IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

)

FPM EL.C. d/b/a FPM Ipsen Heat Treating )

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action 03650361
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et se~ ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofnationai origin and to provide appropriate relief to Ruben Cruz, P01o Bermmen, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Caroios Cruz, Luis de la Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Jimmy Rocha and a class of Hispanic employees who were adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action is brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(0(1), §706(0(3), 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-5(f)(1) §2000e-5(f)(3). 3. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331, 1337,
1343, 1345, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(3), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

4. The unlawful acts alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 706(0(1), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant FPM L.L.C. d/b/a FPM Ipsen Heat Treating ("FPM L.L.C.") has continuously been a corporation doing business in Winnebago County, Illinois. 7. At all relevant times, FPM L.L.C. has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 8. At all relevant times, FPM L.L.C. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
S,TATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. On January 7, 2002, more than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ruben Cruz filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by FPM L.L.C. (known as FPM Ipsen Heat Treating). On January 8, 2002, more than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Luis de la Fuente, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Polo Berrumen, Carlos Cruz, Jose Villareal, and John Lucio, filed a Charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by FPM L.L.C. (known as FPM Ipsen Heat Treating). On January 24, 2002, more than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Nestor Quiles filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by FPM L.L.C. (known as FPM Ipsen Heat Treating). On April 3, 2002, more than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jimmy Rocha filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Titte VII by FPM L.L.C. (known as FPM Ipsen Heat Treating). 10. On September 10, 2002, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination to FPM L.L.C.
2

finding that Respondent had discriminated against Hispanic employees as a class by subjecting ¯ Hispanic employees to different terms and conditions of employment and terminating and
constructively discharging Hispanic employees based on their national origin and/or in retaliation for opposing discrimination.
11. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), EEOC’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compfiance with Tire VII through conciliation prior to institution of this lawsuit but EEOC was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement.
12. Atl conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 13. From at least February 2001 until the present, Defendants have engaged in national origin discrimination against Hispanic employees as a class in continuing violation of §703(a) and §704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a). These unlawfulemployment practices include, but are not limited to: (a) subjecting Hispanic employees to different terms and conditions of employment including but not limited to assigning Hispanic employees to the Belts Department, which requires work in the most extreme and consistent heat in the plant and under the worst working conditions, depriving them of the necessary safety equipment, and paying Hispanic employees reduced wages by including without limitation depriving them of paid breaks, all on account of their national origin; (b) terminating Hispanic employees because of their national origin or in retaliation for their complaints about working conditions for Hispanic employees; (c) causing a class of employees to resign their employment because of continued disparate treatment on the basis of their Hispanic national origin or in retaliation for their complaints about discrimination, thus constructively discharging them; (d) failing to take prompt and appropriate corrective action in response to complaints or other notice of discrimination on the basis of Hispanic national origin; 14. The result of the practices complained of in paragraph I3 has been to deprive Ruben
-3-

Cruz, Polo Berrumen, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Carolos Cruz, Luis de la Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Jimmy Rocha and other Hispanic employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their national origin.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional. 16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 13 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ruben Cruz, Polo Berrumen, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Carolos Cruz, Luis de ia Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Jimmy Rocha and a class of Hispanic employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin; B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees regardless of national origin, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendants to make whole Ruben Cruz, Polo Berrumen, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Carolos Cruz, Luis de la Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Jimmy Rocha and a class of Hispanic employees who were terminated or constructively discharged by the unlawful practicesalleged above, and by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement to those employees who were terminated or constructively discharged in violation of Titte VII; D. Order Defendants to make whole Ruben Cruz, Polo Berrumen, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Carolos Cruz, Luis de la Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and
-4-

Jimmy Rocha and a class of Hispanic employees adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices alleged above by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendants to make whole Ruben Cruz, Polo Bermmen, SiMno Castaneda, David Perez, Carolos Cruz, Luis de la Fuente, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Jimmy Rocha and a class of Hispanic employees adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices alleged above by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices including emotional pain, humiliation, and inconvenience in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendants to pay punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs I3-15 above, in amounts to be determined at triM;
G. Prohibit Defendants from discriminating against any individual for engaging in protected activity under Titte VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII, or for participating in this law suit;
Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
I. Award the Commission its Costs in this action.
-5-

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commissio~t. uests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the 3C1oairnnt,

DATED this~_~_ day of September 2003.

/,/

Respectfully submitted,

Eric S. Dreiband Generfii Counsel

James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendotyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

Equal Employmem Opportunity

1C20~:i~reet, N/]W.

~h~ C-~.e~n.dficl~son
sN2;~lerviBs :;nnTarrial At, o rney ’
Deborah L. Hamilton Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7649
-6-

~

. Page I of 2

O

:.~:".’~ ::....:= .i -" .. ,.: ::::,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT " ~" :~.~ ~= ;~ ,-- ~’~, ~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Civil Cover Sheet .....

~is automated ~S-44 confoms generai]y to ~6 m~aB] JS-44 approved by &e $~cial Confereace of&e United StBtes N September 1974. The da~ is reqe#ed for &e use o[&e Clerk of Co~ for ~e p~ose o£~itiat~g ~e civil docket s~eet.
Nfo~ation conta~ed 5ere~ nei&er replaces nor s~pplements &e fling ~d semite of pleadings or o&er papers ~s by law. ~is [o~ is au~orized for nse ~ ~ &e No~em Dis~ct of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):FPM L.L.C.

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Arty: Deborah L. Hamilton

Defendant’s Arty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661

312-353-7649

03C50361

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Gov’t Plaintiff

III. CitizensNp_ of Principal Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

IV. Origkn_" ,

1. Original Proceeding

SEP 0 9 Z08, i

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the CivilRights Act of

1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a, to correct the unlawful employment

practices on the basis of national origin.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand:Yes

VIIi. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Date: http:Nwww.find.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forms/auto_j s44.cfm

In the Matter of

UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT i;:!~ ~::’:’! .....

~....i~

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

% .!~, ,,:~ ,~ %~ ’::

’ i

WESTERN DIVISION .... ~"’ "~

~-~

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

v. FPM L.LC.

Defendant.

... ....... Case Number:

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S} FOR! ................

U. S, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

¯ : :i.: ¯

¯ .............. I /#I,,./’2

"

N,~ Deborah L. Hamilton

N~’~t’/N~oelle C. Brenn~

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission F,~ Equal Employment Opporttmity Commission

~"=’~"°~ 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

~,,~AO.,~ 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

CITY/~TA’I’ErZIP Chicago, IL 60661

CZTY/S~’ATE~ZIP
Chicago, IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER

I FAX NUMBER

312-353-7649

312-353-8555

~-~A~ ~o~, deborah.hamilton@eeoa gov

TELEPHONE NUMBER

I FAX NUMBER

~-3~1,2~-3o5o3-~75,8n2oelle.brennan@eIeo3c1.2g-3o5v3-8555

IDI~NTIF[CATION NUMI~ER (St~’E ~TEM 4 ON REVERSE) ARDC No. 06269891

IDENTIFICATION NUM~R (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERS]~} ....... ARDC No. 06210804

CITY/STATE~IP Chicago, IL 60661

312-353-8551
~-~,~ ~O*E~S

j

ohn.hendricksoln3@12e-3e5o3c:.8g5o5v5

"

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 40NREVERSE)
ARDC No, 01187589

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES []

NO

[]

DF.~IGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSELV

YES []

NO

[]

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? SIGNATURE

(D)

NAME

FIRM

STRSET ADDRESS

- ~.UUJ

C ITY/STA’IT~ZlP

TELEPHONE NUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESS

InENTIFICATION NUMNZR (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES

[]

NO []

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

[]

NO []

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT’ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff,
and
Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis De La Fuente, Case No. 03 C 50361 Jimmy R0cha, Silvino Castafieda, David Perez, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles and Polo Judge Philip G. Reinhard Berumen,
Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney Intervenor-Plaintiffs,
Vo
FPM L.L.C., d/b/a Ipsen Heat Treating,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS Intervenor-Plaintiffs complain of defendant as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. ("Title VII") seeking to redressunlawful employment practices on the basis
of race and national origin.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-5(f)(3).

3. Venue is proper in the Northem District of Illinois, Western Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because (a) defendant resides in this District and (ii) the unlawful conduct alleged herein was committed and continues to occur within the District. III, PARTIES
4. Intervenor-PlaintiffRuben Cruz is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Ruben Cruz’s national origin is Mexican.
5. Intervenor-PlaintiffCarlos Cruz is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Carlos Cruz’s national origin is Mexican.
6. Intervenor-PlaintiffLuis De La Fuente is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Luis De La Fuente’s national origin is Mexican.
7. Intervenor-Plaintiff Jimmy Rocha is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Jimmy Rocha’s national origin is Mexican.
8. Intervenor-Plaintiff Silvio Castafieda is an Hispanic current employee of defendant. Silvino Castafieda’s national origin is Mexican.
9. Intervenor-PlaintiffDavid Perez is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. David Perez’s national origin is Mexican.
10. Intervenor-PlaintiffJose Villareal is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Jose Villareal’s national origin is Mexican.
11. Intervenor-PlaintiffJohn Lucio is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. John Lucio’s national origin is Mexican.
12. Intervenor-Plaintiff Nestor Quiles is an Hispanic former employee of defendant. Nestor Quiles’ national origin is Mexican.
2

13. Intervenor-Plaintiff Polo Be~eri ~ m His ~anic current employee of defendant. Polo Berumen’s national origin is Mexican.
14. Defendant FPM .L.L.C., d/b/a Ipsen Heat Treating ("Ipsen") is an employer continuously engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 701 (b), (g) and 0a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b),(g) and (h). At all relevant times, !psen has continuously been a corporation doing business within Winnebago County, Illinois and has continuously employed at Ieast fifteen employees.
IV. BACKGROUND 15. Each of the Intervenor-Plaintiffs filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the
EEOC. (Ex. 1) Subsequent to the filing of the charges, the EEOC issued class-based Determinations of Reasonable Cause to believe violations of Titte VII by defendant have occurred. Thereafter, the EEOC informed Intervenor-Plaintiffs that conciliation efforts have failed.
16. On September 9, 2003, the EEOC initiated class-wide iitigation based on the Charges ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs.
17. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 18. As set forth below, Ipsen has engaged in a pervasive company-wide pattern and practice of discrimination against Hispanics for many years. The discriminatory conduct against Hispanics that defendant has engaged in includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. defendant has subjected Hispanic employees to different terms and conditions of employment, including disproportionately assigning Hispanic employees to the Belts Department, which requires working in the most uncomfortable, undesirable and dangerous working conditions in the plant;
b. defendant has deprived Hispanic employees of necessary safety equipment routinely provided to non-Hispanic workers;

defendant has paid Hispamc workers lower wages than paid to similarlysituated non-Hispanic workers;
defendant has denied Hispanic workers lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers;

eo

defendant has terminated Hispanic employees because of their national origin

or in retaliation for their complaints about working conditions for Hispanic

employees;

f. defendant has caused Hispanic employees to resign their employment because of continued disparate treatment on the basis of their national origin or in retaliation for complaints about discrimination, thus constructively discharging them;

go defendant has failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action in response to complaints and other notice of discrimination on the basis of Hispanic national origin.

DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT TOWARD THE INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS

A. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF RUBEN CRUZ

19. Ruben Cruz incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above.

20. Ruben Cruz was hired by defendant in November 1999 as a furnace operator in the

Belts Department. At all times, Ruben Cruz performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner.

21. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult,

requiring workers to perform theirj obs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its

work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the

Department. Hispanic employees, like Intervenor-Plaintiffs, are kept in the Belts Department,

whereas non-Hispanic employees are permitted to transfer to other departments.

22. As an employee of the Belts Department, Ruben Cruz was denied lunch and rest

breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments.

4

23. As an employee of the Belts Department, Ruben Cruz was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
24. Ruben Cruz was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
25. In March 2001, Ruben Cruz was terminated by defendant after complaining about a dangerous work assignment. Non-Hispanic workers were not required to perform such assignments and were not terminated in such circumstances.
26. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Ruben Cruz in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
B. INTERVENOR’PLAINTIFF CARLOS CRUZ 27. Carlos Cruz incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 28. Carlos Cruz was hired by defendant in December 1999 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. At all times, Carlos Cruz performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 29. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the Department. Hispanic employees, like Intervenor-Plaintiffs, are kept in the Belts Department, whereas non-Hispanic employees are permitted to transfer to other departments. 30. As an employee of the Belts Department, Carlos Cruz was denied lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments. 31. As an employee of the Belts Department, Carlos Cruz was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
5

32. Carlos Cruz was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
33. In August 2001, Carlos Cruz took a day off from work under the Family Medical Leave Act due to the birth of his son. When he returned to work, his supervisor increased his work assignments and placed additional demands upon him. Non-Hispanic workers taking FMLA Or other time offwere not treated in this manner.
34. During this same period, an Hispanic co-worker, Jimmy Rocha, took FMLAprotected time offfor illness and, upon his return, was required to perform work alone that could not be performed by one person without endangering the person’s safety. Non-Hispanic workers were not required to undertake such dangerous assignments. Carlos Cruz, and three other co-workers, including Jimmy Rocha, engaged in protected oppositionat conduct by protesting this treatment to their supervisor. As a result, each of them was terminated by defendant on August 21, 2001.
35. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and was retaliatory and constitutes discrimination against Carlos Cruz in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
C. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF LUIS DE LA FUENTE 36. Luis De La Fuente incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 37. Luis De La Fuentc was hired by defendant in February 2000 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. At all times, De La Fuente performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 38. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the
6

Department. De La Fuente requested a transfer to anolher department, but his request was denied. Similar requests of white employees were granted.
39. As an employee of the Belts Department, De La Fuente was denied lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments.
40. As an employee of the BeltsDepartment, De La Fuente was denied¯ adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
41. De La Fuente was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
42. In July 2001, De La Fuente injured his back at work and was given ligtit duty restrictions. The light duty restrictions were ignored by defendant, who required De La Fuente to continue tO perform heavy lifting. Similarly situated non-Hispanic workers who are given light duty restrictions are not required to perform heavy lifting.
43. In August 2001., after two Hispanic co-workers were mistreated by defendant after taking days offunder the Family Medical Leave Act, Intervenor-Plaintiffand three other co-workers engaged in protected oppositional conduct by protesting this treatment to the supervisor. NonHispanic workers are not mistreated or made to perform unsafe assignments after taking days off. As a result of protesting the actions taken by defendant, Intervenor-Plaintiff De La Fuente and the other protesting co-workers were terminated.
44. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and was retaliatory and constitutes discrimination against Luis De La Fuente in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
D. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF JIMMY ROCHA 45. Jimmy Rocha incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above.
7

46. Rocha was hired by defendant in July 2000 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. At all times, Rocha performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner.
47. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform thei~jobsin extremeiy hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in theBelts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the Department.
48. As an employee of the Belts Department, Rocha was denied ltmch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments.
49. As an employee of the Belts Department, Rocha was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
50. Rocha was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
51. Rocha requested a transfer to a different job, but his request was denied. NonHispanic employees received such transfers.
52. In August 200 I, Rocha took FMLA- protected time off for illness and, upon his return, was required to perform work alone that could not be performed by one person without endangering the person’s safety. Non-Hispanic workers were not required to undertake such dangerous assignments. Roctia, and three other co-workers, engaged in protected oppositional conduct by protesting this treatment to their supervisor. As a result, each of them was terminated by defendant on August 21, 2001.
53. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and was retaliatory and constitutes discrimination against Jimmy Rocha in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

EB

INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF SILVINO CASTA~TEDA

54. Silvino Castafieda incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above.

55. Castafieda was hired by defendant in May 2001 as a machine operator in the Induction

Department. At all times, Castafieda has performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner.

56. Castafieda is paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of

similar experience and tenure.

57. Castafieda requested a transfer to an inspection job in the lab, which would have

resulted in an increase in pay. Castafieda’s request was denied and the job was given to a white

female from outside the company.

58. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Iutervenor-Plaintiff’s

race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Silvino Castafieda in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of I964, as amended.

F. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF DAVID PEREZ

59. David Perez incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above.

60. David Perez was hired by defendant in June 2001 as a furnace operator in the Belts

Department. At all times, Perez performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner.

61 . Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult,

requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its

work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the

Department. Hispanic employees, like Intervenor-P!aintiffs, are kept in the Belts Department, whereas non-Hispanic employees are permitted to transfer to other departments.

62. As an employee of the Belts Department, Perez was denied lunch and rest breaks

routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments.

9

63. As an employee of the Beifs bepai~ment, Perez was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
64. Perez was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
65. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenog-Ptaintiff’s race-and- national-or~-gin-and- constitutes d~sefimination-against David-Perez in-violation-of Title ¥IIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
G. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF JOSE VILLAREAL 66. Jose Vitlareal incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 67. Villareal was hired by defendant in September 1998 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. At all times, Villareal performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 68. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the Department. Hispanic employees, like Intervenor-Plaintiffs, are kept in the Belts Department, whereas non-Hispanic employees are permitted to transfer to other departments. 69. As an employee of the Belts Department, Villareal was denied lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments. 70. As an employee of the Belts Department, Villareal was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety ~quipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees. 71. Villareal was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
10

72. In August 200 i, after two Hispanic co-workers were mistreated by defendant after taking days offunder the Family Medical Leave Act, Intervenor-Plaintiffand three other co-workers engaged in protected oppositional conduct by protesting this treatment to: the supervisor. NonHispanic workers are not mistreated or made to perform unsafe assignments after taking days off. As a result of protesting the actions taken by defendant, Intervenor-PlaintiffVillareai and the other protesting co-workers were terminated.
73. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff s race and national origin and was retaliatory and constitutes discrimination against Jose Villareal in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
H. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF JOHN LUCIO 74. John Lucio incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 75. Lucio was hired by defendant in August 2000 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. At all times, Lucio performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 76. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the Department. Hispanic employees~ like Intervenor-Plaintiffs, are kept in the Belts Department, whereas non-Hispanic employees are permitted to transfer to other departments. 77. As an employee of the Belts Department, Lucio was denied¯ lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments. 78. As an employee of the Belts Department, Lucio was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.

79. Lucio was paid lower wages than similarly’situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
80. In May 2001, Lucio was constructively discharged after his supervisor treated him in an unconscionably abusive and unfair manner concerning the terms and conditions of his employment.
8 i. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against John Lucio in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
I. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFI~ NESTOR QUILES 82. Nestor Quiles incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 83. Quiles was hired by defendant in December 2000 as a furnace operator in the Belts Department. Quiles has schooling and experience in computers, iron work and forklift. At all times, Quiles performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 84. Work conditions in the Belts Department are extremely dangerous and difficult, requiring workers to perform their jobs in extremely hot temperatures. Defendant has segregated its work force in the Belts Department, assigning Hispanic workers almost exclusively to the Department. Quiles requested a transfer to another department, but his request was denied. Similar requests of white employees were granted. 85. As an employee of the Belts Department, Quiles was denied lunch and rest breaks routinely afforded to non-Hispanic workers assigned to more favorable departments. 86. As an employee of the Belts Department, Quiles was denied adequate equipment, including adequate safety equipment, routinely provided to non-Hispanic employees.
12

87. Quiles was paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure, who were placed in less difficult and dangerous assignments.
88. In approximately February 200I, Quiles requested a transfer to the Induction Department. The amount of training required to work in Induction is not greater than that required to work in the Belts Department. Even though the Induction Department was ~ypically short-handed, Quiles was denied a transfer. Most Hispanic workers are not pe.rmitted to transfer to the Induction Department whereas Anglo employees and temporary employees are placed there on a regular basis.
89. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiff’s race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Nestor Quiles in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
J. INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF POLO BERUMEN 90. Polo Berurnen incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 91. Berumen was hired by defendant in February 1997 as a machine operator in the Belts Department. Berumen ultimately became a supervisor in the Induction Department. At all times, Berumert has performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner. 92. In November 2001, a Caucasian worker employee under Berttmen’s supervision left the plant in violation of company rules. The employee then returned apparently intoxicated. Bemmen raised the issue that this employee should be terminated and raised the issue with management that Hispanic workers are terminated or disciplined for less and often inadequate reasons. Defendant did not accept Berumen’s account of events or recommendation as it would have with a white supervisor. The white employee was allowed to return to work. Although the white worker was eventually terminated by a white supervisor, Berumen was unjustly disciplined for his actions.
i3

93. Berumen has been paid lower wages than similarly-situated non-Hispanic workers of similar experience and tenure.
94. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiffs race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Bemmen in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
COUNT I TITLE VII - RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 95. This Count is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha, Perez, Villareal, Luciol Quiles and Berumen. 96. Intervenor-Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint as if set forth herein. 97. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ race and national origin and constitutes discrimination by defendant against Intervenor-Plaintiffs in the terms and conditions of their employment, in Violation of Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964, as amended. The aforementioned conduct, in its totality, constitutes a work environment hostile, to Intervenor-Pi~ntiffs in terms of their race and national origin. : 98. The aforementioned conduct by defendant has resulted, in damages to IntervenorPlaintiffs including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliatio and embarrassment. The defendant intentionally discriminated against Intervenor-Plaintiffs with malice or reckless indifference to Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ civil rights, thereby entitling IntervenorPlaintiffs to punitive damages. 99. Intervenor-Plaintiffs request that the Court order systemic injunctive relief to address the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With respect to Count I, Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha, Perez,

Villareal, Lucio, Quiles and Berumen respectfully request that this Court:

Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against Intervenor-Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VII;

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all personsin active concert or participating with them, from engaging in any employment practice with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin;

co

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing backpay and

prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief

necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s unlawful employment practices;

Do

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for

past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

alleged herein;

eo

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for

past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment

practices alleged herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and

embarrassment; in amounts to be determined at trial;

Order defendant to pay Intervenor-Plaintiffs punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein, in amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Award the Intervenor-Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and

H. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II TITLE VII - RACE DISCRIMINATION IN TERMINATION
100. This Count is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente,

Rocha, Villareal and Lucio.

I01. Intervenor-Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 94 of tiffs Complaint as if set forth herein.

102. By virtue of defendant’s i’oreg~lng :eonduci; Interven0r:Plaintiffs were unlawfully

terminated on the basis of their race and national origin in violation of Title VII.

103. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to Intervenor-Plaintiffs

including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and

embarrassment. The defendant intentionally discriminated against intervenor-Plaintiffs with malice

or reckless indifference to Intervenor-Plaintiff’s civil rights, thereby entitling Intervenor’Plaintiff

to punitive damages.

104. Intervenor-Plaintiffs request that the Court order systemic injunctive relief to address

the unlawful conduct complained of herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With respect to Count II, Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha,

Villareal and Lucio respectfully request that this Court:

Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against Intervenor-Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII;

No

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its.officers, successors, assigns

and all persons in active concert or participating with them, from engaging in any

employment practice that amounts to termination or constructive discharge and

which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin;

Co

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing backpay and

prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief

necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s unlawfifl employment practices,

including rightful place reinstatement;

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses¯ resulting from the unlawful employment practices
alleged herein;

go

Order defendant to make whole intervenor-Piaintiffs by providing compensation for

past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment

practices alleged herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and

embarrassment, in amounts to be determined at trial;

16

F. Order defendant to pay Intervenor-Plaintiffs punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Award the Intervenor-Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and H. G-rant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III TITLE VII - RACE DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION 105. This Count is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha, Castafieda, Perez, Villareal, Lucio, Quiles and Berumen. 106. Intervenor-Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint as if set forth herein. 107. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Intervenor-Plaintiffs in connection with compensation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 108. The aforementioned conduct of defendant has resulted in damages to IntervenorPlaintiffs including, but not limited to, 10ss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The defendant intentionally discriminated against Intervenor-Plaintiffs with malice or reckless indifference to Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ civil rights, thereby entitling IntervenorPlaintiffs to punitive damages. 109. Intervenor-Ptaintiffs request that the Court order systemic injunctive relief to address the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF With respect to Count III, Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha, Castafieda, Perez, Villareal, Lucio, Quiles and Berumen respectfully request that this Court:
17

No

Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated

against the Intervenor-Plaintiffs in compensation, in violation 0fTitle VII of the Civil

Rights Act of i964, as amended;

No

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns

and all persons in active concert or participating with them, from engaging in any

employment practice with respect to compensation, which discriminates on the basis

of race or national origin;

Co

Order defendant to make whole the Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing backpay and

prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief

necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s unlawful employment practices;

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawfifl employment practices described above;

go

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for

past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices alleged

herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and embarrassment in amounts to

be determined at trial;

Fo

Order defendant to pay to Intervenor-Ptaintiffs punitive damages for its malicious

and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;

Go

Award the Intervenor-Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and

Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV TITLE VII - RACE DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSFERS

110. This Count is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De La Fuente,

Rocha, Castafieda, Perez, Villareal, Lucio and Quiles.

111. Intervenor-Plaintiffs incorporate anrdeallege Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this

Complaint as if set forth herein.

112. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was motivated by Intervenor-Plaintiffs’

race and national origin and constitutes discrimination against Intervenor-Plaintiffs in connection

with transfers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of I964, as amended.

18

I 13. The aforementioned conduct of defendant has resulted in damages to Intervenor-

Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliatio

and embarrassment. The defendant intentionally discriminated against Intervenor-Plaintiffs with

malice or reckless indifference to Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ civil rights, thereby entitling Intervenor-

Plaintiffs to punitive damages.

114. Intervenor-Plaintiffs request that the Court order systemic injunctive relief to address

tmlawf~l conduct complained of herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With respect to Count IV, Intervenor-Ptaintiffs R. Cruz, C. Cruz, De LaFuente, Rocha,

Castafieda, Perez; Villareal,Lucio and Quiles respectfully request that this Court:

Ao

Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated

against the Intervenor-Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended;

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with them, from engaging in any employment practice with respect to transfers which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin;

Order defendartt to make whole the Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing baekpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s unlawftfl employment practices;

Order defendant to make whole the Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for future pecuniary losses¯ resulting from the unlawful employment practices
described above;

Eo

Order defendant to make whole the Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation

for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawfifl conduct alleged

herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and embarrassment, in amounts to

be determined at trial;

F. " Order defendant to pay t0¯the¯ Interven0r-Plaintiffs punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein, in amounts to be determined at trial;

19

Go

Award the Intervenor’Plaintiffs attomeys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and

Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V TITLE VII - RETALIATION

115. This Count is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiffs C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha Villareal

and Bemmen.

116. Intervenor-Plaintiffsincorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this

Complaint as if set forth herein.

i 17. Byvirtue of the foregoing conduct, Intervenor-Plaintiffs were subjected to retaliation

in violation of Title VII as a result of complaints about unlawful conditions and conduct by

defendant.

118. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct undertaken by defendant as described herein

has resulted in damages to these Intervenor-Plaintiffs. In retaliating against Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to their civil rights, thereby entitling Intervenor-

Plaintiffs to punitive damages.,

119. Intervenor-Plaintiffs request that the Court order systemic injunctive relief to address

the unlawful conduct complained of herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

......Wi~h resPect to Count V, Intervenor-Plaintiffs C. Cruz, De La Fuente, Rocha, Villareal and

Berumen respectfully request that this Court:

¯

No

Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has retaliated

against Intervenor-Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII;

No

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant’ its officers, successors, assigns

and all persons in active concert or participating with them, from engaging in any

employment practice which constithtes unlawful retaliation;

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing such backpay and prejudgment interest as may be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s retaliatory conduct;

Do

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for

any past and future pecuniary losses resulting from defendant’s retaliatory conduct;

Order defendant to make whole Intervenor-Plaintiffs by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the retaliatory conduct alleged herein, incIuding humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

Order defendant to pay Intervenor-Plaintiffs punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;

Award the Intervenor-Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and

H. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

Respe! :tfully submitted,

Dated: October 20, 2003

¯

Kelly K. Lambert Jennifer K. Sortie

James G. Bradtke

Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 616-4422

Peter G. Earle
Earle & Brostrom, LLP 111 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1650
Milwaukee, Illinois 53202 414-276-1076

C:\Corel\Cases~Ipsen\Pleadings\Intervenor Complaint.wpd

~t~r~enor-Plaintiffs -Att’~-rneys
/~ee

21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ~.. ,,~’ ,i .. ,, WESTERN DIVISION

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Plaintiff,

and

Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis De La Fuente, Jimmy Rocha, Silvino Castafieda, David Perez, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles and Polo Berumen,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

Case No. 03 C 50361 Judge Philip G. Reinhard Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

FPM. L.L.C., d/b/a ipsenHeat Treating,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING
To: See Attached Service Li~t
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, November 2 I, 2003, I caused the original and one copy 0fthe COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS to be sent via Federal Express to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, for the purposes offiling, by depositing same in the Federal Express Dropbox located at 155 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois on November 21, 2003 on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. A copy of said document is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kelly K. Lambert, an attorney, hereby certify that i caused a copy of this Notice of Filing and the above referenced document to be served upon the referenced addressees via U.S. First Class Mail by depositing ¯ same in the USPS Mailbox located at 155 North Michigan Avenu~~ Chicago, Illinois on November 21, 2003 on or before the¯h°ur of 5:00 p.m, with proper postage prepa.~
,Y
/i~l ly~ La~bert~ Attorney

Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500 ¯ Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4422

Earle & Brostrom, LLP 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1650 Milwaukee, Illinois 53202 414-276-1076

SERVICE LIST
Deborah L. Hamilton, Esq. U.S. EEOC - Chicago District Office
500 West Madison Street, #2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661
Michael B. Solow Stephen E. Garcia Kaye Scholer LLP 3 First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street
Suite 4100 Chicago, Illinois 60602-4231
Kerry A. Scanlon, Esq. Kaye Scholer LLP
90I 15~ Street, N.W., #1100 Washington, D.C. 20005

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis De La Fuente, )

Jimmy Rochas, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, )

Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and )

Polo Berumen,

)

Intervenor-Plaintiffs

)

v.

)

)

FPM L.L.C., d/b/a FPM Ipsen Heat Treating )

Defendant.

)

)

)

Case No. 03 C 5036
Judge Phillip G. Reinhard
Magistrate Judge Michael P. Mahoney

CONSENT DECREE

THE LITIGATION

1. On September 9,2003, the EEOC filed suit against FPM L.L.C., d/b/a FPM Ipsen

Heat Treating ("FPM") alleging unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin in

violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Among the allegations,

EEOC alleged that FPM subjected Hispanic employees to different terms and conditions of

employment including but not limited to assigning Hispanic employees to the Belts Department,

which requires work in the most extreme and consistent heat in the plant and under the worst

working conditions, depriving them of the necessary safety equipment, and paying Hispanic

employees reduced wages, all on account of their national origin as well as terminating Hispanic

employees because of their national origin or in retaliation for their complaints about working

conditions for Hispanic employees.
1

/)5

2. On November 24, 2003, Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis De La Fuente, Jimmy

Rochas, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, and Polo

Berumen, each of whom had previously filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC,

intervened in the litigation as Plaintiff-Intervenors.

3. FPM denied all allegations of the EEOC action and of the Plaintiff-Intervenors.

4. As a result of their having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the

EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenors and FPM agree the claims against FPM should be fully and finally

resolved by entry of this Consent Decree ("Decree").

FINDINGS

5.

Having examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the

pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:

A. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter ofthis action and of the parties to

this case;

B. The terms of this Decree are adequate, reasonable, equitable and just and the

rights of the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors, FPM, and the public interest are adequately

protected by this Decree; and

C. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII,

and is not in derogation ofthe rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will
I
further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the EEOC, the Plaintiff-

Intervenors, FPM, and the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6. FPM, its directors, officers, agents, assigns, and employees are permanently

2

· '
enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of national origin.
7. FPM shall not retaliate in any way against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under or benefitted from this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF FOR COMPLAINANTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES 8. (a) FPM shall pay a total of $20,000 in monetary relief for non-wage, compensatory damages to the Plaintiff-Intervenors in the aggregate, $2,000 for each individual Plaintiff-Intervenor, which will be reflected in an IRS 1099 form. Upon entry of this Consent Decree, the Plaintiff-Intervenors' counsel shall mail to each Plaintiff-Intervenor a Release Agreement in the form that was separately agreed upon by Plaintiff-Intervenors and FPM. To be eligible for relief pursuant to this Consent Decree, each of the Plaintiff-Intervenors must execute and return to the Plaintiff-Intervenors' counsel the Release Agreement in the agreed upon form. Plaintiff-Intervenors' counsel will send to FPM the executed Release Agreement it receives from each Plaintiff-Intervneor. Within ten (10) days ofFPM's receipt of an executed Release Agreement, FPM shall mail to Plaintiff-Intervenor's counsel a check for $2,000 in the name of the individual who signed the release. FPM shall also mail a copy of each such check to the EEOC at the address set forth in Paragraph 22, below. (b) FPM shall pay a total of$10,000 to Soule, Bradtke & Lambert ("SBL"), representing reimbursement for costs incurred and fees expended by SBL in the case.
3

· '
REEMPLOYMENT FOR POLO BERRUMEN AND SILVINO CASTANEDA 9. Within seven (7) days ofthe entry ofthis Decree, FPM shall offer reemployment
to Plaintiff-Intervenors Polo Berrumen and Silvino Castaneda to positions at FPM's Cherry Valley facility for which Berrumen and Castaneda shall receive hourly wages and benefits equivalent to (or in excess of) that received at the time oftheir layoffs in the summer of2004. Berrumen and Castaneda may be terminated at any time for cause. Berrumen and Castaneda shall not be terminated by FPM (except for cause) so long as any other current factory employee of the Cherry Valley facility with less seniority remains employed at any FPM facility. Should these individuals decline the offer of reemployment, FPM agrees that it will not take any action with regard to such individuals' unemployment benefits.
RECORD-KEEPING 10. In order to enable the EEOC to monitor the relief afforded by this Decree for the duration of this Decree, FPM shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC upon reasonable notice during normal business hours all documents and records which refer or relate to employee complaints regarding national origin discrimination made subsequent to the entry of this Decree. 11. FPM shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10, above, available for inspection and copying within ten (10) days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, FPM shall make available upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours all persons within its employ whom the EEOC requests for the purpose of verifying compliance with this Decree, and shall permit upon reasonable notice and normal business hours the EEOC to enter FPM premises during regular business hours for such purpose. 12. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation FPM
4

· .
may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VtI or any other law or regulation.
ADOPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF REVISED POLICY AGAINST NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINTION 13. FPM shall review its current policy against national origin discrimination and make any revisions FPM deems necessary to comply with the specifications contained in this paragraph. FPM shall thereafter distribute to all employees, full-time and part-time, a copy of such policy (as revised, if appropriate), and FPM shall also provide a copy ofthe policy (as revised, if appropriate) to the EEOC. Both the review of the policy and its redistribution shall take place within 60 days after the entry ofthis Decree. The policy shall specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin and provide written guidance as to the process for resolving a complaint of national origin discrimination. The policy shall provide that complaints of national origin discrimination may be made to any person in the chain of command above an employee or directly to the Personnel Department. The policy shall provide that employees who violate the policy are subject to discipline up to and including discharge. The policy shall be distributed in both English and Spanish.
TRAINING 14. FPM will provide training for its employees regarding national origin discrimination throughout the duration of the Consent Decree, as follows: a) Within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the entry of this Decree, all fulltime and part-time FPM managers and supervisors and all non-clerical employees in the Personnel department shall participate in a training session designed for FPM by a trainer selected in accord with the process outlined in paragraph b below. This training will involve detailed discussion of not only the law but the role of each manager and supervisor in
5

...

I)'

maintaining a workplace free of discrimination and retallatlon and one which promotes the interests of equal employment opportunities.
b) FPM shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to the training session. FPM shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer to the EEOC at least twenty (20) days prior to the proposed date(s) of the training. EEOC shall have five (5) calendar days from the date of receipt ofthe information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. In the event the EEOC does not approve FPM's designated trainer, FPM shall have five (5) calendar days to identify an alternate trainer. The EEOC shall have five (5) calendar days from the date o£ receipt ofthe information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. If the parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance under Paragraph 18.
REPORTING 15. FPM shall furnish the EEOC with a list (including the employee's name, gender, job title, address, social security number and date of complaint) of each employee who makes a complaint about alleged national origin discrimination which is recorded pursuant to Paragraph 10. FPM shall furnish the first such report six (6) months after entry of this Decree, and a subsequent report six (6) months thereafter. 16. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation FPM may otherwise have to submit reports under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
POSTING OF NOTICE 17. While the Cherry Valley facility is operational, FPM shall post a copy of the Notice, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, in a conspicuous
6

location easily accessible to and commonly trequerited by FPM;s employees and applicants for employment at the Cherry Valley facility. FPM shall ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. FPM shall certify to the EEOC in writing within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Consent Decree that the Notice has been properly posted and the location of each such posting. The Notice shall remain posted for a period of one (1) year from the date of entry of this Decree so long as the Cherry Valley facility is owned and operated by FPM in whole or in part.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 18. In the event that any party believes that the another party has failed to comply with any provisions of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged non-complying party in writing of such non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party fifteen (15) days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. lfthe alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within fifteen (15) days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 19. Subject to Paragraph 18, all provisions of this Decree shall be in effect for a period of one (1) year immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end ofthat period, any disputes under Paragraph 18, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree may be extended by the Court until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 20. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future
7

representatives, agents, directors, officers, and assigns ofFPM. 21. If any provision(s) ofthe Decree are found to be unlawful, only such
provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect.
22. When the Decree requires the submission by FPM of reports, notices or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: FPM Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago District office, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. When the Decree requires the submission of documents to FPM, the information shall be mailed to: Stephen E. Garcia, Kaye Scholer LLC, Three First National Plaza, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60602. When the Decree requires the submission of documents to the Plaintiff-Intervenors, they shall be mailed to Jim Bradtke & Kelly Lambert, Soule, Bradtke & Lambert, 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60601.
23. This Decree fully and finally resolves all claims alleged by EEOC and PlaintiffIntervenors in this action against FPM, including its directors, officers and shareholders.
8

ENTER

The Honorabl Judge ReInhard

.

United States District Court

Date:

Trial Attorney 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7649
ichigan Ave., Suite 500 Chica 0, IL 60601 312) 616-4422
FOR DEFENDANT FPM LLC
9

EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO ALL FPM EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. PPM, LLC. Case No. 03 C 50361 resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Plaintiff-Intervenors against PPM LLC. In its suit, the EEOC alleged that PPM discriminated against a class of Hispanic employees by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment than nonHispanic employees and retaliating against them when they complained about this discrimination. To resolve the case, the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, that: 1) PPM will provide relief to the class members. 2) PPM will not engage in national origin discrimination including injob assignments. 3) PPM will not retaliate against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VIT, filed a Title VIT charge of discrimination or participated in any Title VII proceeding; The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may follow the complaint procedure in PPM's non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE This Notice must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: FPM Settlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.
10

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 10

MAHONEY, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03-cv-50361

EEOC, et al v. FPM Ipsen Heat Assigned to: Honorable Philip G. Reinhard Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/09/2003 Date Terminated: 11/17/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Deborah Lois Hamilton Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-7722 Email: deborah.hamilton@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ruben Cruz

Noelle Christine Brennan Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 Email: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com TERMINATED: 12/15/2003
represented by James Gerard Bradtke Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 10

Plaintiff Carlos Cruz

Suite 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616-4422 Fax: (312) 616-4423 Email: jgbvjd@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616-4422 Fax: (312) 616-4423 Email: sbl155law@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle Law Offices of Peter Earle 700 North Water Street Suite 646 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-276-1076 Email: peter@earle-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 N. Michigan Avenue 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616-4422 Fax: (312) 616-4422 Email: jenksoule@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 10

Plaintiff Lois DeLa Fuente
Plaintiff Jimmy Rocha
Plaintiff Silvino Castaneda

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 10

Plaintiff David Perez
Plaintiff Jose . Villareal

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 10

Plaintiff John Lucio
Plaintiff Nestor Quiles
Plaintiff Polo Berumen

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 10

V.
Defendant
FPM Ipsen Heat Treating Inc doing business as FPM Ipsen Heat Treating Inc

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kerry Alan Scanlon Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler 901 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-3660 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael B. Solow Kaye, Scholer, LLP 70 West Madison Street Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 583-2300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Edward Garcia Kaye, Scholer, LLP 70 West Madison Street Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 583-2300 Email: stephengarcia312@sbcglobal.net
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Zifchak Kaye Scholer LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)836-8000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 7 of 10

Date Filed 09/09/2003
09/09/2003 09/23/2003 09/26/2003
10/21/2003
10/24/2003
11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/19/2003
11/20/2003 11/24/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Noelle Christine Brennan, Deborah Lois Hamilton as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( 0 summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (clb) (Entered: 09/09/2003)

THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11(d). (clb) (Entered: 09/09/2003)

2 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant FPM Ipsen Heat sent on 9/16/03 (fce) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

SCHEDULE set on 9/26/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing set to 1:30 10/24/03. Plaintiff is directed to notify any party filing an appearance subsequent to the entry of this order of the status hearing. Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 09/26/2003)

3 MOTION by unknown Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis De La Fuente, Jimmy Rocha, Silvino Castandea, David Perez, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, Polo Berumen, to intervene as of right (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

4 MINUTE ORDER of 10/24/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held and continued to 1:30 pm on 12/3/03. Motion to intervene is considered presented. Defendant to file any objections to motion by 11/17/03. Motion continued to 11/21/03 at 1:30 pm [3-1]. Defendant's response to complaint due 12/1/03. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

11 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant by Kerry Alan Scanlon; Order entered granting leave by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/04/2003)

12 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant by William Zifchak; Order entered granting leave by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/04/2003)

14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Michael B. Solow (fce) (Entered: 12/04/2003)

6 MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Luis DeLa Fuente, Jimmy Rocha, Sivino Castenada, David Perez, Jose Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles and Polo Berumen's motion to intervene as of right is granted [3-1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

5 LETTER dated 11/17/03 to Judge Reinhard from defendant's counsel. (fce) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

7 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Ruben Cruz, plaintiff Carlos Cruz, plaintiff Lois DeLa Fuente, plaintiff Jimmy Rocha, plaintiff Silvino

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 8 of 10

11/24/2003 11/26/2003
12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/03/2003 12/05/2003 12/15/2003 01/13/2004 01/14/2004 01/14/2004
01/23/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004

Castaneda, plaintiff David Perez, plaintiff Jose . Villareal, plaintiff John Lucio, plaintiff Nestor Quiles, plaintiff Polo Berumen by Kelly K. Lambert, Jennifer Kay Soule, James G. Bradtke. (fce) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
8 INTERVENOR'S-plaintiffs COMPLAINT (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
13 MINUTE ORDER of 11/26/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's applications for Kerry Scanlon and William Zifchak to appear pro hac vice are granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
9 ANSWER by FPM Ipsen Heat and affirmative defenses to intervenors' complaint [8-1] ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 12/02/2003)
10 ANSWER by FPM Ipsen Heat and affirmative defenses to EEOC complaint [1-1] ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 12/02/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 12/3/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Discovery conference set for 1:30 1/14/04 . No notice (glg) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
15 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC withdrawal of appearance of Noelle C. Brennan . (fce) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 12/15/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Noelle Brennan withdrawal of appearance for plaintiff is granted [15-1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
17 MOTION by Ruben Cruz to admit Peter Earle pro hac vice ; (Attachments) ; Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 01/15/2004)
18 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for Ruben Cruz by Peter Earle; Order entered granting leave by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney [17-1] (jmm (Entered: 01/15/2004)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 1/14/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Intervener-plaintiff's motion to admit Peter Earle pro hac vice is granted [17-1]. Parties to hold FRCP 26(f) conference. Case management order due 3/02/04. Initial pretrial conference set for 3/3/04 at 1:30 pm. No notices required, advised in open court. (jmm (Entered: 01/15/2004)
20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Ruben Cruz, Carlos Cruz, Lois DeLa Fuente, Jimmy Rocha, Silvino Castaneda, David Perez, Jose . Villareal, John Lucio, Nestor Quiles, Polo Berumen by Peter Earle ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/23/2004)
Text not available. (Entered: 03/03/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 3/3/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Initial Pretrial conference held. Case management order approved. FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure due 4/1/04. Amendment of pleadings due 8/15/04. Fact

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 9 of 10

03/03/2004 04/19/2004 06/14/2004 07/01/2004 07/21/2004
08/31/2004 10/06/2004 11/10/2004 11/17/2004
11/17/2004

Discovery ordered closed on 9/15/04. Dispositive motions is due 10/15/04. Plaintiff's 26(a) expert disclosure due 10/15/04. Depositions by 10/31/04. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 11/30/04. Depositions by 12/15/04. Discovery/Settlement conference set for 1:30 4/19/04. Real parties in interest to be present. Parties to submit one page settlement document to chambers by 4/16/04. No notice (glg) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
21 PROPOSED Case Management Order by parties (jmm (Entered: 03/03/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 4/19/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Settlement conference held and continued to 10:00 6/14/04 ; conference to be held telephonically. No notice (glg) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 6/14/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Settlement conference held and continued to 10:00 7/1/04 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/1/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Settlement conference held and continued to 10:00 7/21/04 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/21/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Settlement conference held and continued to 2:30 9/3/04 . All counsel who participated in this telephonic conference must appear. Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 8/31/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of counsel, Settlement conference reset for 2:00 10/6/04 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
22 MINUTE ORDER of 10/6/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Settlement conference held. Parties to submit consent decree by 11/08/04. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 10/07/2004)
23 JOINT MOTION by parties for entry of consent decree ; Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 11/10/2004)
24 MINUTE ORDER of 11/17/04 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard : Parties' joint motion for entry of consent decree is granted [23-1]. Enter consent decree. This case is dismissed. Any pending motions are now moot. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
25 Consent Decree by plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff-intervenors; signed by Judge Reinhard on 11/17/04 (jat) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/25/2007 14:21:30

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 10 of 10

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

hs0328 Docket Report 5

Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost:

eeoc 3:03-cv-50361 0.40

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225838052502706-L_353_0-1

6/25/2007