubtedly caused Plaintiffs’ counsel to pause and reevaluate certain plans they had made regarding case strategy.
Third, the Court sidetracked the normal orderly proceeding of this case. When it received a pro se plaintiff’s complaint against WMATA for the same alleged disparate treatment, the Court asked Plaintiffs’ counsel, who are appearing pro bono, to consider representation of the pro se plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ counsel acceded to the Court’s request and devoted time and energy to the question, postponing progress on their own Complaint.
Clearly, there have been delays in this case causing the Court to postpone rendering a decision about the scope of discovery; however, those delays were not a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely class certification motion. Rather, the case was stayed to address the Contractor Defendants’ motions to dismiss and the initial scheduling conference was vacated in order to ascertain the status of a potential class member who had filed a similar lawsuit (at the Court’s request). Moreover, the Court has held off issuing any scheduling order
6 WMATA also argues that it, along with the “public interest” and “the interest of justice,” will be prejudiced if the Court denies its motion to strike because publicly available statistics undermine Plaintiffs’ theory of disparate impact—according to WMATA, 97% of its workforce is African American. WMATA Reply at 10-11. This argument goes to the question of whether the Court should certify a class.
9

while it considered the pending motions to strike. These delays, which stymied the progress of discovery (and, in turn, the filing of a motion for class certification), were all out of Plaintiffs’ control. Accordingly, Defendants fail to point out any unfair prejudice they have suffered due to Plaintiffs’ delay in filing a motion for class certification or seeking an extension of that deadline.7
Defendant Diamond argues that the analysis of excusable neglect in Howard v. Gutierrez, 474 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2007) should apply here. In Howard, the plaintiffs argued a lack of prejudice “because the class-action nature of the proceedings has been apparent from the outset of the case, and [ ] their delay will have no impact on the judicial proceedings because the litigation is at an early stage.” Id. at 56. Howard stated that “Local Rule 23.1 is designed to enable defendants ‘to ascertain at the earliest practicable moment whether they will be facing a limited number of known, identifiable plaintiffs or whether they will instead be facing a much larger mass of generally unknown plaintiffs,’” id. (quoting McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1411-12 (D.C. Cir. 1984)), and found that the plaintiffs’ failure to move for certification for three months after learning of their error “prolonged the uncertainty as to the scope of the class they would actually move this Court to certify.” Id.
In the instant matter, because discovery has not yet begun and Plaintiffs could not have moved for class certification within the 90-day deadline, Defendants are in the exact same position as they would have been had Plaintiffs sought an extension of their filing deadline. Thus, any generalized complaints about the increasing number of plaintiffs or class action
7 It is true that Plaintiffs alleged a putative class of 79 members in the Complaint, Compl. ¶ 15, and that Plaintiffs recently estimated that figure had grown to 130 members, Pl. Meet and Confer Mem. at 3. However, the scope of any purported class would likely change after discovery, which has not yet begun, and thus any change is not the result of delay.
10

discovery because such problems “are not inherent to the delay itself.” Smith v. Ergo Solutions, LLC, Civil Case No. 14-382 (JDB), 2015 WL 1424153, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2015).
Furthermore, striking class allegations would be inefficient and unwieldy, as Plaintiffs’ counsel would be required “to prosecute this action as a multiple-plaintiff action rather than a class action and [would] have to amend or file new complaints to include the claims of dozens of individuals who have been identified as potential class members.” Pl. Opp. at 10. Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s interpretations of this Court’s Orders and statements are expansive but not unreasonable under the circumstances. Counsel could reasonably have believed that a motion for class certification would not be due until after the Court had ruled on the scope of discovery and entered a scheduling order, and thus were acting in good faith. Therefore, the equities here tip in favor of Plaintiffs and the Court finds that their neglect in failing to request an extension is excusable.
IV. CONCLUSION For reasons set forth above, Defendants WMATA, Diamond, and EPSI’s Motions to Strike will be denied. A memorializing Order accompanies this Opinion.

Date: April 23, 2015

/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

11

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERICK LITTLE 21251 Owlsnest Circle Germantown, MD 20876
LAWRENCE WHITTED 1819 P Street SE, Apt. C-11 Washington, DC 20020
TIMOTHY McCLOUGH 5023 Kimi Gray Court, SE Washington, DC 20019
GERALD TUCKER 17340 Rocky Mountain Lane Dumfries, VA 22026
LEROY QUARLES 2610 Fort Drive Suitland, MD 20746
FITZGERALD STONEY 4716 Alabama Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20019
MARCELLO VIRGIL 2405 18th Street, SE Washington, DC 20020
LEON McKENZIE 1193 46th Place, SE Washington, DC 20019
LOUIA McKENZIE 4528 Buchanan Street Hyattsville, MD 20781
and
SIDNEY DAVIS 4134 Applegate Court Suitland, MD 20746

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01289-RMC
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 61
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. 7307C Highland Street Springfield, VA 22315 EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. 1200 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 and FIRST TRANSIT, INC. 600 Vine Street Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Defendants.
This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiffs Erick Little, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Leon McKenzie, Louia McKenzie, Sidney Davis, and Marcello Virgil (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek to remedy the violation of their rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 12-1401 et seq., against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) and WMATA’s contractors Diamond Transportation (“Diamond”), Executive Personnel Services, Inc. (“EPSI”), and First Transit, Inc. (“First
2

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 3 of 61
Transit”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief with respect to other matters, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This class action lawsuit calls on WMATA and its contractors to adopt a fair and nondiscriminatory background screening policy. While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for employers when screening job applicants, WMATA’s background check policy is overly broad, unjustifiably rigid and unduly harsh. It results in the unnecessary firing of current employees who have a demonstrated track record of successful employment and the denial of employment to applicants who are well-qualified to perform the jobs at issue safely and effectively. The policy disqualifies many job applicants and employees based on criminal history that is not related to the job at issue or occurred so long ago—in some cases, 20 or 30 years in the past—that it is irrelevant to any fair determination of employee honesty, reliability, or safety. For example, under WMATA’s policy, a person who has ever had a felony conviction for drug possession is permanently disqualified from employment in a wide range of jobs, including bus operator and custodian, even if the applicant has been drug-free and held a steady job for 10 or 20 years. 2. WMATA’s policy leads to grossly unfair results for many qualified, hard-working applicants and employees, including, for example, Plaintiffs:
 Erick Little, a 47-year-old man who worked as a bus driver for Montgomery County’s Ride-On Transportation Service (“Ride-On”), had his job offer as a bus operator for WMATA withdrawn based on a conviction for simple drug possession that was more than 25 years old and stemmed from an incident when he was just 19 years old;
3

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 4 of 61
 Lawrence Whitted, a 58-year-old man, was fired from his job as a MetroAccess driver for a WMATA contractor, even though he had performed the job successfully for more than five years, based on a drug-related conviction from 1989, which he had disclosed when he initially applied for the job; and
 Marcello Virgil, a 45-year-old man, was fired from his job as a custodian with a WMATA contractor and denied an equivalent position with WMATA (which came with better pay and benefits) based on a drug-related conviction that was 15 years old, even though he disclosed the conviction before he started work for the contractor, and his supervisors had encouraged him to apply for the position at WMATA.
The above are just a few examples of qualified individuals who have been barred from employment under WMATA’s policy. Excluding these qualified individuals is unwarranted and unfair.
3. WMATA’s policy is far more restrictive than necessary to protect public safety. The federal Transportation Security Administration, which hires individuals to screen passengers at airport checkpoints, uses background screening standards that are less onerous than WMATA’s. Moreover, several of WMATA’s member jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, have more flexible background screening policies than WMATA does. And other transit authorities, such as the Chicago Transit Authority, have policies that affirmatively seek to hire individuals with criminal records.
4. WMATA’s policy is not only overly harsh, it also has a discriminatory effect on qualified African-American workers. The number of Americans who have a criminal record has increased dramatically in recent decades. Historically and at present, African-Americans have
4

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 5 of 61
been hardest hit by this national trend because of racial profiling and other discriminatory policies and practices in our criminal justice system. For this reason, African-Americans in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are more likely to have criminal convictions than members of other racial groups. Racial disparities in rates of arrests and convictions are not explained by disproportionate rates of criminal activity. A recent study revealed that, while rates of drug use in Washington, D.C. are roughly equal across all races, African Americans are arrested for drug offenses far more often than individuals of other races. Accordingly, WMATA’s use of criminal background checks unfairly and disproportionately limits opportunity for qualified AfricanAmerican employees and applicants in violation of federal and local antidiscrimination laws. This lawsuit seeks equal opportunity for all who have been wrongly fired or denied employment because of WMATA’s overbroad and unnecessarily punitive background screening policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. WMATA was created in 1967 by an interstate compact between the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop and operate a regional transportation system. Through its network of Metrorail, Motorbus, and MetroAccess systems, it serves a population of approximately five million people in the District of Columbia; the Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges; the Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun; and the Virginia cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. WMATA operates the second-largest heavy rail transit system, the sixth-largest bus network, and the fifth-largest paratransit service in the United States. WMATA serves a diverse population: of its bus passengers, 59% are African American, 19% white, 10% Latino, 4% Asian, 2% multiracial, and 1% Native American.
5

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 6 of 61
6. WMATA is a major employer in the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. WMATA employs directly or through third-party contractors over 12,000 workers who drive and operate buses and trains; maintain and repair buses and trains; perform janitorial services at its facilities and administrative offices; perform landscaping services at its facilities and administrative offices; perform track, equipment, and electrical repair; and perform training services. Positions at WMATA can provide a middle-class income and offer valuable training and promotional opportunities, including for workers without formal higher education.
7. For more than 30 years, WMATA hired and promoted qualified employees, including some employees who had prior criminal convictions. For example, WMATA employed qualified formerly incarcerated individuals to assist them in re-entering society successfully through its contract with EPSI. Prior to 2009, WMATA disqualified job applicants from positions having direct contact with the public only if they had two felony convictions within three years, or three felony convictions within ten years for any crime against person, property, or society. See Metro News Release, “Metro implements stricter hiring standards” (attached as Exhibit A). Misdemeanor convictions were considered on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given to the nature of the offense, the time lapse since the offense, and efforts at rehabilitation.
8. On August 19, 2009, WMATA announced a stricter policy (“2009 Policy”) that disqualified a much broader class of job applicants. See WMATA Pre-Employment Background Check Standards (attached as Exhibit B). WMATA’s 2009 Policy disqualified, among others: (i) all applicants, “except positions having direct contact with the public,” who had a single felony conviction of any kind or two misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or a crime against person, property, or society within the last five years, (ii) all applicants for “positions
6

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 7 of 61
having direct contact with the public” who had a single felony conviction of any kind or two misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or a crime against person, property, or society within the last ten years, and (iii) all applicants who had a conviction for a “crime of violence,” regardless of the time lapse since the offense.
9. On December 22, 2011, WMATA expanded the policy to exclude an even broader class of workers.
10. Specifically, on that date, WMATA promulgated a revised policy (“2011 Policy” or “WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy”) that applies to job applicants and to certain existing employees, including those who are under consideration for new positions with access to the general public or employees who have been on a non-work status, such as on medical leave, for 90 days or longer. See WMATA Policy 7.2.3 Background Screenings (attached as Exhibit C).
11. WMATA’s 2011 Policy disqualifies from employment individuals with a far broader set of criminal convictions than the 2009 Policy. Specifically:
(a) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any position (regardless of whether the position requires interaction with the public) all individuals with a felony conviction for the sale or distribution of a controlled substance, no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
(b) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any position (regardless of whether the position requires interaction with the public) all individuals with any type of conviction (misdemeanor or felony) for possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
7

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 8 of 61
(c) The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in any public-facing position, including bus operators and janitors, all individuals with a felony conviction involving any violence no matter how long ago that conviction occurred;
(d) The policy disqualifies from employment in any position all individuals with a single misdemeanor conviction in the last five years or felony conviction in the last ten years for property crimes, including vandalism, receiving stolen goods, theft, burglary, or larceny.1
12. Existing employees of WMATA can be terminated as a result of a criminal background screening—even if they disclosed their criminal history when they applied to work for WMATA and they have had no new criminal convictions during their employment—if they seek a new position within WMATA or if they take leave from work for 90 days or longer.
13. On its face, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy gives no consideration to individual circumstances, such as the specific conduct that led to the offense; whether the conviction resulted in probation, drug treatment, or community service; efforts at rehabilitation; or whether the conviction has been expunged.
14. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy does not distinguish between positions with widely divergent job functions or responsibilities. For example, the 2011 Policy uses the same list of disqualifying offenses for applicants for jobs ranging from station manager to bus operator to custodian.
15. WMATA requires its contractors, including Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit, to utilize the 2011 Policy in hiring, promoting, and terminating employees. At least 79 individuals have been disqualified pursuant to WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy from jobs with WMATA contractors.
1 The policy permanently disqualifies from employment in fiduciary positions individuals with a felony conviction for a property crime.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 9 of 61
16. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy is not only unfair and unnecessary, it also disproportionately excludes qualified African-American job applicants and employees because the arrest and conviction rates in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are disproportionately higher for African Americans than for individuals of other races.
PARTIES I. Plaintiffs
17. Plaintiffs are individuals (i) against whom Defendants took an adverse employment action, (ii) who were deterred from applying for job openings, or (iii) who were deterred from taking medical or personal leave as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, as implemented by WMATA and/or its contractors, including Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit:
a. Plaintiff ERICK LITTLE is an African-American resident of Germantown, Maryland.
b. Plaintiff LAWRENCE WHITTED is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
c. Plaintiff TIMOTHY McCLOUGH is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
d. Plaintiff GERALD TUCKER is an African-American resident of Dumfries, Virginia.
e. Plaintiff LEROY QUARLES is an African-American resident of Suitland, Maryland.
f. Plaintiff FITZGERALD STONEY is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
9

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 10 of 61
g. Plaintiff LEON McKENZIE is an African-American resident of Washington, D.C.
h. Plaintiff LOUIA McKENZIE is an African-American resident of Hyattsville, Maryland.
i. Plaintiff SIDNEY DAVIS is an African-American resident of Suitland, Maryland. j. Plaintiff MARCELLO VIRGIL is an African-American resident of Washington,
D.C. II. Defendants
18. Defendant WMATA is a governmental body created by an interstate compact creating a tri-jurisdictional operation in the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
19. At all relevant times, WMATA has continuously been doing business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
20. Defendant DIAMOND is a transportation company headquartered in Northern Virginia. At all relevant times, Diamond has been a contractor for WMATA’s MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
21. At all relevant times, Diamond has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
22. Defendant EPSI is a company headquartered in Washington, D.C. EPSI is a staffing firm with a contract under a General Services Administration pilot program for federal agencies, and hires contract laborers for many entities, including WMATA. At all relevant times, EPSI operated under a subcontract with WMATA to provide janitorial and landscaping
10

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 11 of 61
employees for WMATA administrative office buildings. Prior to the 2011 Policy, EPSI actively recruited individuals with criminal convictions to fill WMATA’s staffing needs.
23. At all relevant times, EPSI has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
24. Defendant FIRST TRANSIT is a transportation company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. At all relevant times, First Transit has been a contractor for WMATA’s MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
25. At all relevant times, First Transit has continuously done business in the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 26. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this claim arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and under § 717 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were committed in Washington, D.C., and Plaintiffs were terminated from jobs that took place, or would have been based, in Washington, D.C. Additionally, venue is proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) because Plaintiffs Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Fitzgerald Stoney, and Marcello Virgil reside within this judicial district.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 12 of 61
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 28. On September 6, 2012, a member of the proposed class filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against WMATA based on the revocation of a contingent offer of his employment with WMATA. That class member explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy used by WMATA because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 29. On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff Little filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA based on the rescission of a contingent employment offer. Mr. Little explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 15, 2014, Mr. Little requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General is now required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 30. On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff Whitted filed a Questionnaire with the EEOC based on the termination of his employment with Diamond. Mr. Whitted explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and Diamond because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On October 28, 2013, Mr. Whitted filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. Mr. Whitted alleged that the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and Diamond was racially discriminatory because it has a disparate impact on African Americans as a class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 15, 2015, Mr. Whitted requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
12

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 13 of 61
31. On January 4 and March 4, 2013, Plaintiff McClough timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA and EPSI based on the termination of his employment with EPSI. Mr. McClough explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and EPSI as constituting racial discrimination against him, and African Americans as a class, in violation of Title VII and other applicable laws. On July 15, 2015, Mr. McClough requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
32. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff Louia McKenzie timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against WMATA and First Transit based on the denial of his employment with First Transit. Mr. McKenzie explicitly challenged the criminal background check policy employed by WMATA and First Transit as constituting racial discrimination against him, and African Americans and Latinos as a class, in violation of Title VII and other applicable laws. On July 15, 2015, Mr. McKenzie requested a Notice of Right to Sue. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
33. The remaining named plaintiffs have timely filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC.
34. In addition, Defendants have been on notice from the EEOC and other terminated employees and applicants for over a year of the class-wide discriminatory impact of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
35. The other Plaintiffs timely filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and requested Notices of Right to Sue on July 15, 2015. The Attorney General and EEOC now are required to issue each Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
13

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 14 of 61
36. All other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been fulfilled. CLASS DEFINITION
37. Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all African-American persons who, since February 23, 2012, have been terminated or otherwise permanently separated from their positions, suspended with or without pay, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with WMATA or any third party contractor or subcontractor as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy (the “Class”), including the following subclasses:
Contractor Subclasses: All African-American persons who: Diamond Subclass—since July 26, 2012 have been fired, suspended with or without pay, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with Diamond as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. EPSI Subclass—since March 4, 2012 have been fired, suspended with or without pay, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with EPSI as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. First Transit Subclass—since September 13, 2012 have been fired, suspended with or without pay, deterred from applying for internal job openings, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and/or denied employment with First Transit as a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check policy. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
38. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (3) for violations of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code § 2-1402.01. The Class consists of all terminated employees, employees suspended with or without pay, employees deterred from
14

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 15 of 61
applying for internal job openings, employees deterred from taking medical or personal leave, and applicants denied employment based on WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
39. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has harmed all members of the Class. Plaintiffs estimate that members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
40. Defendants’ relationship with the members of the Class and Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy with respect to members of the Class has been substantially uniform. Questions of law and fact will predominately be common to the Class.
41. Defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the members of the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
42. WMATA has adopted a single, uniform policy that is used for all employees and applicants to WMATA and its contractors and subcontractors.
43. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, but are not limited to:
(a) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy violates Title VII;
(b) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy violates the District of Columbia Human Rights Act;
(c) Whether Defendants maintain a single, uniformly applied criminal background check policy;
15

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 16 of 61
(d) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy deters or excludes applicants, or causes employees to be terminated based on a past criminal conviction, who are otherwise eligible for employment;
(e) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to deter or exclude applicants, or terminate employees based on a past criminal conviction, has a disparate impact on African-American applicants and/or employees;
(f) Whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to deter or exclude applicants, or terminate employees based on a past criminal conviction, is job-related and consistent with business necessity;
(g) Whether less discriminatory policies exist that would meet Defendants’ legitimate business needs, if any; and
(h) What equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted. 44. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class: (1) each of the Plaintiffs either was terminated from employment or denied employment by Defendants; (2) each received or would have received a criminal background screening pursuant to WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy; (3) each was terminated from employment, deterred from seeking employment, deterred from taking medical or personal leave, or denied employment based on a criminal conviction; and (4) each has the same discrimination claim based on disparate impact. All of these claims are shared by each and every Class member. 45. Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs have no conflict with one another or Class members. Plaintiffs are
16

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 17 of 61
committed to the goal of having WMATA revise its hiring policy and practice to reduce or eliminate its discriminatory impact on African-American applicants and employees.
46. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action employment discrimination litigation.
47. This action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this legal dispute. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class as a whole. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants’ common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and practice.
STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM I. Claims of the Plaintiffs
A. Erick Little 48. Plaintiff Erick Little is a 47-year-old African-American man whose job offer to work as a WMATA bus operator was unfairly revoked based on a 27-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful employment as a bus driver for Montgomery County’s RideOn. 49. In July 2013, Mr. Little received a contingent offer of employment for a position as a Bus Operator with WMATA after passing the requisite tests and physical examination. The offer was rescinded three weeks later due to the results of his criminal background check. 50. In 1987, Mr. Little was convicted of possession of a controlled and dangerous substance. Mr. Little was 19-years-old at the time of this offense. Mr. Little served six months in a work-release center and 12 months of probation. Mr. Little was also convicted of three
17

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 18 of 61
misdemeanors in 1996, 2003, and 2006, respectively. Each of these convictions resulted in one year of probation.
51. Mr. Little disclosed his criminal history, including his 1987 conviction, to a WMATA employee during his interview, and was told, “I don’t think they should hold this against you since it was 27 years ago.” Following Mr. Little’s disclosure, WMATA extended a conditional offer. Notwithstanding the interviewer’s admission, WMATA subsequently rescinded the offer.
52. After Mr. Little’s offer was rescinded and he was informed of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, he was deterred from applying for further employment at WMATA given his criminal history.
53. Mr. Little is well-qualified to work for WMATA. At the time he applied for the Bus Operator position, Mr. Little was employed as a Bus Operator for Montgomery County’s Ride-On, a job in which he followed bus routes that are routinely used by WMATA bus drivers. Mr. Little has also worked as a commercial driver for various companies and municipal government agencies in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Currently, Mr. Little is employed as a truck driver by Montgomery County’s Department of Liquor Control.
B. Lawrence Whitted 54. Plaintiff Lawrence Whitted is a 58-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator based on a 24-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful work at MetroAccess for over five years prior to his firing.
18

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 19 of 61
55. Mr. Whitted was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance in 1989, 18 years before he was employed by Diamond and WMATA, for which he was sentenced to three years in an inpatient drug treatment program.
56. Mr. Whitted declined to pursue direct employment with WMATA or a different WMATA contractor because of the high likelihood he would be disqualified from employment under WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy.
57. Mr. Whitted is well-qualified to work for Diamond and WMATA. Mr. Whitted worked for Diamond for over five years. Mr. Whitted has also worked as a commercial driver for other companies in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
C. Timothy McClough 58. Plaintiff Timothy McClough is a 57-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at EPSI as a WMATA landscaper based on a 22-year-old drug-related conviction, despite his successful work as a landscaper and custodian for WMATA for over six years prior to his firing. 59. Mr. McClough was convicted of a drug-related felony in 1990, for which he served three and one-half years in federal prison and completed a drug rehabilitation program. In 2006, he was convicted of misdemeanor possession and received a sentence of 40 hours of community service and drug rehabilitation. 60. Mr. McClough is well-qualified to work for EPSI and WMATA and had been employed by these entities since 2006. D. Gerald Tucker 61. Plaintiff Gerald Tucker is a 35-year-old African-American man who was unfairly denied reinstatement by WMATA for his job as a train operator based on a nine-year-old
19

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 20 of 61
misdemeanor weapons charge (for which Mr. Tucker was sentenced to probation), despite his successful work as a WMATA bus and train operator for over five years prior to the denial of reinstatement.
62. On January 25, 2013, Mr. Tucker, who is a single father, was terminated because he had accrued a number of unexcused absences to care for his young son. Initially, in May 2013, Mr. Tucker was notified by his union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 (“Local 689”), that he would be reinstated. On June 12, 2013, however, Mr. Tucker was notified that he would not be rehired due to his criminal record.
63. Mr. Tucker’s criminal history consists of only one misdemeanor in 2004, for which he pled guilty to brandishing a firearm. Mr. Tucker was sentenced to two years of probation, which he successfully completed.
64. On October 9, 2013, Mr. Tucker was informed by the union representative that he would be reinstated without back pay. Mr. Tucker was not provided a basis for his reinstatement and was given no assurances that his criminal background would not again be used in the future as a basis for disqualifying him from employment. As a result, Mr. Tucker is deterred from taking personal or medical leave and is deterred from applying for a new position within WMATA for fear that his criminal background will again result in termination of his employment.
E. Leroy Quarles 65. Plaintiff Leroy Quarles is a 53-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job at Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator based on a 25-yearold conviction for assault and robbery (for which Mr. Quarles was sentenced to probation), despite his successful work at MetroAccess for over three years prior to his firing.
20

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 21 of 61
66. Mr. Quarles, in conformance with WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, underwent a background check in May 2013. Near the end of May 2013, Diamond and WMATA were notified that Mr. Quarles had a disqualifying criminal conviction.
67. Mr. Quarles was convicted in 1988 of assault and attempted robbery, and sentenced to two years probation. Mr. Quarles successfully completed his sentence and probation.
68. Mr. Quarles continued to work as a WMATA MetroAccess driver/operator while Diamond appealed application of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy on Mr. Quarles’s behalf. On July 2, 2013, Mr. Quarles was removed from service as a result of WMATA’s policy. On July 16, 2013, Mr. Quarles was fired.
69. Mr. Quarles is well-qualified to work for Diamond and WMATA. Prior to being terminated, Mr. Quarles had worked for Diamond as a WMATA MetroAccess bus driver/operator for three years.
F. Fitzgerald Stoney 70. Plaintiff Fitzgerald Stoney is a 62-year-old African-American man with more than 40 years of experience as a laborer, including numerous jobs laying rails for WMATA. He was unfairly denied a job as a mechanic technician for a WMATA contractor based on convictions that are decades old. 71. In February 2012, Mr. Stoney applied online for the mechanic technician position and, on February 25, 2012, at WMATA’s invitation, he sat for a three-part written assessment test.
21

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 22 of 61
72. On April 13, 2012, WMATA sent Mr. Stoney a letter stating that it was denying his employment application due to the results of his criminal background check. Mr. Stoney never received any other explanation or communication from WMATA about his application.
73. Mr. Stoney’s criminal history is decades old and unrelated to the position of mechanic technician. In 1983, Mr. Stoney was convicted of armed robbery and was incarcerated until 1988.
74. Mr. Stoney is well-qualified for the position of mechanic technician. He has been performing work similar to that required of a mechanic technician since 1971, when he joined Laborers Local 456 (now Laborers Local 657). Through the union, Mr. Stoney received training for tasks including drilling and laying railroad tracks. He has since worked on a variety of contracts, including contracts that involved laying rails for WMATA, for more than 40 years.
G. Leon McKenzie 75. Mr. Leon McKenzie is a 52-year-old African-American man who was automatically disqualified for a job as a bus driver at WMATA based on a drug-related conviction from 1995, despite his long history of successful employment. 76. Early in 2013, Mr. Leon McKenzie applied online for a position as a bus operator at WMATA. WMATA invited him to sit for a three-part skills assessment test, which he passed. He then participated in a full-day job interview. 77. At the conclusion of the interview, in March 2013, Mr. Leon McKenzie received a contingent offer of employment as a bus operator. 78. On June 14, 2013, WMATA sent Mr. Leon McKenzie a letter stating that it intended to withdraw his job offer based on the results of his criminal background check. He received a second letter dated June 28, 2013, formally rescinding the offer.
22

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 23 of 61
79. After he received the letters, Mr. Leon McKenzie contacted the company that conducted the background check, First Choice Background Screening, and learned that he had been automatically disqualified based on a 19-year-old felony conviction. He requested, and was refused, a copy of the criminal background report that was the basis for his disqualification.
80. Mr. Leon McKenzie believes that the basis of his disqualification was his 1995 conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
81. Mr. Leon McKenzie is well-qualified for the position of bus operator. He possesses a learner’s permit for a commercial driver’s license and has maintained steady employment for over a decade as a staff accountant, construction worker, and skilled laborer. He also maintains a small roster of private accounting clients and volunteers as a tax preparer at his church during tax season.
H. Louia McKenzie 82. Plaintiff Louia McKenzie is a 47-year-old African-American man who was unfairly denied a position as a MetroAccess operator at First Transit—despite nearly four years of recent experience doing the exact same job at a different WMATA contractor—based on convictions more than 20 years old. 83. Mr. Louia McKenzie applied to First Transit after his former employer, MV Transportation, lost its contract with WMATA. First Transit responded to his application by asking him to report for a training program. He completed the training program and was scheduled to begin work on June 17, 2013. 84. On June 14, 2013, Mr. Louia McKenzie received a phone call from First Choice Background Screening informing him that his criminal background check would prevent him from beginning work as scheduled.
23

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 24 of 61
85. At no point prior to, or after, the retraction of his job offer did Mr. Louia McKenzie receive a copy of the report that First Transit used as the basis for its adverse action, a description in writing of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the report.
86. In 1991, Mr. Louia McKenzie was convicted of assault and robbery and was incarcerated until 2007. He successfully completed five years on parole from 2007 to 2012. He has had no other convictions since his release in 2007.
87. Mr. Louia McKenzie is well-qualified for the position of MetroAccess operator, having worked in the position for nearly four years leading up to his application to First Transit. From 2009 to 2013, he worked as a MetroAccess operator for MV Transportation, a former WMATA contractor. Before being hired by MV Transportation in 2009, Mr. Louia McKenzie disclosed his criminal history and was informed that it was not relevant because his convictions were more than ten years old at that time.
I. Sidney Davis 88. Sidney Davis is a 69-year-old African-American man who is currently employed as a bus operator by WMATA. 89. Mr. Davis applied for a position as a bus operator in 2002. During his 2002 interview with WMATA representatives he disclosed his criminal history. 90. WMATA hired Mr. Davis as a bus operator in 2003. 91. Mr. Davis was terminated from his employment at WMATA in 2006 for discussing politics on his bus route, but he returned to his position in 2007 after he won his union arbitration. He has served as a bus operator without incident since 2007.
24

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 25 of 61
92. In 1972, Mr. Davis was convicted for murder and other felonies. He was released on parole in 1992, and he has had no arrests or convictions since that date. Mr. Davis’s parole was terminated early on May 16, 2013.
93. In 2006, Judge Hogan of this Court noted: “There is no reason to believe that [Sidney] Davis is not rehabilitated.”
94. Mr. Davis is fearful that if he takes leave for more than ninety (90) days, his criminal background will be viewed and he will be unable to return to work. Mr. Davis has had to curtail medical leave—that his physicians advised him to take—for fear that his criminal background would be viewed and that he would not be allowed to return to work under WMATA’s policy.
J. Marcello Virgil 95. Plaintiff Marcello Virgil is a 45-year-old African-American man who was unfairly fired from his job as a custodian with a WMATA contractor based on a drug-related conviction that was 15 years old, even though he disclosed the conviction before he started work. Mr. Virgil was also wrongly denied a custodian job at WMATA, which involved the same work for better pay and benefits, based on the same conviction, notwithstanding that his supervisor had suggested he apply. 96. Mr. Virgil was employed by EPSI as a WMATA seasonal landscaper from July to September 2011. In April 2012, he was rehired by EPSI as a WMATA seasonal landscaper and required to submit to a criminal background check. Mr. Virgil disclosed his prior conviction, agreed to the screen, and was cleared to begin work. In November 2012, Mr. Virgil was offered a year-round position at EPSI performing custodial services for WMATA.
25

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 26 of 61
97. In March 2013, Mr. Virgil completed an authorization form to allow EPSI to conduct another criminal background check so that it could renew his WMATA-issued identification card. Less than a week later, on March 21, 2013, Mr. Virgil was terminated due to his criminal background report—which included only the old conviction that he had already disclosed.
98. Prior to the termination of his employment, Mr. Virgil did not receive a copy of the report that EPSI used to terminate his employment, a description in writing of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the report.
99. Also in March 2013, Mr. Virgil applied for a full-time position as a custodian directly at WMATA. The custodian position involved the same work responsibilities that Mr. Virgil was already handling as an EPSI employee, but offered better pay and benefits. WMATA contacted Mr. Virgil and indicated that he would be scheduled for an interview in April 2013 contingent on the results of his criminal background check.
100. WMATA never scheduled Mr. Virgil for an interview. To Mr. Virgil’s knowledge, WMATA disqualified him from employment as a custodian based on his criminal background check.
101. Mr. Virgil was convicted of a drug-related felony in 1998, for which he was incarcerated for 22 months.
102. Mr. Virgil is well-qualified for the position of custodian at EPSI and WMATA; he was employed as a custodian at EPSI from 2012 to 2013 and would have performed substantially the same tasks at WMATA. Additionally, Mr. Virgil’s supervisor at WMATA had encouraged
26

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 27 of 61
him to apply to WMATA based on his successful performance at EPSI, and his former supervisors at WMATA submitted a letter of recommendation on his behalf. II. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Unlawful
and Racially Discriminatory A. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Not Job-Related or
Consistent with Business Necessity 103. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive because it excludes workers on the basis of convictions that are irrelevant to any fair determination of employee honesty, reliability, or safety in that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy: (a) Excludes workers on the basis of convictions that occurred in the distant past. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy permanently disqualifies employees and job applicants with certain types of criminal convictions, such as distribution of a controlled substance, even if the worker has been drug-free and held a steady job for decades. For other types of convictions, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy disqualifies employees and job applicants with convictions within the last five or ten years—arbitrary cutoff dates that are not based on scientific or other evidence of whether the conviction is likely to predict worker wrongdoing. Although WMATA contends that its policy is necessary to combat employee fraud and wrongdoing, WMATA does not track—and has never tracked—how many instances of fraud, waste, abuse, criminal wrongdoing, accidents, or injuries have been caused by employees with a criminal record or whether such instances of misconduct are more or less frequently caused by employees with a criminal record as compared to other employees; and (b) Excludes workers on the basis of convictions that are not sufficiently related to the duties of particular positions. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy categorizes all positions at WMATA and its contractors as (1) positions involving access to the
27

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 28 of 61
general public, (2) positions involving fiduciary duties, or (3) other positions. These categories are overly broad and insufficiently tailored to the actual job responsibilities expected of WMATA employees in particular positions. For example, positions involving “access to the general public” include bus operator, custodian, station manager, cleaner/shifter, and revenue collector. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy fails to distinguish between convictions that could be linked to specific risks associated with each of these positions and convictions that are wholly unrelated to the job at issue.
104. Nor does WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy provide for an individualized assessment to determine that the particular employee or job applicant’s criminal conviction is job-related, such that disqualifying the particular worker would be consistent with business necessity.
B. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Has a Discriminatory Effect on African Americans
105. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has a discriminatory effect on employment at Defendants WMATA, Diamond, EPSI, and First Transit, and other WMATA contractors and subcontractors.
106. The number of Americans who have an arrest or conviction record has multiplied in recent decades, leading to an increase in the number of job applicants and workers who may be disqualified by criminal background checks. An estimated 12 to 14 million Americans of working age are formerly incarcerated or have a felony conviction.2
107. African Americans have been disproportionately affected by these national trends because of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Recent statistics from the FBI show
2 John Schmitt & Kris Warner, Ex-offenders and the Labor Market 2 (Ctr. for Econ. Policy & Research, Nov. 2010).
28

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 29 of 61
that African Americans accounted for more than 3 million arrests in 2009 (28.3% of total arrests), even though they represented only 12.9% of the general population.3 One study found that in 2005, African Americans represented 14% of current drug users but constituted 33.9% of persons arrested for drug offenses.4
108. WMATA’s employees and job applicants come from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the District of Columbia and neighboring counties and cities in Maryland and Virginia.
109. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, a disproportionate number of persons arrested, convicted, and incarcerated are African American, compared to the demographics of the population. According to information published by the D.C. Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission (“Commission”), historically, on an annual basis, over 90% of the persons convicted of a crime in Washington, D.C. have been African American, despite constituting roughly 60% of the total population in the 1990s and 2000s. For example, between 1993 and 1998, 95% of the individuals convicted were African American. Of the 17,332 individuals convicted and sentenced during the 1993 to 1998 period, 15,331 were African American, 624 were white, and 193 were other races.5 Similarly, between 1996 and June 2002, African Americans represented 94.1% of criminal convictions.
110. The data published by the Commission indicates that these historical trends of disproportionate convictions of African Americans continue to this day. From 2009 to 2012,
3 Crime in the United States, 2009 U.S. Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 2010) tbl. 43, http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html.
4 Marc Mauer, Justice for All? Challenging Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, Am. Bar Ass’n (2010).
5 Information about race was missing from 1,193 cases.
29

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 30 of 61

over 90% of the persons convicted of crimes in the District of Columbia were African American,

despite African Americans constituting roughly 50% of the total population in 2010:

Year 2009

Percentage 96.2%

2010

96.6%

2011

95.3%

2012

92.4%

111. African Americans in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are incarcerated at rates significantly higher than whites. According to U.S. Census data, in each of the jurisdictions served by WMATA, a disproportionate number of persons detained in local jails in 2010 were African American compared to the demographics of the population:

Jurisdiction Washington, D.C.

Percentage Black
(Population) 50.7%

Percentage Black
(Detained) 87.4%

Montgomery Cnty., Md.

17.2%

54.8%

Prince George’s Cnty., Md. 64.5%

79.05%

Arlington Cnty., Va.

8.5%

57.17%

Fairfax Cnty., Va.

9.2%

38.11%

City of Alexandria, Va.

21.8%

52.75%

112. Based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, African Americans are incarcerated at 19 times the rate of whites in the District of Columbia. African Americans also experience disproportionate rates of incarceration in Maryland and Virginia (5.5 and 5.9 times

30

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 31 of 61
the rate of whites, respectively).6 Stated differently, African Americans are overrepresented in prisons and jails. African Americans represent 68% of Maryland’s incarcerated population but only 29% of the state’s total population. Similarly, African Americans constitute 58% of incarcerated individuals but only 19% of the total population in Virginia.7
113. By barring individuals with certain types of convictions from employment, WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has had a disparate impact on African-American workers by precluding them from obtaining or retaining their employment with WMATA and its contractors, or by deterring them from seeking advancement opportunities or taking medical or personal leave. Simply stated, more African Americans are precluded from obtaining employment or have otherwise experienced adverse employment action from WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy more frequently than individuals of other races.
C. Less Restrictive Alternatives Are Available to Achieve WMATA’s Legitimate Business Needs
114. There are a variety of less discriminatory alternatives that Defendants could adopt that would be fair and nondiscriminatory without compromising public safety.
115. Less discriminatory alternatives include removing or limiting significantly the use of permanent disqualification based on certain criminal convictions; modifying the cutoff dates for certain criminal convictions based on available scientific or other evidence of whether the conviction is likely to predict future worker wrongdoing; limiting disqualification based on prior criminal convictions to convictions that are sufficiently related to the particular job at issue; and
6 Marc Mauer & Ryan S. King, Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity 11 (Sentencing Project, July 2007).
7 Prison Policy Initiative, 50 State Incarceration Profiles.
31

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 32 of 61
providing employees and applicants the opportunity to rebut presumptive disqualification by explaining why their criminal history is no longer relevant.
116. Flexible background screening policies are workable. WMATA previously utilized a more flexible background screening policy, and, despite its assertions that inflexible disqualifiers are necessary to combat worker fraud and wrongdoing, there is no data regarding employee misconduct that could support WMATA’s adoption of more restrictive policies in 2009 and 2011.
117. Several other local regional transportation organizations, including Arlington Transit, Annapolis Transit, Veolia Transportation, and Ride-On, utilize comparatively flexible background screening policies. Plaintiffs include individuals who work or have worked for Ride-On in Montgomery County, MD, which does not permanently disqualify individuals from employment based on prior criminal convictions.
118. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that transit authorities adopt the federal standard, developed for the Transportation Security Administration, which include narrower bases for disqualification than WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy. Likewise, the District of Columbia does not permanently disqualify individuals from employment based on prior criminal convictions except in limited circumstances, such as convictions involving violent sex crimes.
119. Defendants have not adopted any of the less discriminatory alternatives described above despite knowledge of the adverse and unjust impact that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy has had, and continues to have, on workers.
120. At a September 12, 2013, meeting of the WMATA Board of Directors, a number of employees who had been terminated from, or denied reinstatement to, positions at WMATA
32

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 33 of 61
because of criminal convictions that predated their employment with WMATA gathered to express their frustration about WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy to the Board of Directors. Following the meeting, those employees—together with current members of WMATA’s workforce, members of WMATA’s largest union, and other concerned community members—protested outside of WMATA headquarters to express their belief that WMATA’s 2011 Policy is unfair and discriminatory.8 WMATA declined to revise its policy to address the concerns raised at the September 12, 2013 meeting and protest.
121. On January 7, 2014, Councilmember Muriel Bowser introduced Proposed Resolution 20-619, “Sense of the Council on the Need for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to Update its Personnel Policies to Encourage the Employment of Returning Citizens Resolution of 2014,” which calls on WMATA to adopt a fair and nondiscriminatory background screening policy and to take affirmative steps to hire job applicants with prior criminal convictions. On February 19, 2014, the Committee on Economic Development held a public roundtable at which several workers, union members, and other concerned community members testified, and many others attended, to support the adoption of Proposed Resolution 20619. On April 29, 2014, the Committee on Economic Development issued a Committee Report recommending approval of Proposed Resolution 20-619 by the full Council. WMATA declined to revise its policy to address the concerns raised by Proposed Resolution 20-619, the public roundtable, and the committee report.
122. In April 2012, the EEOC issued enforcement guidance on employers’ consideration of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions (“EEOC
8 See Dana Hedgpeth, Metro union workers protest, Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2013).
33

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 34 of 61
Guidance” or “Guidance”).9 In the Guidance, the EEOC discussed how employers’ use of criminal history information can, in some instances, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, explaining that policies that are facially race-neutral can result in disparate impact liability under Title VII if they disproportionately impact racial minorities (or other protected groups) and are not job-related and consistent with business necessity.
123. The EEOC Guidance encourages employers who choose to rely on criminal background checks to consider three factors in order to ensure that their use of the checks is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity: (1) the nature and seriousness of the offense, (2) the amount of time that has passed since the offense, and (3) whether the offense has any relationship to the job at issue. The Guidance also recommends that employers give job applicants the opportunity to explain why they are qualified despite the past criminal offense.
124. Alternatively, the EEOC recommends that employers validate their criminal records policies under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.
125. Upon information and belief, WMATA has declined to revise its Criminal Background Check Policy in light of the EEOC Guidance.
9 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (April 25, 2012). The EEOC previously issued guidance on these matters in 1987 and 1990. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Feb. 4, 1987); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Statement on the Use of Statistics in Charges Involving the Exclusion of Individuals with Conviction Records from Employment (July 29, 1987); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Sept. 7, 1990).
34

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 35 of 61
D. WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Produces Absurd and Grossly Unfair Results
126. As a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, employees of WMATA and its contractors have been terminated, or had job offers rescinded, from positions that they have performed—often for many years—without issue, including:
 The rescission of a job offer as a bus operator to Mr. Little (who was employed as a bus driver by Ride-On in Montgomery County at the time) based on a 27-yearold conviction for drug possession committed when he was 19-years-old and for which he served six months in a work-release center and 12 months of probation;
 The firing of Mr. Tucker as a train operator based on a nine-year-old misdemeanor conviction, for which he was sentenced to probation;
 The firing of Mr. Quarles as a MetroAccess driver based on a 25-year-old conviction, for which he was sentenced to probation;
 The firing of Mr. Whitted as a MetroAccess driver because of a 24-year-old conviction for which he was sentenced to treatment in an inpatient drug rehabilitation facility;
 The firing of Mr. McClough as a building custodian because of a 23-year-old conviction and a seven-year-old misdemeanor drug possession conviction for which he was sentenced to drug treatment and community service;
 The rescission of a job offer as a mechanic technician to Mr. Stoney (who has 40 years of relevant work experience) based on a 30-year-old felony and a 19-yearold misdemeanor, even though he has worked successfully since 1994 as a laborer, including laying rails for WMATA;
 The firing of Mr. Virgil as a custodian based on a 15-year-old drug conviction;
35

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 36 of 61
 The rescission of a job offer as a MetroAccess driver to Mr. Louia McKenzie (who had previously worked as a MetroAccess driver for approximately four years) based on a 23-year-old conviction;
 Mr. Davis is unable to take medical or personal leave for greater than 90 days without risk of being terminated from his employment based on a 43-year-old conviction, even though he has worked at WMATA as a bus operator for the last 12 years without incident and a judge in this Court has stated that there is “no reason to believe” that Mr. Davis is not rehabilitated; and
 The rescission of a job offer as a bus operator to Mr. Leon McKenzie based on a 19-year-old drug conviction, despite his having worked successfully for more than ten years as a staff accountant, construction worker, and skilled laborer.
127. As a result of WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy, WMATA employees are deterred from taking medical leave for fear that they will be denied the opportunity to return to work in positions where they have performed—often for many years— without issue. For example, Mr. Tucker has been deterred from taking medical and/or personal leave.
128. As a result of WMATA’s Policy, WMATA employees are deterred from applying for internal job postings at WMATA, and qualified applicants are deterred from applying for employment at WMATA and/or its contractors. For example, Mr. Little, Mr. Whitted, and Mr. Leon McKenzie have been deterred from applying for positions for which they are qualified at WMATA and/or its contractors.
36

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 37 of 61
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I: Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (All Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 129. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 130. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 131. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has harmed, and continues to harm, Plaintiffs and the Class, and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 132. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has a disparate impact on African Americans, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendants’ policy and practice of denying and/or terminating employment based on a criminal conviction could be justified as a business necessity, which it cannot, less discriminatory alternatives exist that would serve any legitimate purpose. 133. Plaintiffs and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the Class are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions. 134. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs and the Class substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
37

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 38 of 61
Count II: Violations of D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq. (Plaintiffs Quarles and Whitted against Diamond; Plaintiffs McClough and Virgil against EPSI; Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit)
135. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 136. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 137. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has harmed, and continues to harm, Plaintiffs and the Class, and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq. 138. Defendants’ policy and practice of using a criminal background screening policy that excludes from employment persons with irrelevant and dated conviction records has a disparate impact on African Americans, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendants’ policy and practice of denying and/or terminating employment based on criminal convictions could be justified by business necessity, which it cannot, less discriminatory alternatives exist that would serve any legitimate purpose. 139. Plaintiffs and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions. 140. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
38

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 39 of 61
Count III: Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202, for violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Unlawful
(All Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 142. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 143. Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., which makes unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of race. 144. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class in violation of Title VII when they fired them and/or denied them employment. 145. As a proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered losses in compensation and earning capacity. As a result of those actions and consequent harm, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered such damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 146. There is a real and actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Records Policy is an ongoing violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. that is preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining employment at WMATA. 147. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
39

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 40 of 61
Count IV: Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 for violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401 et seq., that WMATA’s Criminal Background Check Policy Is Unlawful
(Plaintiffs Quarles and Whitted against Diamond; Plaintiffs McClough and Virgil against EPSI; Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit)
148. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 149. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 150. Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged violated the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq., which makes unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of race. 151. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act when they fired them and/or denied them employment. 152. As a proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered losses in compensation and earning capacity. As a result of those actions and consequent harm, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered such damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 153. There is a real and actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether Defendants’ application of WMATA’s Criminal Records Policy is an ongoing violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 et seq., that is preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining employment at WMATA. 154. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401 et seq.
40

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 41 of 61
Count V: Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (Plaintiff Virgil Against EPSI;
Plaintiff Louia McKenzie against First Transit) 155. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 156. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf. 157. Defendants EPSI and First Transit willfully took adverse action against Plaintiffs Virgil and Louia McKenzie, without providing prior notice in writing containing (1) a copy of the consumer report that formed the stated basis of the adverse action, (2) a description of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and (3) an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the consumer report.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as follows: 158. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class; 159. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Erick Little, Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Sidney Davis, Leon McKenzie, and Louia McKenzie as representatives of the Class; 160. Designation of Leroy Quarles, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Marcello Virgil, Fitzgerald Stoney, and Louia McKenzie as representatives of the Contractor Subclasses; 161. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel; 162. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.01 et seq.;
41

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 42 of 61
163. A permanent injunction against Defendants, and all officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth herein;
164. An order that Defendants institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for Plaintiffs and Class members who would be eligible for employment under the EEOC Guidance and that Defendants eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices;
165. An order restoring Plaintiffs and Class members to their rightful positions as employees, and requiring that applicants be given priority consideration for hire in job vacancies in the positions for which they are qualified;
166. An order for back pay and benefits lost by Plaintiffs and the Class; 167. An order for compensatory damages for emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class; 168. An order for front pay for Plaintiffs and the Class; 169. An order for statutory, actual, and punitive damages for Plaintiffs Virgil and Louia McKenzie against Defendants EPSI and First Transit, respectively; 170. Costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(k) and 2000e-16 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n(a)(3) and 1681o(a)(2); 171. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 172. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
42

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 43 of 61

JURY DEMAND 173. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues raised in their complaint.

Dated: Washington, D.C. June 8, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John A. Freedman___________

Arnold & Porter LLP John A. Freedman (DC Bar No. 453075) Brandie N. Weddle (DC Bar No. 982859) Tom McSorley (DC Bar No. 1001890) 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 202-942-5316 John.Freedman@aporter.com

Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Matthew Handley (DC Bar No. 489946) Dennis Corkery (DC Bar No. 1016991) 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
Christina A. Swarns (admitted pro hac vice) Rachel M. Kleinman (admitted pro hac vice) Natasha M. Korgaonkar (admitted pro hac
vice) 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
Ajmel A. Quereshi (DC Bar No. 1012205) 1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

43

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 44 of 61
EXHIBIT A

7/29/2014

Case 1:14-cv-012M8e9tr-oR- AMboCut MeDtroo-cNuemwse- nMtetr8o4impleFmielentds s0tri6cte/0r h9ir/in1g5stanPdaardgse 45 of 61

Metro News Release
For immediate release: August 19, 2009

Metro implements stricter hiring standards
Job applicants undergoing more rigorous review
Metro has implemented stricter hiring standards for all job applicants, including applicants for frontline and safety sensitive positions. The new standards went into effect earlier this month.
“Our frontline employees are the face of Metro,” said Metro General Manager John Catoe. “We want the strongest applicants for every open position. These new hiring standards are meant to help us find only the best and brightest employees to help move more than one million customers each day.”
Under the new hiring standards, job applicants for frontline positions will be disqualified from the applicant pool for any of the following:
• One or more moving violations within the last three years for negligent, careless or reckless driving • Driver’s license revocations or suspensions due to moving violations within three years • More than two points on their driver’s license within three years • A conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs within three years • A felony conviction within the last 10 years • Two or more misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or a crime against person, property or society within the last 10 years • A criminal conviction for crimes of violence and/or sexual abuse or sexual assault
All other applicants, including those applying for safety-sensitive positions and jobs with fiduciary duties, will be disqualified from the applicant pool for any felony conviction within the last five years, and for two or more misdemeanor convictions for drug possession or any crime against person, property or society within the last five years.
Under the previous hiring standards, job applicants for frontline positions were disqualified for:
• Driver’s license revocations or suspensions due to moving violations within three years • More than two points on their driver’s license within three years • Two felony convictions within three years or three felony convictions within 10 years for any crime against person, property or society.
Misdemeanor convictions were considered on a case-by-case basis, including the nature of the offense, time lapse since the offense and efforts at rehabilitation. Applicants with drug-related violations were considered if the applicant was able to show rehabilitation for the year immediately preceding the application.
###
Media contact for this news release: Angela Gates or Lisa Farbstein at 202-962-1051. For all other inquiries, please call customer service at 202-637-7000.
News release issued at 10:30 am, August 19, 2009.
Subscribe to notifications of Metro news releases
Metro News Releases | News Room

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4018

1/1

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 46 of 61
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 47 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 48 of 61
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 49 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 50 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 51 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 52 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 53 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 54 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 55 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 56 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 57 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 58 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 59 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 60 of 61

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 84 Filed 06/09/15 Page 61 of 61

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 126 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ERICK LITTLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA )

TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 14-1289 (RMC)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Class Certification

Briefing and Expert Discovery Schedule, it is hereby

ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Class Certification Briefing and Expert Discovery Schedule [Dkt. 125] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;1 and it

is

FURTHER ORDERED that the class certification briefing and expert discovery

schedule is amended as follows:

• Plaintiffs’ supplemental expert report and any supplements to Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Class Certification shall be due no later than July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs’

supplemental class certification briefing shall be no longer than 10 pages.

• Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, as well as any motions

to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts, shall be due no later than July

19, 2016.

1 Any further requests for extension will be frowned upon.

Case 1:14-cv-01289-RMC Document 126 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 2

• Replies in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, as well as any

oppositions to motions to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts, shall

be due no later than August 31, 2016.

• Replies to any motions to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts shall be

due no later than September 13, 2016.

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 23, 2016

/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 1 of 51
CONSOL,JURY,STAYED,TYPE−H
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−01289−RMC

LITTLE et al v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al Assigned to: Judge Rosemary M. Collyer Cases: 1:17−cv−00168−RMC
1:15−cv−01298−RMC
1:15−cv−00098−RMC
1:15−cv−00114−RMC Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

ERICK LITTLE

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 216−5574 Fax: (202) 682−1312 Email: aquereshi@naacpldf.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001−3743 (202) 942−6836 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: brett.marston@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319−1000 Fax: (202) 319−1010 Email: dennis_corkery@washlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew K. Handley WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319−1041 Fax: (202) 319−1010 Email: matthew_handley@washlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 2 of 51
Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942−5670 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: peter.grossi@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Allyn Moore ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942−5528 Email: whitney.moore@apks.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Commercial Litigation, Fraud Section 601 d sTREET, nw Washington, DC 20004 (202) 353−2685 Email: brandie.n.weddle@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001−3743 (202) 942−5924 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: brittany.mcclure@aporter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−5691 Fax: (202) 741−8934 Email: conrad.risher@dc.gov TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 216−5573 Email: cmontag@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 3 of 51
1401 Constitution Ave. NW Suite 7614 Washington, DC 20230 (202) 942−6337 Email: daniel.friedman@aporter.com TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 66408 Washington, DC 20035 (202) 897−1897 Fax: (202) 508−1007 Email: johnathan@muslimadvocates.org TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 942−6004 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: katherine.clemons@aporter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristian L. Hinson WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP 1875 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 303−1254 Fax: (202) 303−2254 Email: khinson@willkie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew R. Fearnside U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 601 D Street, NW Suite 9145 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 305−3941 Email: matthew.r.fearnside@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Harris ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942−6127 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: michael.harris@apks.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS 249 E. Grand Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 266−0000 Fax: (650) 266−1000 Email: narda.pelham@aporter.com TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 4 of 51
Natasha Korgaonkar NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 (212) 965−2200 Fax: (212) 226−7592 Email: nkorgaonkar@naacpldf.org TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Peter Romer−Friedman OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 2nd Floor West Suite Washington, DC 20001 (202) 770−7886 Fax: 646−509−9112 Email: prf@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 08/31/2016
Rachel M. Kleinman NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 (212) 965−2200 Fax: (212) 226−7592 Email: rkleinman@naacpldf.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ReNika C. Moore NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 (212) 965−2234 Fax: (212) 226−7592 Email: rmoore@naacpldf.org TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Thomas Dallas McSorley SPACEX 1030 15 Street, NW Suite 220E Washington, DC 20005 (202) 649−2635 Email: tom.mcsorley@spacex.com TERMINATED: 05/02/2017
John Arak Freedman ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942−5316 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: john.freedman@apks.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 5 of 51

Plaintiff
LAWRENCE WHITTED TERMINATED: 06/02/2017

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 6 of 51

Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brandie N. Weddle

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 7 of 51
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014
Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016
Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Thomas Dallas McSorley

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 8 of 51

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff GERALD TUCKER

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016

Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015

Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE

Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristian L. Hinson

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 9 of 51

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LEROY QUARLES

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 10 of 51
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014
Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 11 of 51

Plaintiff FITZGERALD STONEY

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016
Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017
represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 12 of 51

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015

Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE

Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff MARCELLO VIRGIL

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 13 of 51
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 14 of 51

Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff LEON MCKENZIE

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 15 of 51
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016
Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014
Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016
Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 16 of 51

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff
LOUIA MCKENZIE On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016

Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 17 of 51

Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015

Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2014 PRO HAC VICE

Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Natasha Korgaonkar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Rachel M. Kleinman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ReNika C. Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Thomas Dallas McSorley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/02/2017

Plaintiff
GALEN PENDERGRASS 15cv98 TERMINATED: 06/02/2017

represented by GALEN PENDERGRASS 4005 23rd Parkway Apartment 21 Temple Hills, MD 20748 (240) 421−2905 Email: chrissy.pendergrass@yahoo.com PRO SE

Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 18 of 51

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Plaintiff SIDNEY DAVIS

represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett E. Marston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis A. Corkery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brandie N. Weddle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016

Brittany Erin McClure (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 19 of 51

Conrad Z. Risher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

Coty R. Montag (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2015

Katherine E. Clemons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Fearnside (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Duane Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Plaintiff
D. W. a minor child, as successors to the claims of Lawrence Whitted

represented by John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOYCE SHORT next friend to her son D.W., as successors to the claims of Lawrence Whitted

represented by John Arak Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Thomas Grossi , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 20 of 51

Kristian L. Hinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Allyn Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BERNARD S. LEVI

represented by BERNARD S. LEVI 1509 First Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 202−427−6344 PRO SE

V.
Defendant
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

represented by Kathleen E. Kraft THOMPSON COBURN, LLP 1909 K Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006−1167 (202) 585−6942 Email: kkraft@thompsoncoburn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Poplstein THOMPSON COBURN LLP 505 N. 7th Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 552−6000 Fax: (314) 552−7000 Email: cpoplstein@thompsoncoburn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerard Joseph Stief WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Office of General Counsel 600 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 962−1463 Fax: (202) 962−2550 Email: GStief@WMATA.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2017
Harvey A. Levin THOMPSON COBURN, LLP 1909 K Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006−1167 (202) 585−6942 Fax: (202) 585−6969 Email: hlevin@thompsoncoburn.com TERMINATED: 12/28/2017
Michael Kelly Guss WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Office of General Counsel

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 21 of 51

600 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 962−1468 Fax: (202) 962−2550 Email: mkguss@wmata.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Wagner THOMPSON COBURN LLP 505 N. 7th Street St. Louis, MO 63101 314) 552−6000 Fax: (314) 552−7000 Email: rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tabitha G. Davisson THOMPSON COBURN LLP One Firststar Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 552−6000 Fax: (314) 552−7506 Email: tdavisson@thompsoncoburn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.

represented by Michael Nicholas Petkovich JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 10701 Parkridge Boulevard Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 (703) 483−8300 x8327 Fax: (703) 483−8301 Email: Petkovim@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 10701 Parkridge Boulevard Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 (703) 483−8378 Fax: (703) 483−8301 Email: amanda.vaccaro@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.

represented by Melissa E. Hoppmeyer CARR MALONEY PC 2000 L Street NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 310−5536 Fax: (202) 310−5555 Email: meh@carrmaloney.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nat Peter Calamis CARR MALONEY, P.C. 2020 K Street, NW Suite 850

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 22 of 51

Washington, DC 20006 (202) 310−5561 Fax: (202) 310−5555 Email: npc@carrmaloney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Berkowitz CARR MALONEY, P.C. 2020 K Street, NW Suite 850 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 310−5500 Fax: (202) 310−5555 Email: mb@carrmaloney.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FIRST TRANSIT

represented by Richard William Black LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 423−2151 Fax: (202) 403−3092 Email: rblack@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Simmons LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (267) 402−3047 Fax: (267) 402−3131 Email: wsimmons@littler.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/30/2014
07/30/2014 07/30/2014
07/30/2014 07/30/2014 08/07/2014 08/13/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against ALL DEFENDANTS with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−3793737) filed by ERICK LITTLE et al. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
Case Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (kb) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
2 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., FIRST TRANSIT, INC., WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(kb) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew K. Handley on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis A. Corkery on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Brandie N. Weddle on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. served on 8/4/2014, answer due

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 23 of 51

08/13/2014 08/13/2014 08/14/2014 08/19/2014 08/19/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014
08/20/2014
08/20/2014
08/20/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014

8/25/2014 (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. FIRST TRANSIT, INC. served on 8/1/2014, answer due 8/22/2014 (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY served on 8/1/2014, answer due 8/22/2014 (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. served on 8/1/2014, answer due 8/22/2014 (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by FIRST TRANSIT, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Black, Richard) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by FIRST TRANSIT, INC.. (Black, Richard) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant First Transit, Inc. shall file its response no later than September 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on August 20, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant First Transit, Inc.'s Answer to complaint due by 9/12/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Johnathan J. Smith, :Firm− NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., :Address− 1444 I Street, NW. Phone No. − 202−682−1300. Fax No. − 202−682−1312 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3815161. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
13 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− ReNika C. Moore, :Firm− NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., :Address− 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor. Phone No. − 212−965−2200. Fax No. − 212−226−7592 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3815179. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
14 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Christina A. Swarns, :Firm− NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., :Address− 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006. Phone No. − 212−965−2200. Fax No. − 212−226−7592 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3815330. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 12 , 13 , and 14 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on August 20, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
15 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stief, Gerard) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority shall file its response no later than September 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on August 21, 2014.(lcrmc3) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 24 of 51

08/21/2014 08/22/2014
08/22/2014 08/22/2014 08/25/2014 08/26/2014
08/27/2014 09/08/2014
09/11/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/15/2014
09/15/2014 09/17/2014 09/22/2014 09/24/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Answer to complaint due by 9/12/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
16 MOTION to Dismiss by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
17 Corporate Disclosure Statement by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro on behalf of DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. (Vaccaro, Amanda) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Pelham, Narda) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
20 AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT Against Defendant Executive Personnel Services, Inc. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brandie N. Weddle)(Corkery, Dennis) Modified on 8/27/2014 to correct event(rdj). (Entered: 08/26/2014)
21 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. (rdj) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
22 Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
23 NOTICE of Receipt of Notices for Right to Sue by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, GERALD TUCKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
24 Defendant WMATA's ANSWER to Complaint by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.(Stief, Gerard) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
25 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by FIRST TRANSIT, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration of Richard W. Black in Support)(Black, Richard) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Harvey A. Levin on behalf of WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 26 Notice of Appearance; emailed to hlevin@thompsoncoburn.com, cc'd 22 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please refile document, 2. Counsel is instructed to use their assigned password/login. (Refer to LCvR 5.4(b)(3)) (zrdj, ) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Elizabeth Kraft on behalf of WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
28 REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Diamond Transportation's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
29 NOTICE of Receipt of Notices for Right to Sue by TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEROY QUARLES, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
30 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Johnathan J. Smith terminated. (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 25 of 51

09/29/2014 09/30/2014
09/30/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/09/2014 10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014 10/17/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014

09/24/2014)
31 Memorandum in opposition to re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
32 VACATED PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF 11/12/2014..........ORDER. It is hereby ordered that no later than October 21, 2014, Plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why the Court should not dismiss this action against Executive Personnel Services pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.23 for failure to prosecute. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on September 30, 2014. (lcrmc3) Modified on 11/14/2014 (zcdw). (Entered: 09/30/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Response to Show Cause order due by 10/21/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
33 NOTICE of Receipt of Notices for Right to Sue by LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, FITZGERALD STONEY, MARCELLO VIRGIL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
34 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
35 REPLY to opposition to motion re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by FIRST TRANSIT, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Black, Richard) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
36 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Rachel M. Kleinman, :Firm− NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., :Address− 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10006. Phone No. − 212.965.2200. Fax No. − 212.226.7592 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3872164. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pelham, Narda) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
37 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Natasha M. Korgaonkar, :Firm− NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., :Address− 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10006. Phone No. − 212.965.2200. Fax No. − 212.226.7592 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3872282. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pelham, Narda) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 36 and 37 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on October 15, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
38 NOTICE of Request for a Telephonic Conference by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Request for Telephone Conference. The telephone conference is scheduled for October 22, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to call Chambers jointly at that time. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on October 20, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/22/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
39 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Executive Personnel Services, Inc. by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, #

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 26 of 51

10/21/2014 10/22/2014
10/22/2014 10/27/2014
11/12/2014
11/13/2014 11/26/2014 11/26/2014 11/26/2014 12/02/2014
12/15/2014 12/22/2014 01/14/2015 01/15/2015

3 Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
40 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 32 Order, . (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER directing that, pursuant to the telephone conference held on October 22, 2014, all discovery shall be stayed pending decision on the motions to dismiss of Defendant Diamond Transportation Services 16 and First Transit 25 . It is further ordered that, within 14 days of a decision on the motions to dismiss, the parties shall file a joint report addressing the status of the case and the issues set forth in Local Rule 16.3. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on October 22, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 10/22/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
41 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Narda Lugo Alarcon Pelham terminated. (Pelham, Narda) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
42 VACATED PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF 12/02/2014..........ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. It is hereby ORDERED that no later than November 26, 2014, Defendant EPS shall SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's September 30, 2014 Order to Show Cause is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on November 12, 2014. (lcrmc3) Modified on 12/2/2014 (zcdw). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
ENTERED IN ERROR..........Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery closes 1/6/2015. (cdw) Modified on 11/17/2014 (zcdw). (Entered: 11/14/2014)
43 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 42 Order, To Show Cause filed by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3)(Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
44 MOTION to Dismiss by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
45 Corporate Disclosure Statement by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
MINUTE ORDER denying 39 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Default Judgment Against Defendant Executive Personnel Services, Inc. It is hereby ORDERED that the 21 Clerk's Entry of Default as to Executive Personnel Services, Inc. is SET ASIDE for good cause shown. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 42 Order to Show Cause is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on December 2, 2014. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
46 Memorandum in opposition to re 44 MOTION to Dismiss filed by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
47 RESPONSE re 44 MOTION to Dismiss Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss filed by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Dallas McSorley on behalf of All Plaintiffs (McSorley, Thomas) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/23/2015 at 10:45 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 27 of 51

01/22/2015
01/22/2015 01/23/2015 01/26/2015
01/26/2015 01/26/2015 02/02/2015

49 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− William Simmons, :Firm− Littler Mendelson, PC, :Address− 1601 Cherry St, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Phone No. − 267−402−3047. Fax No. − 267−402−3131 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3970168. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by FIRST TRANSIT, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Black, Richard) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. William Simmons is hereby admitted to practice and appear before this Court on behalf of Defendant First Transit, Inc. in this matter. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on January 22, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Status Conference held on 1/23/2015. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
50 ORDER denying as moot 16 , 25 and 44 , the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Diamond Transportation Services, Inc., First Transit, Inc., and Executive Personnel Services, Inc. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are directed to meet and confer and file their report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) no later than February 17, 2015. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on January 26, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
51 ORDER FOR INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. An initial scheduling conference is set for March 17, 2015 at 11:15 a.m., in Courtroom 8. See Order for further deadlines and details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on January 26, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/17/2014. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 3/17/2015 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
52 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held on 01/23/15; Page Numbers: 1−37. Date of Issuance:02/02/15. Court Reporter/Transcriber Crystal M. Pilgrim, Telephone number 202.354.3127, Court Reporter Email Address : crystalpilgrim@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

02/10/2015 02/10/2015 02/17/2015

Redaction Request due 2/23/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/5/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2015.(Pilgrim, Crystal) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
53 VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER OF 3/17/2015..........ORDER consolidating Civil Case Number 14−1289 and Civil Case Number 15−98. See Order for Further Details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on February 10, 2015. (lcrmc3) Modified on 3/24/2015 (cdw). (Entered: 02/10/2015)
CASE CONSOLIDATED. Case 15−98 has been consolidated with 14−1289 pursuant to a Court Order entered 02/10/2015. From this date forward all pleadings shall be filed ONLY in the lead earlier case, Civil Action No. 14−1289. The parties are advised NOT to elect to SPREAD text when filing in ECF, as this will result in repetitive docketing and emails. (rdj) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
54 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 28 of 51

02/17/2015 02/17/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015
02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 03/03/2015 03/03/2015
03/03/2015
03/03/2015

55 MEMORANDUM re 54 Meet and Confer Statement by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
56 MEMORANDUM re 54 Meet and Confer Statement by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
57 MOTION to Clarify Court's February 10, 2015 Order (Dkt. 53) by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
58 ORDER scheduling an ex parte hearing with Mr. Pendergrass and Plaintiffs' counsel to determine the status of Mr. Pendergrass as a member of the putative class. The Deputy Clerk is directed to set a status conference for a date after March 13, 2015. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on February 19, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
59 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Diamond Transportation's Motion to Strike Class Allegations by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Class Allegations, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
MINUTE ORDER vacating the initial scheduling conference set for March 17, 2015. Instead, on March 17, 2015, at 11:15 a.m., the Court will hold the ex parte hearing with Mr. Pendergrass and Plaintiffs' counsel in Little v. WMATA to determine the status of Mr. Pendergrass as a member of the putative class. Defense counsel need not attend. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on February 20, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
60 Proposed MOTION for Scheduling Order re: ECF No. 54 Meet and Confer Statement by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (McSorley, Thomas) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
61 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey) Modified on 2/25/2015 (jf, ). (Entered: 02/24/2015)
62 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
63 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
64 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Charles M. Poplstein, :Firm− Thompson Coburn LLP, :Address− 505 N. 7th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. Phone No. − (314) 552−6000. Fax No. − (314) 552−7000 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4010841. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
65 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Tabitha G. Davisson, :Firm− Thompson Coburn LLP, :Address− 505 N. 7th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. Phone No. − (314) 552−6000. Fax No. − (314) 552−7000 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4010853. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 64 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Charles M. Poplstein is hereby admitted to practice and appear before this Court on behalf of

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 29 of 51

03/03/2015 03/04/2015 03/04/2015 03/09/2015
03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015
03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/18/2015

Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in this matter. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on March 3, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Tabitha G. Davisson is hereby admitted to practice and appear before this Court on behalf of Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in this matter. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on March 3, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
66 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Robert J. Wagner, :Firm− Thompson Coburn, :Address− 505 N. 7th Street, St. Louis, Missouri, 63101. Phone No. − (314) 552−6000. Fax No. − (314) 552−7000 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4012590. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 66 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Robert J. Wagner is hereby admitted to practice and appear before this Court on behalf of Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in this matter. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on March 4, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
67 Memorandum in opposition to re 63 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, , 62 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations, 59 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Diamond Transportation's Motion to Strike Class Allegations filed by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew D. Berkowitz on behalf of EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. (Berkowitz, Matthew) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
69 REPLY re 63 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, (and in support of same) filed by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
MINUTE ORDER directing that, no later than March 24, 2015, Defendants Diamond Transportation Services, Inc. and Executive Personnel Services, Inc., must SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not strike their Motions to Strike 59 63 , in light of the Court's Order dated January 26, 2015 50 . Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on March 17, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 57 Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification of 53 Order dated February 10, 2015. The Court's Order 53 is hereby VACATED. Plaintiffs' counsel in Little v. WMATA, Civil Action Number 14−1289, do not represent Galen Pendergrass, plaintiff in Civil Action Number 15−98. Civil Action Numbers 14−1289 and 15−98 are consolidated ONLY for the purpose of discovery, and therefore all parties are directed to provide Mr. Pendergrass with copies of all discovery requests, responses, letters, and any other discovery materials. To the extent Mr. Pendergrass files any documents, he shall only do so in Civil Action Number 15−98. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on March 17, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Diamond Transportation Services, Inc and Executive Personnel Services, Inc. response to Show Cause Order due by 3/24/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Status Conference held on 3/17/2015. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
70 REPLY to opposition to motion re 62 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 30 of 51

03/19/2015
03/23/2015 04/07/2015 04/14/2015

71 REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendant Diamond Transportation's Motion to Strike Class Allegations Defendant Diamond Transportation's Response To Show Cause Order and Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Strike Class Allegations filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
72 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, to Show Cause filed by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
73 ENTERED IN ERROR REFILED IN 15CA98.....MOTION for CM/ECF Password by GALEN PENDERGRASS (rdj) Modified on 4/13/2015 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/08/2015)
75 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held on 01/23/15; Page Numbers: 1−37. Date of Issuance:04/14/15. Court Reporter/Transcriber Crystal M. Pilgrim, Telephone number 202.354.3127, Court Reporter Email Address : crystalpilgrim@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

04/20/2015 04/23/2015 04/23/2015 04/23/2015
04/23/2015 04/23/2015 04/29/2015

Redaction Request due 5/5/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015.(Pilgrim, Crystal) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 73 Motion for CM/ECF Password pursuant to Order in Civil Case No. 15−98, Dkt. 5. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on April 20, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
76 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on April 23, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
77 ORDER denying 59 Diamond Transportation Service, Inc.s Motion to Strike, 62 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys Motion to Strike, and 63 Executive Personnel Services, Inc.s Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on April 23, 2015.(lcrmc3) Modified on 4/23/2015 (rdj). (Entered: 04/23/2015)
78 VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 8/12/2015.....SCHEDULING ORDER. All discovery related to the issues set forth in the Order shall be completed no later than August 21, 2015. Class certification motions shall be filed no later than September 21, 2015; oppositions shall be filed no later than October 20, 2015; replies shall be filed no later than November 3, 2015. A post−discovery status conference is scheduled for August 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on April 23, 2015. (lcrmc3) Modified on 8/13/2015 (znmw). (Entered: 04/23/2015)
MIINUTE ORDER denying as moot 60 Plaintiff's Proposed Scheduling Order, given entry of 78 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on April 23, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Motions to join or amend due by 6/8/2015. Discovery closes 8/21/2015. Class certification motions due by 9/21/2015. Responses due by 10/20/2015. Replies due by 11/3/2015. Status Conference set for 8/26/2015 1at 0:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
79 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Case related to Case No. 15−114−BAH. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 31 of 51

06/03/2015 06/08/2015
06/08/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015
06/12/2015 06/15/2015
06/17/2015
06/18/2015 06/18/2015

80 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoenas or in the Alternative for a Protective Order by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey). Added MOTION for Protective Order on 6/3/2015 (rdj). (Entered: 06/03/2015)
81 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) Modified on 6/9/2015 (rdj). (Entered: 06/08/2015)
82 MOTION to Amend/Correct by ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint and Exhibits, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
MINUTE ORDER directing that Defendant Diamond Transportation Services Inc. shall file its response, if any, to 82 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint no later than June 16, 2015. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on June 9, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Response 82 due by 6/16/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
83 RESPONSE re 82 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 82 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on June 9, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
84 AMENDED COMPLAINT against DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., FIRST TRANSIT, INC., WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY with Jury Demand filed by FITZGERALD STONEY, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LOUIA McKENZIE, LAWRENCE WHITTED, SIDNEY DAVIS, LEON McKENZIE, ERICK LITTLE, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES.(rdj) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
85 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney ReNika C. Moore terminated. (Moore, ReNika) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
86 Joint MOTION for Entry of Stipulation and Protective Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information and Stipulation and Order Regarding the Production of Electronically Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 − ESI Stipulation)(Kraft, Kathleen) Modified on 6/15/2015 (zrdj). (Entered: 06/15/2015)
87 Memorandum in opposition to re 80 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoenas or in the Alternative for a Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 6/18/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
88 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion to Quash and denying without prejudice 86 Joint Motion for Protective Order. See Order for further details. A further telephone conference is scheduled for June 26, 2015, at 11:30 a.m. Signed by Judge

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 32 of 51

06/18/2015 06/22/2015 06/23/2015
07/10/2015
07/13/2015 07/17/2015 07/17/2015 07/22/2015 07/23/2015 07/23/2015 08/03/2015 08/05/2015 08/06/2015 08/07/2015 08/12/2015

Rosemary M. Collyer on June 18, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 6/26/2015 at 11:30 AM before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. The telephone conference scheduled for June 26, 2015, is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on June 22, 2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
89 ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Related document: 84 Amended Complaint, filed by ERICK LITTLE, GERALD TUCKER, LAWRENCE WHITTED, LEON McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, LOUIA McKENZIE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, SIDNEY DAVIS, MARCELLO VIRGIL, FITZGERALD STONEY.(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
90 MOTION Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulation and Protective Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information and Stipulation and Order Regarding the Production of Electronically Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 − ESI Stipulation)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
91 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on July 13, 2015. (Attachment: Exhibit A to Protective Order) (cdw) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
MINUTE ORDER scheduling discovery telephone conference for July 22, 2015 at 12:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/17/2015. (KD) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 7/22/2015 at 12:30 PM before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 7/22/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
92 NOTICE of Appearance by Ajmel A. Quereshi on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Quereshi, Ajmel) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
93 ORDER pursuant to telephone conference held on July 22, 2015 concerning a discovery dispute. First Choice Background Screening is hereby ordered to comply with Plaintiffs' subpoena, as modified herein. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/23/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
94 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel M. Friedman on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Friedman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew R. Fearnside on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
96 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa E. Hoppmeyer on behalf of EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. (Hoppmeyer, Melissa) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
97 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine E. Clemons on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Clemons, Katherine) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
MINUTE ORDER vacating the previous 78 Scheduling Order pursuant to telephonic notice from the parties. The parties shall meet, confer, and propose by August 21, 2015 a new schedule for class−certification discovery and briefing. The status conference previously set for August 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. is canceled. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/12/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 33 of 51

08/20/2015 08/21/2015
08/21/2015 08/28/2015
08/28/2015
08/28/2015 09/16/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/21/2015 09/29/2015 10/02/2015

98 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part 98 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Fact discovery relevant to class certification shall close on November 20, 2015. The deputy clerk shall set a status conference for a date soon thereafter. The motion for class certification is due February 3, 2016, any opposition is due March 7, 2016, and any reply is due March 24, 2016. The parties shall confer and file by August 28, 2015 a proposed schedule for expert discovery. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/21/2015. (lcrmc3) Modified on 8/24/2015 (cdw). (Entered: 08/21/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Fact Discovery closes on by 11/20/2015. Motion for class certification due by 2/3/2016. Response due by 3/7/2016. Reply due by 3/24/2016. Proposed schedule for expert discovery due by 8/28/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
99 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,, Joint Proposed Expert Discovery Schedule filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
MINUTE ORDER approving of 99 Joint Proposed Expert Discovery Schedule. Plaintiffs' expert report(s) shall be due December 4, 2015. Defendant WMATA's expert rebuttal report(s) shall be due January 25, 2016. Expert depositions shall be completed by February 29, 2016. Plaintiffs' reply expert report(s) shall be due March 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/28/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' expert report(s) due by 12/4/2015. Defendant WMATA's expert rebuttal report(s) due by 1/25/2016. Plaintiffs' reply expert report(s) due by 3/10/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Post−discovery Status Conference set for 11/24/2015 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
100 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Romer−Friedman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the telephone conference on September 18, 2015, Plaintiffs request to conduct the depositions of WMATAs 30(b)(6) witnesses serially is denied. WMATA may present two or three 30(b)(6) witnesses for simultaneous 30(b)(6) depositions on September 21 and 22, 2015; the deponents will be deposed by Plaintiffs in each others presence in order to permit Plaintiffs to obtain full information. The parties may contact the Court by telephone during the depositions if there are difficulties. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/18/2015. (KD) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 9/18/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
101 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel M. Friedman (Friedman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
102 NOTICE of Appearance by Brittany Erin McClure on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (McClure, Brittany) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
103 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Duane Harris on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 34 of 51

10/30/2015 10/30/2015 11/03/2015
11/04/2015 11/05/2015 11/13/2015 11/16/2015 11/24/2015
11/24/2015 11/24/2015 12/03/2015 12/07/2015

VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
104 ORDER pursuant to teleconference regarding discovery dispute. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 10/30/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 10/30/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
105 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Conrad Risher, :Firm− Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, :Address− 11 Dupont Circle, NW Ste. 400. Phone No. − 202−319−1000. Fax No. − 202−319−1010 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4302201. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Conrad Risher, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 105 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Mr. Risher is provisionally admitted to represent Plaintiffs, provided that he continue to pursue his application to the District of Columbia Bar. Mr. Risher shall advise the Court once he is admitted. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 11/4/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
106 NOTICE of Appearance by Brett E. Marston on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marston, Brett) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
107 Unopposed MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order for Limited Purpose of First Transit's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition by FIRST TRANSIT, INC. (Black, Richard) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 107 Motion to Modify the current schedule, set by Minute Order on August 21, 2015. The schedule is hereby modified for the sole and limited purpose of allowing Defendant First Transit's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to be taken on December 2, 2015. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 11/16/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated on the record at the November 24, 2015 status conference, no later than December 4, 2015, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint proposed amended schedule for expert discovery and class certification briefing. The parties shall continue to send schedule information to Galen Pendergrass and shall send him all briefs they file. In briefing the issue of class certification, the parties shall indicate whether they request oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing and a basis for the same. The parties shall provide hard copies of expert reports to the Court for in camera review. Setting a merits discovery schedule is premature at this time. The Court may set a status conference for a date soon after class certification is decided. This case remains STAYED as to Diamond Transportation Services Inc., Exec Personnel Services Inc., and First Transit Inc. Diamond's motion to strike part of the deposition of a Diamond bus driver is DENIED. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 11/24/2015. (KD) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Status Conference held on 11/24/2015. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint proposed amended schedule for expert discovery and class certification briefing due by 12/4/2015 (cdw) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
108 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Order, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,, Scheduling Order with Respect to Expert Discovery and Class Certification Briefing by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 108 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Any expert reports from Plaintiffs are due December 18, 2015. Any expert reports from WMATA are due February 26, 2016. Expert depositions must be taken by March 18, 2016. Plaintiffs' reply expert reports are due April 15, 2016. Any motion to certify a class is due April 15, 2016. Any opposition is due May 20, 2016. Any reply is due June 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 12/7/2015. (lcrmc3) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 35 of 51

12/07/2015 12/09/2015 12/17/2015 12/18/2015 12/18/2015 01/08/2016 01/14/2016 01/15/2016
01/15/2016 01/20/2016 02/03/2016

12/07/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' expert reports due by 12/18/2015. WMATA's expert reports due by 2/26/2016. Plaintiffs' reply expert reports due by 4/15/2016. Motion to certify a class due by 4/15/2016. Response due by 5/20/2016. Reply due by 6/10/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
109 NOTICE of Change of Address by Nat Peter Calamis (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
110 NOTICE of Change of Address by Melissa E. Hoppmeyer (Hoppmeyer, Melissa) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
111 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Daniel M. Friedman terminated. (Friedman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
112 NOTICE Certificate of Compliance with Expert Discovery Obligations by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marston, Brett) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
113 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Conrad Risher terminated. (Risher, Conrad) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
114 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Joint Motion to Amend Expert Discovery and Class Certification Briefing Schedule by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 114 Joint Motion to Amend Deadlines. Defendant WMATA's expert reports are due March 11, 2016. Expert depositions may not be taken after April 8, 2016. Plaintiffs' reply expert reports are due April 29, 2016. Class certification motions are due April 29, 2016. Oppositions thereto are due June 3, 2016. Replies are due June 24, 2016. The courtroom deputy clerk shall schedule a status conference soon thereafter. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 1/15/2016. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant Rule 26(a)(2) reports due by 3/11/2016. Plaintiff Rule 26(a)(2) reports due by 4/29/2016. Class certification motions due by 4/29/2016. Responses due by 6/3/2016. Replies due by 6/24/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/27/2016 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
115 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held on 11/24/15; Page Numbers: 1−25. Date of Issuance:02/03/16. Court Reporter/Transcriber Crystal M. Pilgrim, Telephone number 202.354.3127, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 36 of 51

includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

03/11/2016 03/18/2016
03/18/2016
03/24/2016 04/01/2016 04/04/2016
04/21/2016 04/26/2016 04/27/2016 04/27/2016 04/28/2016 05/03/2016
05/03/2016

Redaction Request due 2/24/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2016.(Pilgrim, Crystal) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
116 NOTICE Certificate of Compliance with Expert Discovery Obligations by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
117 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Second Amended Complaint)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
118 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Brandie N. Weddle terminated. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Weddle, Brandie) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
119 Memorandum in opposition to re 117 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
120 RESPONSE re 117 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by FIRST TRANSIT, INC.. (Black, Richard) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
121 REPLY to opposition to motion re 117 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/26/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Status Conference held on 4/26/2016. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
MINUTE ORDER amending in part 1/15/2016 Minute Order. Class certification motions are due May 3, 2016. Oppositions thereto are due July 5, 2016. Replies are due July 27, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 4/27/2016. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Class certification motions due by 5/3/2016. Responses due by 7/5/2016. Replies due by 7/27/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
MINUTE ORDER amending in part 1/15/2016 Minute Order. Plaintiffs' reply expert reports are due May 3, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 4/28/2016. (lcrmc3) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
122 NOTICE Certificate of Compliance with Expert Discovery Obligations by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
123 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Motion for

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 37 of 51

06/14/2016 06/14/2016
06/23/2016 06/23/2016
06/23/2016 06/27/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/19/2016

Class Certification and Related Documents Under Seal, # 2 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 4 Exhibits 1−12 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 5 Exhibits 13−30 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 6 Exhibits 31−37 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 7 Exhibits 38−54 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 8 Exhibits 55 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 9 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 123 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall file a redacted version by June 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/14/2016. (lc2) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
124 SEALED MOTION for Class Certification filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1−12 to Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit 13−30 to Memorandum, # 4 Exhibit 31−37 to Memorandum, # 5 Exhibit 38−54 to Memorandum, # 6 Exhibit 55 to Memorandum, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
125 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certification Briefing and Expert Discovery Schedule by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
126 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 125 Motion to Amend Class Certification Briefing and Expert Discovery Schedule. Plaintiffs' supplemental expert report and any supplements to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be due no later than July 1, 2016. Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as well as any motions to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts, shall be due no later than July 19, 2016. Replies in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as well as any oppositions to motions to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts, shall be due no later than August 31, 2016. Replies to any motions to exclude, strike, or limit the testimony of experts shall be due no later than September 13, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/23/2016. (lcrmc2) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' supplemental expert report and supplement to Motion for Class Certification due by 7/1/2016. Responses to Motion for Class Certification/motions to exclude, strike, or limit due by 7/19/2016. Reply to Motion for Class Certification/responses to motions to exclude, strike, or limit due by 8/31/2016. Replies to motions to exclude, strike, or limit due by 9/13/2016. (zcdw) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
127 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Redacted Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
128 NOTICE Certificate of Compliance with Expert Discovery Obligations by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 126 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
129 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
130 RESPONSE re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 38 of 51

07/19/2016
07/19/2016 07/19/2016 07/19/2016
07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016

QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) filed by FIRST TRANSIT, INC.. (Black, Richard) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
131 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Motion to File Under Seal), # 2 Memorandum in Support Opposition to Class Certification (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit Table of Contents to Appendix (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit Exs. 1−23 to Opposition (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit Exs. 24−31 to Opposition (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit Exs. 32−64 to Opposition (Sealed), # 7 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order−Opposition (Sealed), # 8 Memorandum in Support Motion and Memo to Exlude Expert (Farber) (Sealed), # 9 Exhibit Exs. 1−7 to Expert Motion (Farber) (Sealed), # 10 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order−Exclude Expert (Farber) (Sealed), # 11 Memorandum in Support Motion and Memo to Exclude Expert (Siskin) (Sealed), # 12 Exhibit Exs. 1−4 to Mtn to Exclude Expert (Siskin) (Sealed), # 13 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order−Exclude Expert (Siskin) (Sealed))(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
132 MOTION to Exclude Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proffered Class Certification Expert Marc Bendick, Jr. by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exs. 1−3 to Motion to Exclude Expert, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
133 Memorandum in opposition to re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
134 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal), # 2 Memorandum in Support Motion and Memorandum to Exclude Expert (Stixrud) (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit Exs. A−P to Expert Motion (Stixrud) (Sealed), # 4 Text of Proposed Order Exclude Expert (Stixrud) (Sealed), # 5 Memorandum in Support Motion and Memorandum in Support to Modify Protective Order (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit Exs. 1−6 to Motion to Modify Protective Order (Sealed), # 7 Text of Proposed Order Motion to Modify Protective Order (Sealed))(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 131 and 134 Motions for Leave to File Under Seal. Plaintiffs and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are ORDERED to re−file each sealed motion by a separate docket entry. (WMATA's Opposition [131−2] through [131−7], Motion to Exclude Farber [131−8] through [131−10], and Motion to Exclude Siskin [131−11] through [131−13] shall be filed under separate docket entries. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Protective Order [134−5] through [134−7] and Motion to Exclude Stixrud [134−2] through [134−4] shall be filed under separate docket entries.) The Parties are also ORDERED to file redacted copies of each motion no later than August 3, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/20/2016. (lcrmc2) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
135 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exs. A−P to Expert Motion (Stixrud)(Sealed), # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exclude Expert (Stixrud)(Sealed))(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES,

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 39 of 51

07/20/2016
07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/21/2016
07/22/2016 08/03/2016
08/03/2016
08/03/2016

FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exs. 1−6 to Motion to Modify Protective Order (Sealed), # 2 Text of Proposed Order Motion to Modify Protective Order (Sealed))(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
137 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents − Exhibits (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1−23 to Opposition (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 24−31 to Opposition (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit Exhibits 32−64 to Opposition (Sealed), # 5 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order (Sealed))(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
138 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−7 (Sealed), # 2 Text of Proposed Order (Sealed))(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
139 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4 (Sealed), # 2 Text of Proposed Order (Sealed))(Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
140 RESPONSE re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) filed by EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.. (Calamis, Nat) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
141 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re 138 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 137 Sealed Opposition,, 131 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.), 139 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Supplemental Certificate of Service). (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
142 ERRATA to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. 133 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
143 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Redacted Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Jora Stixrud to 135 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
144 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Redacted Motion to Modify the Protective Order to Permit Disclosure of Information to the EEOC to 136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
145 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's Redacted Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to 137 Sealed Opposition,, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 40 of 51

08/03/2016 08/03/2016
08/04/2016
08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/31/2016
08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016

146 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's Redacted Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proffered Class Certification Expert Henry S. Farber to 138 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
147 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's Redacted Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Newly Proffered Rebuttal Expert Bernard R. Siskin Regarding a New Statistical Methodology Known as "BISG" in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to 139 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
148 MOTION Joint Motion to Set Briefing Deadlines for Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Protective Order re 144 Redacted Document,, 136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED, 126 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 148 Joint Motion to Set Briefing Deadlines for Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Protective Order. Defendants' opposition shall be filed no later than August 31, 2016. Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed no later than September 13, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/5/2016. (lcrmc2) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' responses due by 8/31/2016. Plaintiffs' reply due by 9/13/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
149 REPLY to opposition to motion re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Plaintiffs' Reply to Diamond Transportation Services Inc's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5 to Plaintiffs' Reply re: Diamond Transportation Services, Inc.)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
150 REPLY re 144 Redacted Document,, Defendant Diamond Transportation Services, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Protective Order filed by DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.. (Petkovich, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
151 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Peter Romer−Friedman terminated. (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
152 Memorandum in opposition to re 136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED filed by FIRST TRANSIT, INC.. (Black, Richard) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
153 Memorandum in opposition to re 132 MOTION Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proffered Class Certification Expert Marc Bendick, Jr. filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 41 of 51

08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016
09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016

154 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Motion for Leave), # 2 Memorandum in Support (Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion), # 3 Exhibit (Exhibits A−F), # 4 Text of Proposed Order (Opposition))(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
155 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Motion for Leave), # 2 Memorandum in Support (Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion), # 3 Exhibit (Exhibits A−J), # 4 Text of Proposed Order (Opposition))(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
156 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Motion for Leave to File Under Seal), # 2 Memorandum in Support (Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Certification), # 3 Exhibit A−J (Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Certification), # 4 Memorandum in Support Opposition to Exclude Expert (Siskin), # 5 Exhibit A−F (Opposition to Exclude Expert − Siskin), # 6 Text of Proposed Order Opposition to Exclude Expert (Siskin), # 7 Memorandum in Support Opposition to Exclude Expert (Farber), # 8 Exhibit A−G (Opposition to Exclude Expert − Farber), # 9 Text of Proposed Order Opposition to Exclude Expert (Farber), # 10 Memorandum in Support (Motion and Memorandum to Exclude Expert Declaration − Stixrud), # 11 Exhibit A (Motion to Exclude Expert Declaration − Stixrud), # 12 Text of Proposed Order (Motion to Exclude Expert Declaration − Stixrud)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 154 , 155 , and 156 Motions for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. The Parties are ordered to file redacted copies of each motion no later than September 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/1/2016. (lcrmc2) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
157 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re 135 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
158 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re 136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
159 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 124 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY McCLOUGH, LEON McKENZIE, LOUIA McKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−J)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
160 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 139 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/02/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 42 of 51

09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/13/2016
09/13/2016
09/13/2016 09/13/2016 09/13/2016 09/15/2016 09/15/2016 09/15/2016

161 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 138 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
162 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Parties' redacted motions due by 9/15/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
163 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 135 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exs. 1−3 to Expert Reply (Stixrud) (Sealed))(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
164 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 136 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
165 REPLY to opposition to motion re 132 MOTION Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proffered Class Certification Expert Marc Bendick, Jr. filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
166 REPLY to opposition to motion re 139 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
167 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re 138 SEALED MOTION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
168 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification to 159 Sealed Reply,, by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
169 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Opposition to WMATA's Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Bernard R. Siskin Regarding Dr. Siskin's BISG Analysis to 160 Sealed Opposition, by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
170 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Opposition to WMATA's Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proferred Class Certification Expert Henry S. Farber to 161 Sealed Opposition, by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES,

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 43 of 51

09/15/2016
09/15/2016 09/15/2016 09/19/2016 09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/29/2016
10/03/2016 10/14/2016 11/01/2016

FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
171 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Jora Stixrud's July 14, 2016 Declaration to 162 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
172 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Protective Order (originally filed 8/31/16) to 158 Sealed Opposition, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
173 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Stixrud (originally filed 8/31/16) to 157 Sealed Opposition, by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
174 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Mtn for Leave to File Under Seal), # 2 Memorandum in Support (Opposition to Pls Mtn at ECF No. 156−10), # 3 Text of Proposed Order (Opposition))(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 174 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. WMATA is ordered to file a redacted copy of the opposition no later than October 4, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/20/2016. (DAS) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
175 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re 162 SEALED MOTION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(zjf) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
176 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED re 156 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED (This document is SEALED and onl (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
177 REDACTED DOCUMENT− WMATA's (Redacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude July 14, 2016 Stixrud Declaration to Order on Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
178 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Matthew R. Fearnside terminated. (Fearnside, Matthew) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
179 SEALED ORDER ON MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 10/31/2016. (This document is SEALED and only

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 44 of 51

11/01/2016
11/01/2016 11/16/2016 01/10/2017

available to authorized persons.)(zcdw) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
MINUTE ORDER requiring the parties to meet and confer and jointly submit proposed redactions to 179 Order on Motion to Modify Protective Order or notify the Court whether the Order may be unsealed in whole no later than November 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 11/1/2016. (DAS) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Proposed redactions to 179 due by 11/15/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
181 REDACTED 179 ORDER on 136 Motion to Modify Protective Order. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 10/31/2016. (DAS) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
182 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held on 04/26/16; Page Numbers: 1−35. Date of Issuance:01/07/17. Court Reporter/Transcriber Crystal M. Pilgrim, Telephone number 202.354.3127, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

03/31/2017
03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017 04/14/2017 04/18/2017 04/20/2017

Redaction Request due 1/31/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/10/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/10/2017.(Pilgrim, Crystal) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
184 ORDER denying 117 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint without prejudice; granting in part and denying in part 124 Motion for Class Certification; granting 132 Motion to Exclude Dr. Bendick; granting in part and denying in part 135 Motion to Exclude Dr. Stixrud's Initial Report; granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion to Exclude Dr. Farber; denying 139 Motion to Exclude Dr. Siskin; granting in part and denying in part 162 Motion to Exclude Dr. Stixrud's Declaration. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint proposed scheduling order no later than April 21, 2017. The Courtroom Deputy shall set a status conference for a date after April 21, 2017. See Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 3/31/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
MINUTE ORDER requiring the parties to review 183 Memorandum and Opinion and provide any proposed redactions, or notify the Court no redactions are necessary, no later than April 14, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 3/31/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Proposed redactions or notice re redactions due by 4/14/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 04/01/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Parties' joint proposed scheduling order due by 4/21/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 04/01/2017)
185 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY re Order (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
186 Redacted MEMORANDUM AND OPINION related to 184 Order. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 3/31/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
187 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Scheduling Order (Motion Requesting Extension of April 21, 2017 Deadline to File Joint Proposed Scheduling Order) by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 45 of 51

04/21/2017 04/21/2017 04/27/2017 05/01/2017 05/02/2017
05/02/2017
05/04/2017 05/04/2017
05/05/2017
05/10/2017 05/11/2017 05/12/2017
05/12/2017
05/12/2017

MINUTE ORDER granting 187 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order no later than May 1, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 4/21/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint proposed scheduling order due by 5/1/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
188 NOTICE of Appearance by Coty R. Montag on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Montag, Coty) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
189 Joint STATUS REPORT on Scheduling and Discovery Proposals Pursuant to Orders dated March 31 and April 21, 2017 by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
190 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Natasha Korgaonkar terminated. (Korgaonkar, Natasha) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
191 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. Attorney Thomas Dallas McSorley terminated. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
192 MEMORANDUM re 189 Status Report filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
193 MEMORANDUM re 189 Status Report filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Harris, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 193 Memorandum; emailed to michael.harris@apks.com, cc'd 48 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. Filing attorney does not appear in signature block on document; In future, ECF login should match signature on document; Do not refile. (znmw, ) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/11/2017 at 10:45 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (cdw) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Status Conference held on 5/11/2017. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
194 ORDER consolidating Civil Case Number 14−1289 and Civil Case Numbers 15−98, 15−114, 15−1298, and 17−168 for the determination of the Title VII disparate impact claims. The proceedings related to any additional claims in Civil Case Numbers 15−98, 15−114, 15−1298, and 17−168 are hereby stayed pending the resolution of Civil Case Number 14−1289. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 5/12/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
195 SCHEDULING ORDER for Merits Discovery. Plaintiffs' amended pleadings shall be filed no later than June 2, 2017. WMATA shall answer no later than June 23, 2017. Fact discovery shall be completed no later than September 11, 2017. Expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 2, 2018. A post−discovery status conference is scheduled for March 6, 2018 at 10:00 A.M. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 5/12/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Amended Pleadings due by 6/2/2017. WMATA's Answer due by 6/23/2017. Fact discovery concludes on 9/11/2017. Status Conference set for 3/6/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer.

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 46 of 51

06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017
06/02/2017 06/02/2017
06/05/2017 06/05/2017

(zcdw) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
196 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
197 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record of Lawrence Whitted (redacted version) by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL. (Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
198 MOTION to Substitute Party Lawrence Whitted for D.W. and Joyce Short by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Whitted Death Certificate (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Joyce Short)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
199 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D.W. Birth Certificate)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
200 NOTICE of Second Amended Complaint by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W., Joyce Short (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Second Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Second Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Second Amended Complaint)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
201 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, Joyce Short, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit E to Second Amended Complaint)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
202 ENTERED IN ERROR.....SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., FIRST TRANSIT, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY with Jury Demand filed by MARCELLO VIRGIL, ERICK LITTLE, FITZGERALD STONEY, D. W., TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LOUIA MCKENZIE, JOYCE SHORT, SIDNEY DAVIS, LEON MCKENZIE, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES. (See Docket Entry 200 to view document).(znmw) Modified on 6/7/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 06/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 199 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/5/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
203 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit C) filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL. re 198 MOTION to Substitute Party Lawrence Whitted for D.W. and Joyce Short filed by LOUIA MCKENZIE, ERICK LITTLE, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, SIDNEY DAVIS, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LEON MCKENZIE, FITZGERALD STONEY. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(znmw) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 47 of 51

06/06/2017 06/06/2017
06/07/2017 06/16/2017 06/22/2017
06/23/2017 06/23/2017
06/26/2017 06/30/2017 07/05/2017 07/05/2017
07/06/2017

MINUTE ORDER granting 201 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/6/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
204 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit E) filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL. re 202 Amended Complaint, filed by D. W., LOUIA MCKENZIE, ERICK LITTLE, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, JOYCE SHORT, SIDNEY DAVIS, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LEON MCKENZIE, FITZGERALD STONEY. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(znmw) Modified to correct typo on 6/7/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 06/06/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 202 Second Amended Complaint was entered in error by the Clerk's Office (premature) and will be refiled after a ruling on Docket Entry 198 MOTION to Substitute Party. (znmw) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
205 Memorandum in opposition to re 198 MOTION to Substitute Party Lawrence Whitted for D.W. and Joyce Short filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
206 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, MOTION to Strike 204 Sealed Document,, 202 Amended Complaint, 200 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
MINUTE ORDER extending WMATA's deadline to answer 200 Second Amended Complaint. WMATA shall answer no later than 14 days after the Court's Order on 206 WMATA's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/23/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
207 REPLY to opposition to motion re 198 MOTION to Substitute Party Lawrence Whitted for D.W. and Joyce Short filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Freedman, John) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
208 ORDER granting 198 Motion to Substitute Party. D.W. and Joyce Short shall be substituted as successors to the claims of Lawrence Whitted. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/26/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
209 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Thomas Grossi, Jr on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Grossi, Peter) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 7/11/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (DAS) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
210 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Opposition to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Freedman, John) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 210 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs' opposition to 206 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Strike shall be filed no later than July 10, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/6/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 48 of 51

07/06/2017 07/10/2017
07/11/2017 07/11/2017 07/13/2017 07/18/2017 07/19/2017 07/19/2017 07/21/2017
07/24/2017 07/24/2017
07/24/2017 07/24/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Opposition To 206 Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative To Strike due by 7/10/2017. (mac) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
211 Memorandum in opposition to re 206 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative MOTION to Strike 204 Sealed Document,, 202 Amended Complaint, 200 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 210 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Opposition to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, GALEN PENDERGRASS, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W., LAWRENCE WHITTED. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying WMATA's Motion)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 7/27/2017 at 02:00 PM before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (DAS) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 7/11/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
212 ORDER requiring WMATA to respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory and Request for Documents concerning the 2017 Policy. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/13/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
213 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of WMATA's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Out of Time By One Day by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−WMATA's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit B − Proposed Order)(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 213 Motion for Leave to File Reply out of time. The Clerk shall enter WMATA's Reply, attached as Exhibit A to 213 Motion for Leave to File, in a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/19/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
214 REPLY to opposition to motion re 206 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative MOTION to Strike 204 Sealed Document,, 202 Amended Complaint, 200 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
215 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant WMATA's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, Whitney) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 215 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The Clerk is directed to file the document attached as an Exhibit in a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/24/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 215 Motion for Leave to File; emailed to whitney.moore@apks.com, cc'd 49 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. In future, ECF login must match signature on document; Whitney Moore is not an attorney of record in this case; Motion already granted or it would be entered in error; Do not refile. (znmw, ) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
216 NOTICE of Appearance by Whitney Allyn Moore on behalf of SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Moore, Whitney) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
217 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristian L. Hinson on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hinson, Kristian) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 49 of 51

07/24/2017
07/27/2017 07/27/2017 07/27/2017 08/09/2017

218 SURREPLY to re 206 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative MOTION to Strike 204 Sealed Document, 202 Amended Complaint, 200 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
MINUTE ORDER giving Plaintiffs until August 18, 2017 to file a Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/27/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Telephone Conference held on 7/27/2017. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Third Amended Complaint due by 8/18/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 07/29/2017)
219 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held on 07/27/17; Page Numbers: 1−14. Date of Issuance:08/09/17. Court Reporter/Transcriber Crystal M. Pilgrim, RPR, FCRR, Telephone number 202.354.3127, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

08/16/2017 08/18/2017
08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/30/2017

Redaction Request due 8/30/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/9/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/7/2017.(Pilgrim, Crystal) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
220 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W.. (Kleinman, Rachel) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
221 NOTICE of Filing Third Amended Complaint by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Attachments: # 1 Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Third Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit C to Third Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit D to Third Amended Complaint, # 6 Exhibit E to Third Amended Complaint)(Moore, Whitney) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 221 Notice (Other); emailed to whitney.moore@apks.com, cc'd 49 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. In future, ECF login must match attorney signature on document. Do not refile. (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 206 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Strike, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint due to the filing of 221 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/21/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
222 NOTICE of Proposed Order and Stipulated Proposed Order by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 50 of 51

09/01/2017
09/01/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 11/15/2017
11/15/2017 11/22/2017
11/28/2017 12/06/2017

Proposed Order)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
223 ANSWER to 202 Amended Complaint, Answer of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to Third Amended Class Action Complaint (Complaint docketed at ECF No. 221−1) by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Related document: 202 Amended Complaint, filed by D. W., LOUIA MCKENZIE, ERICK LITTLE, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, JOYCE SHORT, SIDNEY DAVIS, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LEON MCKENZIE, FITZGERALD STONEY.(Kraft, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
224 ORDER on Stipulation. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on August 30, 2017. (cdw) (Entered: 09/04/2017)
225 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings Until September 25 by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL (Freedman, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 225 Motion to Stay. The case and all pending deadlines are stayed until September 25, 2017. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than September 25, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/8/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
Case Stayed. (zcdw) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
MINUTE ORDER extending the stay. The case and all pending deadlines are stayed until November 15, 2017. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than November 15, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/22/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 11/15/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
226 NOTICE Withdrawal of Appearance by WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Stief, Gerard) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
227 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Kelly Guss on behalf of WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Guss, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
MINUTE ORDER extending the stay and extending the deadline for the parties to submit a joint status report. The case and all pending deadlines are stayed until November 22, 2017. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than November 22, 2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 11/15/2017. (DAS) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 11/22/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
228 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memo in Support of Preliminary Approval, # 2 Exhibit Preliminary Approval Order, # 3 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit in Support of Preliminary Approval, # 5 Exhibit Class Notice, # 6 Exhibit Long Claim Form, # 7 Exhibit Short Claim Form)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Preliminary Fairness Hearing set for 12/7/2017 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (DAS) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
229 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' and WMATA's Scheduling Proposal and Notice of Substitute Exhibits by SIDNEY DAVIS, ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, LEON MCKENZIE, LOUIA MCKENZIE, LEROY QUARLES, JOYCE SHORT, FITZGERALD STONEY, GERALD TUCKER, MARCELLO VIRGIL, D. W. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Little v. WMATA Preliminary Approval Order, # 2 Exhibit WMATA Little Class Notice, # 3 Exhibit Long Claim Form, # 4 Exhibit Short Claim Form)(Freedman, John) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1289 As of: 03/24/2018 11:23 PM EDT 51 of 51

12/07/2017 12/07/2017
12/12/2017 12/28/2017 01/30/2018 02/06/2018 02/06/2018 02/13/2018 03/01/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Preliminary Fairness Hearing held on 12/7/2017. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (cdw) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
230 ORDER granting preliminary approval of settlement agreement. A Settlement Fairness Hearing is set for April 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. All other deadlines are stayed and all other hearings are vacated. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 12/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Notice, # 3 Exhibit 3A − Long Form, # 4 Exhibit 3B − Short Form) (DAS) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 4/18/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (zcdw) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
231 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Attorney Harvey A. Levin terminated. (Levin, Harvey) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
232 Objection re 228 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by BERNARD S. LEVI. "Let this be filed as Objection to proposed Settlement", by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (zrdj) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
233 Objection to Notice of Settlement filed by BERNARD S. LEVI. "Let this be filed Objection to Notice of Settlement", by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (zrdj) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
234 Objection to Notice of Settlement filed by BERNARD S. LEVI."Let this be filed Objection to Notice of Settlement", by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (zrdj) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
235 NOTICE of Intent to Appear by BERNARD S. LEVI "Let this be filed. "Notice of Intent to Appear"", by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (zrdj) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
236 NOTICE of Intent to Object to Settlement by Gregory Stancil. "Let this be filed." by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (zrdj) (Entered: 03/02/2018)