Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 1 of 7

EQUAL EMPLOYM£t..'T OPPORTIlN1TY COMMISS]ON Philadelphia District Office 21 S. :sID Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia,. PA 19106
MR 8741 Tria! Attome)!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMF,NT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

OAK LANE PRINTING A.'1D

)

LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.

)

)

Derendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO, COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NAT\JRE OF ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Emplo:,{ment Act of 1967 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Thomas R. Everly and David L. Rice who were aggrieved by those unlawful practices. As alleged with greater particulatity in paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the Commission alleges that Defendant tenntnated the employment of Thomas R. Everly from his position as a Lead Pressman because of !:Us age. then 60, and David L. Rice from his position as a Bindery Helper because of his age, then 55, while retaining similarly-situated younger employees. As a result of these discriminatory practices, Mr. Everly and Mr. Rice suffered back pay and front pay damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE L Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331.1337,

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 2 of 7
1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 'C.S.c. § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FSLA"), as amended, 29lJ.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District oD/ew Jersey.
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (the "Commission''), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofthe ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.
4, At all relevant times, Defendant, Oak Lane Printing (the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the State of New Jersey and the City of Moorestown, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ofthe AD~ 29 U.S.c. § 63O(b), (g) and (h).
CONCILIATION 6. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion
2

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 3 of 7
within tbemeaning ofSection 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
7. Since at least October \, 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Moorestown, New Jersey, in violation of § 4(a)(1) oflhe
ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) as follows:
(a) Thomas Everly was born on April 30, 1944. Mr. Everly began working for
Defendant on April 20, 2000 as an Off-Set Web Pressman. (b) Mr. Everly never received any disciplinary actions and his perfonnance was
continuously rated as excellent or outstanding.
(e) On or about January 30, 2004, Mr. Everly was promoted to the position of Lead Pressman. Mr. Everly was commended and called "One of Oak Lane's best employees."
(d) On Octobcr 1,2004, General Manager Wayne Maurizzio infonned Mr. Everly he wa.;; being laid off,
(e) 'W'hen discussing Mr. Everly'S perfonnance, Defendant's Chief Execuuve Officer George Dusak referred to Mr. Everly as "an old school guy, very set in his ways,"
(t) Although Defendant claims Mr. Everly was terminated due ro a reduction in forte
and because he constantly complained, Mr. Dusak described Mr. Everly was a good employee with whom he never had a problem.
(g) Despite Mr. Everly's good performance and qualifications, Defendant retained younger similarly-situated employees,
8. Since at least October I, 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Moorestown, New Jersey. in violation of § 4(a)(l) of the
3
- - -.~~-.-------~-

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 4 of 7
ADEA, 29C.S.C. § 623(a)(\) as follows: (a) David L. Rice was born on May 22, 1949. Mr. Rice began working for Defendant
in 1969. He resigned on 1973, and was thereafter rehired as in November 1977 as a Pressman. (b) During the course of his employment Me Rice did not have any disciplinary or
performance issues. (c) On or about January 2002, Mr, Rice's position was eliminated due to
technological advances. (d) From January 2002 l<l January 2004, Mr. Rice perfonned duties as a driver, folder
operator, shipper, plate maker and clerical support. (e) In January 2004, !vir. Riee was transferred to Defendant's New Jersey facility to
work as a bindery helper under the supervision of Shipping Manager, Harry Thorn, age 38. (0 On October 1> 2004, Thorn infonned Mr. Rice he was being laid for economic
reasons. (g) When discussing the reason for Defendant's decision to lay-off Mr. Rice, General
Manager, Wayne Maurizzio. stated that '''certain people at age 55 cannot do certain jobs:' (h) Although Defendant claims that Mr. Rice was terminated due to a reduction in
force and because he refused to learn new skills, Mr, Rice requested to be trained on the folding machine on several occasions but was denied the training. In addition, :tvir. Rice applied to work as a web pressman, but was denied the opportunity because Defendant alleged the position was too fast-paced for him.
(i) Despite "Mr. Rice's qualifications and experience, Defendant selected him for layoff, while retaining younger employees.
4

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 5 of 7
9, The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above has been to deprive Thomas R Everly and David L Rice of equal employment opportunities and othenvise adversely affect their status as employees because of their age.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 7 and 8 above were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 US,C. § 626(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF V{HEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers> successors~ assigns and an persons in active concert or participation \vith it, from engaging in any employmenl practice which discriminates against individuals 40 years of age and older, including,. but not limited to, unlawful discharge. B. Order the Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals age 40 and older, and which eradicate the effects ofits past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer 10 pay appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to Thomas R. Everly and David L Rice. 0, Order Defendant to make whole Thomas R. Everly and David L Rice, who were adversely affected by the ulllawful practices described above, by providillg the affimllltive relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices. including but not limited to, the reemployment of Thomas R. Everly and David L Rice, or front pay in lieu thereo~ if reemployment is not feasible.
5

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 6 of 7

E, interest.
F.

GTant snch further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public Award the Commission itS costs in this action.

6

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 1 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 7 of 7
JURY TRIAL DEMAc'ID 'The Commission requests ajurytrial on ail questions offact raised by its complaint.
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTtNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street. J-"V Washington DC 20507
1111 A. O'BOYLE Supervisory Tnal Attorney
~~-
Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
CO~V!ISSION
Philadelphia District Office The Bourse Building 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 4()() Philadelphia PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 440-2828
7

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 4557630 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
OAK LANE PRINTING, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 06-1485 (NLH). | Dec. 20, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jacqueline H. McNair, Marisol Ramos, Dawn M. Edge, Terrence R. Cook, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Philadelphia District Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Thomas J. Bradley, McBreen & Kopko, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant, Oak Lane Printing.
Opinion
OPINION
HILLMAN, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint alleging that defendant Oak Lane Printing (“Oak Lane”) violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) ( “ADEA”) when it terminated the employment of David Rice and Thomas Everly. Oak Lane filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the EEOC’s complaint. For the reasons expressed below, Oak Lane’s motion is denied.
I. JURISDICTION
As alleged violations of the ADEA implicate federal question jurisdiction, this matter is properly before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II. BACKGROUND
This case involves the termination of two employees, David Rice and Thomas Everly, by their employer, Oak Lane Printing. Plaintiff, the EEOC, filed a complaint on March 30, 2006 claiming that Oak Lane violated the ADEA when it terminated Messrs. Rice and Everly.
Oak Lane is primarily engaged in the business of printing and has approximately 60 employees. In July 2004, Oak Lane acquired Chapel Hill Printing and moved its operations, with the exception of the web press equipment and web operators, from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Within months, this acquisition put Oak Lane in financial difficulty. Oak Lane maintains that it needed to cut approximately $250,000 from its budget to remain financially viable. Oak Lane argues that its decision to cut certain employees was based upon which employees made the highest wages and was not made to terminate older employees in violation of the AEDA.
A. David Rice David Rice began his employment with Oak Lane in 1967 after completing high school and trade school courses in printing. Mr. Rice worked for Oak Lane in 1967 for three months, left and returned to Oak Lane from 1969 to 1973, left and returned again in 1977. Mr. Rice alleges that he left Oak Lane during these periods because the commute was too far, he wanted to change his work hours, and wanted increased salary. When Mr. Rice returned to Oak Lane the first time in 1969 he primarily worked as a presser on the sheet-fed press. When he returned to work in 1977, he worked as a feeder operator, and after approximately seven months, transferred to a pressman where he remained for approximately thirteen years.
In 1990, Mr. Rice injured his back while on the job and was out of work for approximately 26 months on workers’ compensation. Mr. Rice was cleared by defendant’s workers’ compensation physician to return to work in 1992. Mr. Rice admitted that Oak Lane could not hold his job as pressman open for two years while he was out due to his back injury, but stated that if one were available he would have pursued that position.
Mr. Rice was hired instead as a truck driver for Oak Lane and worked in that position for approximately two years. Mr. Rice requested to be transferred to a position inside the printing plant and was transferred to the bindery department where he worked as a helper assisting the
1

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

folders on the folding machines.1 Thereafter, Mr. Rice moved to the shipping department for an increase in salary and worked there for approximately two years. In or about 2001, Oak Lane transferred Mr. Rice into the plate-making department where he worked for approximately one year. Mr. Rice states that Oak Lane moved him to this department because he had experience in plate making from his work as a pressman. When plate-making became more technologically advanced, the position of plate-maker became obsolete and Oak Lane offered Mr. Rice a position in its front office. Mr. Rice remained doing office work for about eight months until the fall of 2003 when he was transferred back to the bindery department where he remained until he was terminated in October 2004.

1

A folding machine is a machine that cuts paper and

folds it to the desired size after the paper comes off the

printer.

*2 The parties disagree over the title of Mr. Rice’s position in the bindery department at the time of his termination. The EEOC asserts that Mr. Rice’s position was folder operator, while Oak Lane maintains that he was a bindery helper. The EEOC argues that the fact that Mr. Rice reported to the bindery supervisor, Harry Thron, confirms that Mr. Rice was a folder operator since Mr. Thron only dealt with folder operators and did not interact with bindery helpers. Oak Lane argues that Mr. Rice was a bindery helper and his position was assumed by the remaining bindery helpers ages 55, 42 and 30.
Both parties agree that Mr. Rice worked on the folding machine and was trained by folder operator, Maureen Connelly. Ms. Connelly testified at her deposition that Mr. Thron instructed her to train Mr. Rice on the folder machine. She also stated that at times, she and Mr. Rice would work on a folder and would have a bindery helper assist them. Ms. Connelly described Mr. Rice as an “operator-in-training” which included the duties of a folder operator. In July 2004, Ms. Connelly resigned, and Mr. Rice worked on the folder machine until his lay-off in October 2004.
Shortly before Ms. Connelly resigned, in July 2004 Oak Lane purchased Chapel Printing located in New Jersey. As a result of this acquisition, Oak Lane moved its bindery department from Pennsylvania to New Jersey and Mr. Rice was transferred to the New Jersey facility. Also at this time, Oak Lane hired Shawn McLernon, 35 years old, as a web press helper.
Mr. Rice maintains that each time he was transferred to a

new department Oak Lane knew that he had a desire to return to his original position as a pressman. Mr. Rice testified in deposition that he asked several managers at Oak Lane, including Oak Lane’s former pressroom supervisor, Charles Kneale, if he could return to the presses, all of whom stated that it would be no problem for him return to the presses. Mr. Kneale testified that he recalled that Mr. Rice reminded him about his interest in any pressroom openings approximately six times in over three years.

Despite his entreaties, Mr. Rice never returned to working as a pressman. Several reasons are offered by the parties as to why. Mr. Rice stated that George Dusak, Oak Lane’s chief operating officer, told the pressroom supervisor, Charles Kneale, and lead pressman, Thomas Everly, that he (Mr. Dusak) would not let Mr. Rice return to work on the presses. Mr. Dusak testified in deposition that Mr. Rice was not selected as a web press helper or pressman because Charles Kneale and Thomas Everly did not want him working in the pressroom. However, Mr. Kneale testified in deposition that he approached Mr. Dusak and Mr. Maurizzio about Mr. Rice’s requests, and they told him “absolutely no.” Mr. Kneale also testified Lisa Palmer, Oak Lane’s Chief Financial Officer, stated that Mr. Rice was “a comp case waiting to happen.” In addition, Mr. Kneale testified that Mr. Maurizzio had a vendetta against Mr. Rice. Oak Lane denies this characterization and maintains that Mr. Kneale and Mr. Everly told Mr. Maurizzio that they did not want Mr. Rice to work in the pressroom because they thought the job was too physically demanding for Mr. Rice.

*3 In October 2004, Mr. Rice was told that he was being laid-off by bindery supervisor, Harry Thron. At that time, there were five employees retained in the bindery department. Of the bindery helpers, Lye-Sim Chan was 55 years old and making $12/hour, Gary Barton was 42 years old and making $12/hour, and Amy Thompson was 30 years old and making $12.50/hour. The other two employees were folder operators Joseph Snuffin who was 41 years old and Paul DeMille who was 40 years old.2 Oak Lane asserts that the decision to lay-off Mr. Rice was made by Mr. Dusak. Oak Lane maintains that the reason for Mr. Rice’s termination was that the acquisition of Chapel Printing left them financially strapped and they had to lay-off employees in order to remain financially viable. At the time of his lay-off, Mr. Rice was 55 years old and making $12/hour.

2

The parties have not presented in their briefs facts

concerning the salary or wages of Messurs. Snuffin and

DeMille.

2

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Approximately two days following his lay-off, Mr. Rice returned to defendant’s facility to discuss his lay-off with the owner Michael Dubowitch.3 Mr. Dubowitch told Mr. Rice that the decision to lay him off was “purely economics.” Despite defendant’s alleged reasons, Mr. Rice believes that he was laid off because he was an older employee while retaining the younger former Chapel Printing employees.

3

Oak Lane also refers to Michael Dubowitch as the

owner’s son. The parties have not cleared up in their

briefs whether there are two Michael Dubowitches or if

the one is the owner or the owner’s son. In this

Opinion, we adopt the non-moving party’s description

of Mr. Dubowitch as the owner.

B. Thomas Everly Mr. Everly began his employment with Oak Lane in 2002 as a pressman and had approximately thirty-four years of printing and press experience when he started. Charles Kneale was Mr. Everly’s supervisor until Mr. Kneale was terminated in July 2004.4 Mr. Everly maintains that his extensive background with printing presses, including the web press and sheet-fed press, put him in regular contact with the owner of Oak Lane, Michael Dubowitch, and COO George Dusak. Specifically, Mr. Everly states that he would provide Oak Lane with assistance in technical, scheduling and maintenance matters, which were not part of his job description, and was considered the “go-to guy,” especially since Oak Lane did not have an outside maintenance company to repair its presses.

4

Mr. Kneale also pursued ADEA claims against Oak

Lane but the EEOC found “no probable cause.”

The EEOC maintains that Mr. Everly’s work history reflects that he was considered a good employee and was recognized as “one of Oak Lane’s best employees.” When Mr. Everly began his employment with Oak Lane his salary was $24/hour and within a year his benefits were increased with a full medical package and an additional week of vacation. In or about the end of 2003, Mr. Everly was promoted to lead pressman which included a $3.00/hour pay increase.
In or about February 2004, Wayne Maurizzio was hired as Oak Lane’s new General Manager. After Charles Kneale was terminated, Mr. Everly reported directly to Mr. Maurizzio. Testimony from Mr. Everly and Mr.

Maurizzio reflect that the two were not fond of each other. Mr. Everly maintains that despite ill-feelings, he always complied with Mr. Maurizzio’s directives even when he felt that Mr. Maurizzio’s instructions may have produced the wrong outcome. On one occasion, both men got into an exchange where they used raised voices. Mr. Everly maintains that he was never disrespectful or insubordinate to Mr. Maurizzio, and was never reprimanded for insubordination. Mr. Everly also points to the testimony of COO, George Dusak, who described Mr. Everly as a “team player” who always tried to save the company money.
*4 After the acquisition of Chapel Hill when most of the departments were transferred to the New Jersey facility, Mr. Everly remained at the Pennsylvania location because the web presses remained at that location. During that time, Oak Lane hired Sean McLernon, age 35, as a web press helper to assist Mr. Everly on the web press.
In October 2004, Mr. Everly was laid off. Mr. Everly testified that he was informed of the lay off by Mr. Maurizzio while Mr. Maurizzio was smoking a cigarette in the main entrance of defendant’s Pennsylvania facility. Mr. Maurizzio informed Mr. Everly that he was being laid off for financial reasons. Mr. Everly, however, feels that it was not his salary, but Oak Lane’s desire to terminate the older employees since in addition to him, Charles Kneale, David Rice and Tom O’Connell, all of whom were fifty years old or older, were also let go. The EEOC also points to the deposition testimony of Mr. Everly’s former supervisor, Charles Kneale, who stated that Oak Lane had an agenda to get rid of the older workers.
Mr. Everly asserts that he was replaced by Mr. McLernon, who was 35 years old at the time of Mr. Everly’s termination. In addition to being much younger that Mr. Everly, the EEOC states that Mr. McLernon was less experienced and had documented performance issues in his personnel file.
The EEOC also argues that Mr. Dusak and Mr. Maurizzio, both of whom played a role in the decision to terminate Mr. Everly, made facially discriminatory remarks concerning Mr. Everly’s age. Mr. Maurizzio testified that he would “get a name or two in [his] head,” and then meet and decide with Mr. Dusak which employees to lay-off. The EEOC also refers to Mr. Maurizzio’s statement that “certain people at age 55 cannot do certain jobs.” In addition, the EEOC points to Mr. Dusak’s testimony in which he referred to Mr. Everly as an “old dog” and “old school kind of guy.” Oak Lane denies that either man, or anyone else at Oak Lane, made any discriminatory remarks concerning Mr. Everly’s age.
3

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Oak Lane also maintains that only Mr. Dusak, who also hired Mr. Everly and who is roughly the same age as Mr. Everly, solely made the decision to terminate his employment.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
An issue is “genuine” if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party’s evidence “is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Marino v. Industrial Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir.2004)(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).
*5 Initially, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. Thus, to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. A party opposing summary judgment must do more than just rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or vague statements. Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir.2001).

standard in AEDA claims. “First, the plaintiff must produce evidence that is sufficient to convince a reasonable factfinder to find all of the elements of a prima facie case.... When the plaintiff alleges unlawful discharge based on age, the prima facie case requires proof that (i) the plaintiff was a member of the protected class, i.e., was 40 years of age or older (see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a)), (ii) that the plaintiff was discharged, (iii) that the plaintiff was qualified for the job, and (iv) that the plaintiff was replaced by a sufficiently younger person to create an inference of age discrimination.” Id . (quoting Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101, 1108 (3d Cir.1997)). In reduction-in-force (“RIF”) cases, a plaintiff must show that the employer retained a sufficiently younger similarly situated employee. See Monaco v. American General Assur. Co., 359 F.3d 296, 301 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Anderson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 297 F.3d 242, 249-50 (3d Cir.2002)).
“If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then ‘[t]he burden of production (but not the burden of persuasion) shifts to the defendant, who must then offer evidence that is sufficient, if believed, to support a finding that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge.’ “ Id. (quoting Keller, 130 F.3d at 1108 (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993)). “... [I]f the defendant satisfies this burden, then the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to proffer evidence ‘from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer’s articulated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer’s action.’ “ Id. (quoting Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 763 (3d Cir.1994)).
1. David Rice It appears that the EEOC is bringing two age discrimination claims against Oak Lane with regard to Mr. Rice on the grounds that: (1) Oak Lane wrongfully terminated Mr. Rice from his position in the bindery department while retaining a sufficiently younger employee; and (2) Oak Lane discriminated against Mr. Rice by hiring Sean McLernon, age 35, as a web press helper in the department where Mr. Rice previously worked instead of Mr. Rice. We address each claim in turn.

B. Standard for AEDA Claim In Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 190 F.3d 231, 234-35 (3d Cir.1999), the Third Circuit outlined how to properly apply the burden-shifting

(a) Termination from Employment *6 Mr. Rice was 55 years old at the time he was laid off establishing the first and second element of his prima facie case-that he was a member of the protected class and
4

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

that he was discharged. There is disagreement between the parties over the third element-whether he was qualified for the job. The EEOC asserts that Mr. Rice was a folder operator while Oak Lane argues that Mr. Rice was a bindery helper.
Ms. Connelly, a former folder operator at Oak Lane, testified in deposition that she was instructed by the supervisor for the bindery department in early to mid 2004 to train Mr. Rice in “learning the folder.” She testified that she trained Mr. Rice and they would assist each other on the machines. When asked about Mr. Rice’s duties, particularly whether he was a folder operator or bindery helper, Ms. Connelly stated that Mr. Rice was an “operator-in-training.” She also testified that at times she and Mr. Rice would be assisted by a bindery helper. Ms. Connelly was unaware of Mr. Rice’s duties after she left in July 2004.
The parties provide different interpretations of the conclusion to be drawn from Ms. Connelly’s testimony. The EEOC asserts that Ms. Connelly confirms Mr. Rice’s testimony that he was a folder operator at the time he was laid off, while Oak Lane argues that Ms. Connelly supports Mr. Maurizzio’s testimony that Mr. Rice was a bindery helper when he was laid off.
In order to decide whether Mr. Rice has met the elements of his prima facie claim, it must be determined whether he has proffered sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that he was qualified for “the job.” Although there is no agreement as to what “job” Mr. Rice had, we find that Mr. Rice has presented enough evidence that reasonable jurors could conclude based on the testimony of Mr. Rice and Ms. Connelly that he worked as a folder operator at the time of his termination. Ms. Connelly testified that Mr. Rice was an operator-in-training and that he would be assisted by bindery helpers. When she left Oak Lane, Mr. Rice testified that he continued in that job. Reasonable jurors could conclude that Mr. Rice continued as a folder operator and was not demoted to a bindery helper at the time of his termination. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the job that Mr. Rice held and defendant has not proven as a matter of law that it is entitled to summary judgment. Thus, assuming for purposes of this motion only that Mr. Rice was a folder operator, plaintiff has presented sufficient facts to go to a jury that he was qualified for that job given that Oak Lane began training Mr. Rice to be a folder operator. Thus, Mr. Rice meets the third element of his prima facie case. Mr. Rice also meets the last element of his prima facie case since he was replaced by sufficiently younger folder operators Joseph Snuffin who was 41 years old and Paul

DeMille who was 40 years old.
Oak Lane argues that Mr. Rice was laid-off because the company faced severe financial difficulty and needed to lay-off workers immediately. Mr. Rice was paid $17.00 per hour, while the remaining bindery helpers were making only $12.00 to $12.50 an hour. Although Oak Lane only offers the per hour rate of the bindery helpers and not of the remaining two folder operators, Oak Lane has alleged that it faced a $250,000 shortfall and needed to cut employees in order to remain viable. Since the burden of persuasion still rests with the plaintiff, even though the burden of production shifted at this stage to the defendant, Oak Lane’s evidence of severe financial hardship offers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Mr. Rice’s termination.
*7 The burden now shifts back to plaintiff to proffer evidence that would cause a fact finder to disbelieve Oak Lane’s reason, or to believe that a discriminatory reason was more likely than not the motivating cause of his termination. The EEOC alleges that in 2004, defendant terminated Mr. Rice while retaining sufficiently younger employees. They point to Mr. Kneale’s deposition testimony in which he stated that Mr. Maurizzio had a vendetta against Mr. Rice. They also point to testimony of Lisa Palmer who described Mr. Rice as “a comp case waiting to happen” as evidence that reasons other than economics motivated Oak Lane’s decision. Finally, the EEOC cites to Mr. Maurizzio’s deposition testimony that “certain people at age 55 can not do certain jobs.” The EEOC argues that this evidence shows that defendant harbored an age bias against Mr. Rice and that its proffered reason for his termination is pretext.
We find that the above proofs provide sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to disbelieve Oak Lane’s proffered reason for Mr. Rice’s termination, or that it was more likely than not that age discrimination was the motivating cause of his termination.
(b) Refusal to Hire The EEOC also alleges that Oak Lane discriminated against Mr. Rice by hiring Sean McLernon, age 35, as a web press helper instead of Mr. Rice. In a refusal to hire case, the burden-shifting test applies, but plaintiff proves his prima facie case by showing: “1) that he belongs to the protected class, 2) that he applied for and was qualified for the job, 3) that despite his qualifications he was rejected, and 4) that the employer either ultimately filled the position with someone sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination or continued to seek applicants from among those having plaintiff’s
5

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

qualifications.” Barber v. CSX Distribution Services, 68 F.3d 694, 698 (3d Cir.1995) (quoting Fowle v. C & C Cola, 868 F.2d 59, 61 (3d Cir.1989)(other citations omitted)). We find that Mr. Rice has met the first and fourth elements: Mr. Rice is 55 and a member of the protected class, and Mr. McLernon was sufficiently younger than Mr. Rice. The parties dispute the second and third elements.
With regard to the second element, whether Mr. Rice applied for and was qualified for the job, the EEOC maintains that Mr. Rice made it known that since his return to Oak Lane after his injury he had desired to become a pressman again. Mr. Kneane testified that Mr. Rice had told him at least six times in a three year period that he was interested in being a pressman, but that Mr. Dusak and Mr. Maurizzio did not want Mr. Rice working as a pressman. Mr. Dusak testified that if there was an opening he would have supported Mr. Rice’s transfer but that neither Mr. Kneane nor Mr. Everly wanted Mr. Rice to work in that department because, in their opinion, Mr. Rice was not physically able to do the work.
Although the parties finger-point at each other as to who did or did not want Mr. Rice working as a pressman, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Mr. Rice applied for the job as a pressman or a web press helper and was denied. Mr. Rice has provided evidence that anyone who had authority to approve his transfer knew about his interest and that he repeatedly requested such a transfer. Oak Lane has not proffered any evidence that the application process required more.
*8 We also find that plaintiff has proffered sufficient facts to go to a jury on the issue of whether Mr. Rice was qualified as a web press helper. Mr. Dusak testified in deposition that he would have supported Mr. Rice’s candidacy, an implicit endorsement of his ability to meet all the requirements of the job. While Oak Lane has proffered some evidence that Mr. Rice suffered physical problems there is also deposition testimony by Ms. Connelly that he was physically able to work on the folding machine. This factual dispute precludes us from concluding as a matter of law that defendant’s decision not to transfer Mr. Rice was due to a pure physical limitation.
Therefore, Mr. Rice has presented a prima facie case for age discrimination regarding his termination from employment as well as his claim for failure to hire. The burden now shifts to defendant to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the refusal to hire Mr. Rice. See Barber, 68 F.3d at 698.

Oak Lane alleges that Mr. Rice was not hired because Mr. Everly, the lead pressman, and Mr. Keane, the press supervisor, thought that Mr. Rice could not meet the physical demands for the position. Oak Lane relies on the deposition testimony of Mr. Everly who stated that the job required the individual to have dexterity with his hands; ability to walk up steps and squat; and ability to lift up to 50 pounds 10-20 times per hour. Mr. Everly also testified that Mr. Rice had no knowledge of “webs.”5 Oak Lane also relies on the testimony of Lisa Palmer who worked with Mr. Rice in the office who observed that Mr. Rice “couldn’t climb the steps that easily.” Also, Oak Lane states that Mr. Rice was six feet tall and weighed 270 to 275 pounds. In addition to his back injury in early 1990, Mr. Rice had knee surgery in 2003. Oak Lane also refers to medical records of Mr. Rice’s physician that indicate Mr. Rice had shoulder pain (rotator cuff tear), difficulty ambulating and carpal tunnel syndrome. Oak Lane maintains that the facts show that Mr. Rice was not transferred to the web press because of his physical limitations only. As such, Oak Lane has proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to hire Mr. Rice due to his alleged physical limitations.

5

It appears that Mr. Everly is referring to the web press.

The EEOC responds that Oak Lane’s reason is pretext. The EEOC points to Mr. Keane’s deposition testimony in which he stated that when he approached Mr. Dusak and Mr. Maurizzio about Mr. Rice’s interest in the position and they said “absolutely not” but did not state that the reason for the denial was due to Mr. Rice’s physical limitations. Coupled with Mr. Maurizzio’s deposition testimony that “certain people at age 55 can not do certain jobs,” the EEOC argues that this suggests the reason why Mr. Rice was not allowed to transfer was due to age discrimination. In addition, the EEOC states that defendant’s workers’ compensation physician cleared Mr. Rice for work after his back injury in 1992 and Mr. Rice’s deposition testimony that his knee was fine and had no residual problems.
*9 Although Oak Lane has presented evidence that Mr. Rice had physical limitations that could have impaired his ability to be a web helper, it relies in part on a twelve year old back injury with no evidence that the injury currently impaired his abilities. We find that the EEOC alleged sufficient facts for a jury to either disbelieve Oak Lane’s proffered reason for its refusal to hire Mr. Rice as a web helper, or that age discrimination was more likely than not the motivating cause of its refusal.
6

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2. Thomas Everly The parties agree that Mr. Everly was 60 years old at the time he was laid off; that Mr. Everly was qualified for the job of lead pressman; and that his replacement, Shawn McLernon, was 35 years old making him sufficiently younger than Mr. Everly. Pleaded as such, Mr. Everly has sufficiently presented a prima facie case of age discrimination in a RIF case.
Oak Lane’s proffered reason for Mr. Everly’s termination was that the company was experiencing financial difficulty and needed to cut approximately $250,000 from its budget to remain financially viable. Mr. Everly was chosen because he made $28 per hour whereas Mr. McLernon made $12 per hour.6

6

There is also evidence concerning animosity between

Mr. Everly and Mr. Maurizzio. The EEOC argues that

there is no evidence suggesting that Mr. Everly was

terminated for insubordination. Oak Lane also takes the

position that even if the relationship between Mr.

Everly and Mr. Maurizzio was contentious, it was the

financial concerns that precipitated Mr. Everly’s

termination. Therefore, since neither party relies on

insubordination as the reason for the termination, this

Opinion does not address it.

The EEOC counters that Oak Lane’s stated reason is pretextual. The EEOC argues that Mr. Dusak and Mr. Maurizzio were responsible for deciding that Mr. Everly should be terminated. Both men, they argue, made facially discriminatory remarks concerning Mr. Everly’s age. The EEOC points to Mr. Dusak’s testimony in which he referred to Mr. Everly as an “old dog” and “old school kind of guy.”7 The EEOC also refers to Mr. Maurizzio’s statement that “certain people at age 55 cannot do certain jobs.” Such statements, argues the EEOC, suggest that a discriminatory animus was a motivating factor in terminating Mr. Everly’s employment.

7

Defendants argue that Mr. Dusak’s statements were not

discriminatory remarks but were made to explain a

“kinship” between Mr. Dusak (who describes himself

as a “old dog”) and Mr. Everly. How such statements

are to be interpreted are the province of the jury and not

decided as a matter of law.

Oak Lane denies that Mr. Maurizzio had any involvement in the decision to lay-off Mr. Everly. Oak Lane maintains that Mr. Dusak solely made the decision, and that Mr. Dusak was the same age as Mr. Everly at the time of

termination which creates an inference that discrimination was not a motivating factor in his termination.
Whether Mr. Maurizzio played a part in the decision to terminate Mr. Everly is a dispute of material fact. Mr. Maurizzio was the general manager of Oak Lane and had direct supervision over Mr. Everly. Mr. Maurizzio personally told Everly that he was terminated. Finally, Mr. Maurizzio testified that he would “get a name or two in [his] head,” and then meet and decide with Mr. Dusak which employees to lay-off. These facts suggest that Mr. Maurizzio had an active role in the decision to terminate Mr. Everly.
Even if Mr. Dusak acted in concert with Mr. Maurizzio, Oak Lane asserts that an inference of age discrimination should not be drawn because Mr. Everly was over 40 years old when he was hired which counters an inference of discrimination.
According to the record, Mr. Everly was approximately 58 years old when he was hired in 2002, which places him in the protected class at the time of hire. Employers who knowingly hire someone over 40 “... seldom will be credible targets for charges of pretextual firing.” Maidenbaum v. Bally’s Park Place, Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1254, 1267 n. 24 (D.N.J.1994) (quoting Proud v. Stone, 945 F.2d 796, 798 (4th Cir.1991); see also E.E.O.C. v. MCI Intern., Inc. 829 F.Supp. 1438, 1461 (D.N.J.1993) (finding “incredible” that same company who recently hired employee at 49 years of age would less than three years later suddenly develop an aversion to older people, relying on Lowe v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 963 F.2d 173, 174-75 (8th Cir.1992)). The fact that Mr. Everly was hired at age 58 by Mr. Dusak and laid-off approximately two to three years later suggests that age was not a motivating factor in the decision. Mr. Dusak testified that he ultimately made the decision to terminate Mr. Everly. However, Mr. Maurizzio’s testimony suggests that he may have played an influencing role in that decision and plaintiff alleges that Mr. Maurizzio was motivated by a discriminatory animus towards Mr. Everly based upon his age.
*10 At the summary judgment stage, we must take all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. It cannot be said as a matter of law that no jury could find that Mr. Maurizzio did not play a part in the decision to lay-off Mr. Everly and that Mr. Maurizzio, who did not hire Mr. Everly and who is significantly younger than Mr. Everly, did not discriminate against Mr. Everly on the basis of his age.
7

E.E.O.C. v. Oak Lane Printing, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.8

8

The EEOC also filed a motion to strike Oak Lane’s

reply in support of its motion for summary judgment as

untimely. It is within this Court’s discretion to dismiss

any brief that has not been timely filed. L.Civ.R.

7.1(d)(7); see U.S. v. Eleven Vehicles, Their Equipment

and Accessories, 200 F.3d 203, 214 (3d

Cir.2000)(concluding that local court rules play a

significant role in the district courts’ efforts to manage

themselves and their dockets). Since the reply is in support of a motion for summary judgment, and since we find no prejudice to the plaintiff upon the filing of the reply two days late, we decline to exercise our discretion in striking defendant’s reply. See Player v. Motiva Enterprises, No. 02-3216, 2006 WL 166452, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2006) (considering untimely filing because court should not grant a motion for summary judgment without examining the merits). The EEOC’s motion to strike Oak Lane’s reply is denied.
	  

	  

8

 
 Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 23 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

v.

:

:

OAK LANE PRINTING

:

:

Defendant.

:

Civil Action No. 06-1485 (NLH)
ORDER

Appearances: JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR, MARISOL RAMOS, DAWN M. EDGE, and TERRENCE R. COOK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BUILDING, SUITE 400 21 SOUTH FIFTH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

THOMAS J. BRADLEY MCBREEN & KOPKO EIGHT PENN CENTER, SUITE 1400 1628 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendant Oak Lane Printing

HILLMAN, District Judge

For the reasons expressed in this Court’s Opinion entered on

this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2007,

that defendant Oak Lane Printing’s motion for summary judgment

[13] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff EEOC’s

motion to strike Oak Lane’s reply [19] is DENIED.

At Camden, New Jersey

s/Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

 
 Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 498

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office
21 S. s" Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19106 Marisol Ramos Trial Attorney Attorney for PIaintiff EEOC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )


COMMISSION,

)


)


Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

OAK LANE PRINTING

)

)

Defendant.

)


---------------~)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1485


CONSENT DECREE

Introduction

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC" andlor "the Commission") on March 30, 2006 against Defendant OAK

LANE PRINTING ("OAK LANE" and/or "Defendant") to enforce provisions of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S .C. § 626(b) ("ADEA"). In its

Complaint, the Commission alleged that Defendant terminated the employment of Mr. Thomas

R. Everly from his position as a Lead Pressman because of his age, then 60 and David L. Rice

from his position as a Bindery Helper because of his age, then 55, while retaining similarly-

situated younger employees.

B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the

EEOC and OAK LANE, its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 499
C. EEOC and OAK LANE agree to the entry of this Consent. Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims the EEOC raised in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06­ 1485.
Findings D. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds: (1) it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and just, and adequately protect the rights of the parties, and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJ1JDGED AND DECREED THAT :
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation 1. Defendant agrees to comply fully with all of the provisions of the ADEA, including its anti-retaliation provisions. This means that Defendant will not take action against any individual because s/he exercised any of his or her rights under ADEA, including filing a charge, providing testimony or assistance, participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under ADEA, or opposing any practice that he or she reasonably believed to be unlawful under ADEA.
Monetary Relief 2. In full settlement of the claim raised on his behalf against Defendant in the EEOC's Complaint, OAK LANE agrees to pay the sum total of $52,700.00 to Thomas R. Everly and the sum total of $24,800.00 to David Rice. Mr. Everly and Mr. Rice will be required to promptly execute the attached Release (Attachment A and Attachment B) which will be forwarded to OAK LANE in order to receive the monetary payment.

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 500
3. Within fourteen (14) days after OAK LANE has received the executed Releases from Mr. Everly and Mr. Rice or within 14 days of the filing of this Consent Decree, Defendant will make the monetary payments to Mr. Everly and Mr. Rice. OAK LANE will submit proof of each payment by mailing a copy of the check issued in this matter to: Marisol Ramos, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107­ 3127 , Late payment of any check will be subject to the accrual of interest on the unpaid amount, calculated pursuant to 28 V.S.c. § 1961.
Posting of Notice 4. Within 20 business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post at its OAK LANE work site(s) on all bulletin boards used by Defendant for communicating with employees, same­ sized copies of the Notice attached as (Attachment C) to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for two years from the date of entry of this Decree . Defendant shall forward a certification that the Notice has been posted and dates of posting within 30 days after entry of this Decree to Mariso1 Ramos, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127 . If posted copies become defaced, removed, marred or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified .
Training 5. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of ADEA as follows :
(a) Defendant agrees to provide annual training sessions by EEOC or a vendor approved by the EEOC for any employee or employees at its OAK LANE work site responsible for responding to ADEA complaints made at OAK LANE. The training will cover employee rights and employer obligations under both ADEA and relevant state or local anti-discrimination

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 501
laws. Defendant will emphasi ze what constitutes unlawful discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation, and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of discrimination;
(b) Defendant shall first provide training in accordance with Paragraph 5 by no later than 90 calendar days after entry of this Consent Decree and also shall provide such training in calendar years 2008 and 2009 . 6. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to each year's training sessions. 7. Defendant agrees at its expense to provide the EEOC with copies of all pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to attendees of training sessions . Even though the EEOC has approved of or designated a trainer to provide training for one year, it is not required to approve of or designate the same trainer for future training sessions. 8. Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing within 10 business days after the training sessions required by Paragraph 5 have occurred that the training has taken place and the personnel who attended . Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration of the training session; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, including the name and position of each person in attendance; and (iii) a listing of the employee or employees at OAK LANE's work site(s), responsible for responding to ADEA complaints made at OAK LANE as of the date of the training . 9. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports annually for a period of two years following entry of this Decree, with the first report due six months after entry of the Decree and the final report due 24 months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 502
contain: (a) a certification by Defendant that the Notice required to be posted by Paragraph 5 was posted during the six months preceding the report; (b) a certification by Defendant that it has or will distribute the policy or policies against
discrimination, harassment and retaliation annually to employees, and that Defendant has disseminated them to all new employees, including temporary employees, hired within the six­ month period preceding the report;
(c) a certifi cation that Defendant has complied with training requirements of this Consent Decree;
(d) a summary of any additional actions Defendant took to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation at OAK LANE's work site(s) during the six-month period preceding the report.
Dispute Resolution 10. In the event either party to this Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree , the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within 20 days of the alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non­ complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
Miscellaneous Provisions 11. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 12. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 503

representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns of Defendant in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Defendant and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation ofthis Decree. 13. This Consent Decree shall fully and finall y resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-cv-1485. 14. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue in effect for two (2) years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party. Should any material disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this five-year period, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all disputes have been resolved. 15. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.

For Plaintiff EEOC:
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Associate General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Wash.,D.C.

For Defendant OAK LANE:

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 504

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
 COMMISSION


Ja q one H. McNai


~~~ -- egio al Attomey
Terr ence R. Cook


J
 41

Su '\ v, 0cry Trial ~rney


~A &-

Marisol Ramos Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 So 5th Street, Suite 400

Phi ladelphia, PA 19106

(215) 440-2828

SL~I1~ Thomas~B'radl e~ sq 0
Attorney for Defendant, OAK LANE

By the Court:

_

THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date :- - - - -

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 505

EXHIBIT A


EQU AL EMPLOYMENT OPPORT UNIT Y COMMISSIO N Philadelphia Dist r ict Office 21 S. 5 'h Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 M ar isol Ramos (MR 8741) T r ia l Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff EEO C

IN T HE UNITED STATES DIST RI CT CO URT
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


EQ UAL EMPLOYMENT OP PORT UNITY )


COMMISSIONj

\

)

)


Pl a in tiff,

)


)

)

)

OAK LANE PRINTING

)

)

De f e n d a n t .

)

----------------~--')

RELEASE

CIVIL ACT ION NO. 06-C V-1485

Pursuant to the term s of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and OAK LANE , in the above-captioned case , I, Thomas R. Everly, do hereby wai ve, remit, release and forever discharge OAK LANE, its parent and subsidiary companies, and affiliates , and any and all of the officers, directors, agent s, attorneys, employees , and members of such entities from any and all claims , demands or cau ses of acti on under ADEA, including attorneys fees and costs, aris ing from or relating to any right or entitlement now existing until the date of execution of thi s Release for claims arising from or allegations made in EEOC v. OAK LANE,Ci vil Action 06-1485 , based on claims of discrimination based on age occurring prior to this date. This Release is freely executed in return for the good and valuable consideration set forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree .

, 2008

Sworn to and Subscribed Before me this ) -'6~day

.sc: Of~ n~ c; ?1=

,2008 .

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commi ssion Expires : V\f'-.lL0\ d- l , ? 0 l L

C OM M O N ;N E A L TH OF PENNSYLVANI A
- NOTARIAL SEAL CAROLES. KUHN,Notary Public Souderton Boro.,Montgomery County My Commission Ex~res May 27, 2012_ ,

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 506

EXHIBIT B


EQ UAL EMPLOYM KNT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 S. S'h Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia , PA 19106 Marisol Ramos (MR 8741) T ri al Att or ney Attorney for Plaintiff EEO C

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMEN T OP PORT UNITY )

COMMISSION,

, )

J

Pla in tiffj

)

)

v.

}

)

OAK LANE PRINTING

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1485

RELEASE

Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC") and OAK LANE, in the above-captioned case, I, David L. Rice ,

do hereby wai ve, remit, release and forever discharge OAK LANE, its parent and subsidiary

companies, and affiliat es, and any and all of the officers, directors, agents , attorneys, employees,

and memb ers of such entities from any and all claims, demands or cause s of action under ADEA,

inclu ding attorne ys fees and costs, arising from or relating to any right or entitlement now

exist ing until the date of execution of this Release for claims arising from or allegations made in

EEO C v. OAK LANE,Civil Action 06- 1485, based on claims of discrimination based on age

occurring prior to this date. This Release is freely executed in return for the good and valuable

consideratiot set forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree_ , . '"

~ Date :

')"

, 2008

SIGNATURE: Y tVt( /(ld

Na me :

D A () ( I( i c t

NOWtW. seAL CARY Ii SCHANTZER
Notary Public
 BENSAlEM TWP, IWCKS CNTY

My Com ml3slo n ExpIres May i O. 2012


NO TARIA L SEAL


CARY R SCHANTZER


Notary Pub lic


BENSALEM TWR BUCK S CNTY

r- -.

;" "- "~ e ~ < n v 10 2 01 2

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 507

ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE TO ALL OAK LANE PRINTING EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal district court in EEOC v. OAK LANE PRINTING, civil action number 06-CY-1485, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Oak Lane Printing.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, commonly referred to as the ADEA, protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older. The ADEA prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon age . The ADEA further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under thc ADEA by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce the ADEA.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Oak Lane unlawfully discriminated against two employees in violation of the ADEA when it terminated their employment. OAK LANE has denied all allegations.
In order to save further litigation costs and to amicably resolve this issue, OAK LANE agreed to enter a consent decree with the EEOC, although it continues to deny all liability. The Consent Decree is a compromise of the claims asserted in this civil action and is not to be construed or deemed to be evidence of any wrongdoing, fault, or liability. The Consent Decree provided, among other things, that: (1) Oak Lane Printing provide relief to the affected individual, and (2) Oak Lane Printing agrees to comply fully with all of the provisions of ADEA, including its anti-retaliation provisions; (3) OAK LANE will provide training on the ADEA's provisions, and will post a notice in the workplace. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
TIDS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and 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 the Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

OAK LANE PRINTING

DATED :

DATED: - - - - - - - - - -- -

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 508

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 S. SIb Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Marisol Ramos (MR 8741) Trial Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1485


v.

)

)

OAK LANE PRINTING

)

)

Defendant.

)

)


STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to

provisions of the Consent Decree, the Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") and Defendant, OAK LANE, hereby agree to dismiss Civil Action 06-1485 with

prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.

Jurisdiction over this matter will be retained by the Court until the monetary and

equitable relief provisions of the Consent Decree are fully satisfied .

For Plaintiff EEOC:

For Defendant OAK LANE:

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel

James L. Lee Associate General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Wash ., D.C.

Case 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Document 33 Filed 06/26/08 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 509
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

'sol Ramos rial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM1"lISSION Philadelphia District Office 801 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2619 Fax (215) 440-2828

~ ~ Thomas J. Brad'Y)Esq:
Attorney for Defendant OAK LANE

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: Date

The Honorable United States District Court Judge

 
 District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Camden) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC. Assigned to: Judge Noel L. Hillman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 03/30/2006 Date Terminated: 05/09/2008 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BUILDING 21 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 (215) 440-2688 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARISOL RAMOS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BUILDING 21 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 (215) 440-2687 Email: marisol.ramos@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAWN M. EDGE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 400

V.
Defendant
OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2515 (215) 440-2687 Email: dawn.edge@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TERRENCE R. COOK US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 (215) 440-2688 Email: terrence.cook@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by THOMAS J. BRADLEY MCBREEN & KOPKO 1600 MARKET STREET SUITE1805 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 864-2600 Fax: 215-864-2610 Email: tjbradley@mcbreenkopko.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/30/2006
03/31/2006 05/08/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC. JURY DEMAND, filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(Filing Fee Waived for EEOC)(gg, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Summons Issued as to OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC..Days Due - 20. (gg, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
2 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC..(BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/11/2006 06/28/2006 06/28/2006
07/05/2006
11/06/2006 11/14/2006 12/13/2006 12/15/2006
01/31/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007
04/10/2007 04/24/2007

3 ORDER Initial Conference set for 6/28/2006 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen. Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 05/11/06. (db, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel B. Rosen : Scheduling Conference held on 6/28/2006. (bb, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
4 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 11/30/2006 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen. Discovery due by 12/29/2006.Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 6/28/06. (sb) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
5 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Noel L. Hillman for all further proceedings. Judge Freda L. Wolfson no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 7/5/06. (sk, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
Judge Joel Schneider added. Judge Joel B. Rosen no longer assigned to case. (sb, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
6 RE-SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 12/13/2006 at 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 11/14/06. (js) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Settlement Conference held on 12/13/2006. (bb, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
7 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/5/2007 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Status Conference set for 2/15/2007 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Discovery due by 2/28/2007. Disp. Motions due by 2/28/2007. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 12/15/06. (js) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
8 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference reset for 2/21/2007 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 1/31/07. (js) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 2/21/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
9 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/5/2007 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Discovery due by 3/30/2007. Disp. Motions due by 4/30/2007. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 2/21/07. (js) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by DAWN M. EDGE on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by TERRENCE R. COOK on behalf of EQUAL

04/26/2007 05/14/2007
05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/24/2007 05/24/2007 06/12/2007
06/28/2007

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (COOK, TERRENCE) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
12 ORDER extending time to file disp. motions to 5/14/07. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 4/26/07. (js) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC..Responses due by 6/15/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint# 2 Exhibit Dep of Rice# 3 Exhibit Dep of Maurizzio# 4 Exhibit Dep. of G. Dusak# 5 Exhibit 11/30/05 document# 6 Exhibit dep of M. Connelly# 7 Exhibit dep of T. Everly# 8 Exhibit dep of C. Kneale# 9 Exhibit Dep. of L. Palmer# 10 Exhibit Record of Dr. Miller# 11 # 12)(BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
14 NOTICE by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC. Notice of Motion (BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
Setting Deadlines as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 6/15/2007 before Judge Noel L. Hillman. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (js) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
15 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC - Extension to Respond to Defendant's SJ Motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
16 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Brief Brief in Opposition to SJ Motion# 4 Response in Opposition to Undisputed Facts# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 21 List of Exhibits)(EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
18 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit d# 5 Exhibit e# 6 Exhibit f)(BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

07/03/2007 07/03/2007
07/03/2007
09/28/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 01/03/2008 01/29/2008 02/29/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/11/2008
03/17/2008

19 MOTION to Strike 18 Reply to Response to Motion by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
20 RESPONSE to Motion re 19 MOTION to Strike 18 Reply to Response to Motion filed by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
Setting Deadlines as to 19 MOTION to Strike 18 Reply to Response to Motion. Motion Hearing set for 8/3/2007 before Judge Noel L. Hillman. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (js) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
21 LETTER ORDER addressed to Ms. Ramos. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 9/28/07. (js) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
22 OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/20/07. (js) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
23 ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 19 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/20/07. (js) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
24 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/29/2008 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 1/3/08. (js) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
25 LETTER ORDER extending time to serve deft. with JFPTO to 2/1/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 1/29/08. (js) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider: Final Pretrial Conference held on 2/29/2008. (bb, ) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
26 Final Pretrial Letter Sent to counsel. (js) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
27 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 3/10/08. (th, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing: PreTrial/Settlement Conference set for 5/2/2008 02:00 PM in Camden - Courtroom 3A before Judge Noel L. Hillman. Jury Trial set for 5/12/2008 09:30 AM in Camden - Courtroom 3A before Judge Noel L. Hillman. (sa, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
NOTICE CHANGE OF TRIAL DATE to Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 9:30AM and CHANGE OF DATE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE to Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 2:00PM in Courtroom 3A (sa, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)

04/14/2008 04/21/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008
04/30/2008
05/01/2008 05/09/2008 05/09/2008 06/26/2008 07/01/2008

NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference/Settlement re-set for 5/12/2008 02:00 PM in Camden - Courtroom 3A before Judge Noel L. Hillman. (sa, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference/Pretrial conference re-set for 5/13/2008 10:00 AM in Camden - Courtroom 3A before Judge Noel L. Hillman. (sa, ) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
28 MOTION in Limine by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RAMOS, MARISOL) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
Setting Deadlines as to 28 MOTION in Limine. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2008 before Judge Noel L. Hillman. PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (js) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
29 MOTION in Limine Answer of Defendant to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records and Subsequent Employment Records by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.. (BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION in Limine filed by OAK LANE PRINTING AND LETTER SERVICE CO., INC.. (BRADLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
31 Letter from EEOC Advising of Settlement in Principle. (COOK, TERRENCE) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
32 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/9/08. (js) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
33 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RAMOS, MARISOL) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
34 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/1/08. (js) (Entered: 07/08/2008)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

06/08/2017 15:52:22

PACER Login:

hs0328:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:06-cv-01485-NLH-JS Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 6/8/2017

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

0.40