. C. '--n wr...o. -IIII~' ~.,

.. \.-

,

'" ~'

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
IBEW Local No. 998
Defendant

)3 :Ug&o~7. 3 '7 4

)

~

JUDGE JAME'S G. CARR

)

)

)

COMPLAINT AND

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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 seq), ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful practices on the basis of sex, female and retaliation, and to make whole Goretli Newman and any similarly situated union members who were adversely affected by

Defendant's unlawful practices. From August of 2000 until October of 2001, Defendant subjected its union member,
Goretti Newman to a pattern of severe and pervasive harassment based on her sex, female and in retaliation for her engagement in activity protected by Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( "Commission"), is the 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 Section 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, ISEW Local 998 Defendant (the "Union") has continuously been an association of participating employees in the State of Ohio and the City of Vermillion, Ohio and/or has continuously had at least 15 members. At all relevant
-2-

times, the Union has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Lithonia Downlighting.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Union has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (d) and (e).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days prior to institution of this lawsuit, Goretti Newman filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Union. All conditions precedent to the institution of this suit have been fulfilled.
7. From at least August of 2000 until August of 2001, Defendant Union engaged in unlawful employment practices in Vermillion, Ohio, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2, and Section 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3.
a) Defendant Union created and maintained a workplace permeated with severe and pervasive harassment based on sex, female. b) Defendant Union failed to take action on Goretti Newman's behalf when she complained of sexual harassment by a fellow employee/fellow union member. c) Defendant Union allowed Goretti Newman to be subjected to different terms and conditions of employment based on her sex, female. d) Defendant Union subjected Goretti Newman to a pattern of severe and pervasive harassment based on sex, female and in retaliation for her having
-3-

complained about sexual harassment during her employment at Lithonia Downlighting. e) Defendant Union failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned harassment. f) Defendant Union failed to take prompt and effective remedial action reasonably calculated to eradicate the aforementioned harassment.
8. The effect of the practice(s) complained of above, deprived Goretti Newman of equal employment opportunities and adversely affected her status as an employee and union member due to impermissible considerations of sex and retaliatory animus.
9. The unlawful practices complained of above were intentional. 10. The unlawful practices complained of above were undertaken with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Goretti Newman.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating against individuals by the implementation of practices and policies which discriminate on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant Union to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment and labor organization opportunities for
-4-

persons regardless of sex and regardless of engagement in protected activities and which

eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order Defendant Union to make whole Goretti Newman, by providing

appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and

other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment

practices.

D. Order Defendant Union to make whole Goretti Newman by providing affirmative

relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but

not limited to, backpay and front pay in amounts to be proven at trial.

E. Order Defendant Union to make whole Goretti Newman, by providing

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be proven at trial.

F. Order Defendant Union to make whole Goretti Newman by providing

compensation for non-pecuniary losses in amounts to be proven at trial.

G. Grant an order assessing punitive damages against Defendant Union for its

malicious and reckless conduct described herein above in amounts to be determined at

trial.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest.

I.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. -5-

Respectfully submitted, NICHOLAS INZEO DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL (ACTING) ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.
,
L.x~\j\~,- Wili,Cl'r\\;) Lll&i4j\LL~
Donna Williams-Alexander Trial Attorney Registration No. 0037838 Donna.Alexander@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland District Office 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454 (216) 522-7454 (216) 522-7430 fax Donna .Alexander@eeoc.gov
-6-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT, OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff
GORETTI NEWMAN
Intervenor/Plaintiff
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 998
Defendant

CASE NO. 3:02CV7374
JUDGE JAMES G. CARR
COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR/ PLAINTIFF (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON)

* * * * PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action was instituted by the Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to address violations of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et. seq., ("Title VII") and Title 1 of the Civil Right Act of 1991, to correct unlawful practices by the Defendant against Intervenor/Plaintiff Goretti Newman

42886.doc

("Intervenor"). The conduct complained of is a pattern of severe and pervasive workplace harassment based upon sex and retaliation for engagement in activity protected by Title VII.
JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. 2. Jurisdiction is also founded on 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 3. Jurisdiction is also founded on 42 U.S.C. §1981(a). 4. Jurisdiction is specifically invoked, as noted above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 with respect to Intervenor's pendant state law claims described below. 5. Intervenor has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the filing of the instant action. 6. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 7. All parties are within the jurisdiction of this Court.
PARTIES 8. Intervenor is at all times relevant herein a female citizen of the United States and a resident of Erie County, Ohio and an employee of Lithonia Down Lighting in Vermilion, Ohio. 9. EEOC is the 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 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f)(1) and (3). 10. At all times relevant, the Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 998 ("IBEW Local 998") has continuously been an association of participating employees in the State of Ohio and the City of Vermilion, Ohio and/or has continuously had at all times relevant at least fifteen members, and a labor organization within the meaning of Title VII and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. At all relevant times, IBEW Local

42886.doc

2

998 has been recognized as a collective bargaining representative for the employees of Lithonia Down Lighting.
11. At all times relevant, IBEW Local 998 has been engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C §2000e.
FACTS 12. At all times relevant, Intervenor has been a member in good standing of IBEW Local 998 since May 18, 1998. 13. Repeatedly during the period of her employment at Lithonia Down Lighting, Intervenor was the subject of harassment by a male union member despite her protests, objections and demands that such conduct cease and desist. 14. Intervenor repeatedly complained to her employer's management and IBEW Local 998 officials about the harassing conduct alleged, but Defendant failed and refused to remedy the conduct. Rather, Defendant aided and abetted and participated in said conduct. 15. As a result of the wrongful, tortious and unlawful acts of Defendant, Intervenor has incurred physical pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, extreme mental distress and emotional anguish, loss of reputation and has otherwise been damaged. 16. The effect of the unlawful practices herein above alleged has been to deprive Intervenor of her right to Equal Employment Opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status in the workplace. 17. The unlawful conduct of Defendant herein above alleged were intentional. 18. The unlawful conduct of Defendant herein alleged were taken with malice and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Intervenor.

42886.doc

3

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein each of the allegations

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 18, as if fully set forth herein at length.

20. The actions of the Defendant were due solely to the female gender of Intervenor.

21. The actions of the Defendant constitute deliberate, intentional violations of Title

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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

22. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 21, as if fully set forth herein at length.

23. The actions of the Defendant constitute a tort of sexual harassment under the laws

of the State of Ohio.

24. Intervenor is entitled to bring this pendent state claim by virtue of the holding of

the Supreme Court of Ohio in Kerns v. Porter Paint Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 486.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

25. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 24, as if fully set forth herein at length.

26. The actions of the Defendant constitute gender discrimination and unlawful

retaliation with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment in violation of §4112.02 of

the Ohio Revised Code.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

27. The Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, as if fully set forth herein at length.

28. The conduct of the Defendant was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all

bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.

42886.doc

4

29. At all times relevant herein the actions of Defendant were intentional and/or reckless and the Defendant knew or should have known to a substantial certainty that its conduct would cause Intervenor to suffer severe emotional distress.
30. Intervenor, as a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of the Defendant, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional mental anguish.
31. This court has pendent jurisdiction to her and adjudicate the state claims of Intervenor.
MONETARY RELIEF 32. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31, as if fully rewritten at length herein. 33. Intervenor is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against Defendant for its wrongful illegal and tortious conduct and the consequences thereof. 34. Intervenor is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant for the intentional, willful, malicious and bad faith violations of her legal rights. 35. Intervenor is entitled to be made whole for the violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq., by Defendant by including pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on all sums awarded.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor prays this Court for a judgment on all Counts as follows:
1. That an Order issue making Intervenor whole and that the Defendant be ordered to pay Intervenor compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at trial;
2. That the Defendant be ordered to pay Intervenor punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial;

42886.doc

5

3. That the Intervenor recover from Defendant all costs of this action and reasonable
attorney's fees;
4. That the Intervenor recover from Defendant pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on all sums recovered;
5. That Defendant be ordered to cease and desist;
6. That the Intervenor be awarded such other and further relief as may be just and
proper by this Court.
JURY DEMAND
Intervenor demands a trial by jury on all issues raised in each of her claims as
provided by law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Linda C. Ashar Linda C. Ashar (No. 0002774) E-mail lashar@wickenslaw.com Thomas J. Huemmer (No. 0063577) E-mail thuemmer@wickenslaw.com WICKENS, HERZER, PANZA, COOK & BATISTA A Legal Professional Association 35765 Chester Road Avon, OH 44011-1262 (440) 930-8000 (Main) (216) 447-4418 (Cleveland) (440) 937-4466 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR/PLAINTIFF GORETTI NEWMAN

42886.doc

6

PROOF OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon) has been sent via the Court's electronic filing system on this 24th day of March, 2003, to:

C. Larry Watson, Esq. Donna L. Williams Alexander, Esq. John D. Sargent, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1660 West Second Street 850 Skylight Tower Cleveland, OH 44113-1454

Andrea L. Whitaker, Esq. Goldstein & Whitaker 1040 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1401

9545-370

/s/ Linda C. Ashar Linda C. Ashar Thomas J. Huemmer

42886.doc

7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT, OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff
GORETTI NEWMAN
Intervenor/Plaintiff
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 998
Defendant
AND
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS Attn: Mr. Ed Hill, President 1125 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
New Party Defendant

CASE NO. 3:02CV7374
JUDGE JAMES G. CARR
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR/ PLAINTIFF (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON)

* * * *

84921.doc

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action was instituted by the Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to address violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et. seq., ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Right Act of 1991, to correct unlawful practices by the Defendant against Intervenor/Plaintiff Goretti Newman ("Intervenor"). The conduct complained of is a pattern of severe and pervasive workplace harassment based upon sex and retaliation for engagement in activity protected by Title VII and the laws of the State of Ohio.
JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. 2. Jurisdiction is also founded on 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 3. Jurisdiction is also founded on 42 U.S.C. §1981(a). 4. Jurisdiction is specifically invoked, as noted above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 with respect to Intervenor's pendent state law claims described below. 5. Intervenor has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the filing of the instant action. 6. The unlawful practices alleged herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 7. The unlawful practices alleged herein violate Ohio law, which claims are brought by pendent jurisdiction. 8. All parties are within the jurisdiction of this Court.
PARTIES 9. Intervenor is at all times relevant herein a female citizen of the United States and a resident of Erie County, Ohio and an employee of Lithonia Down Lighting in Vermilion, Ohio.
84921.doc

10. EEOC is the 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 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
11. At all times relevant, the New Party Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") and Defendant IBEW Local Union No. 998 ("IBEW Local 998") (collectively herein "Defendants") have continuously been an association of participating employees located in the State of Ohio and the City of Vermilion, Ohio and/or have continuously had at all times relevant at least fifteen members, and a labor organization within the meaning of Title VII and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. At all relevant times, Defendants have been recognized as a collective bargaining representative for the employees of Lithonia Down Lighting ("Lithonia").
12. Defendants are labor organizations subject to the provisions of Title VII and Ohio law. Labor organizations, as well as employers, have an affirmative duty to prevent discrimination and harassment.
13. IBEW is an alter ego of IBEW Local 998. 14. IBEW enjoys a close relationship with its locals. IBEW states within its Constitution (as provided to Intervenor) that it has "jurisdiction over all electrical workers in the United States and Canada." At all times relevant the IBEW advised, acted in concert, enabled, and abetted IBEW Local 998 in its contract negotiations and approval of collective bargaining with Lithonia. At all times relevant IBEW has benefited from its close relationship with IBEW Local 998. IBEW provides, advises, and participates in the IBEW Constitution as it is applied to members of IBEW locals. IBEW was involved and at all times relevant has advised IBEW Local 998 with respect to legal claims, including the defense of this lawsuit. IBEW is liable jointly and severally for the acts of IBEW Local 998.
84921.doc

15. At all times relevant, IBEW and IBEW Local 998 have been engaged in an

industry affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C §2000e.

FACTS

16. At all times relevant, Intervenor has been a member in good standing of IBEW

Local 998 since May 18, 1998.

17. Repeatedly during the period of her employment at Lithonia Down Lighting,

Intervenor was the subject of harassment by a male union member despite her protests, objections

and demands that such conduct cease and desist.

18. Intervenor repeatedly complained to her employer's management and Defendants

about the harassing conduct alleged, but Defendants failed and refused to remedy the conduct.

Rather, Defendants aided and abetted and participated in said conduct.

19. As a result of the wrongful, tortious and unlawful acts of Defendants, Intervenor

has incurred physical pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, extreme mental distress and

emotional anguish, loss of reputation and has otherwise been damaged.

20. The effect of the unlawful practices herein above alleged has been to deprive

Intervenor of her right to Equal Employment Opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her

status in the workplace.

21. The unlawful conduct of Defendants herein above alleged were intentional.

22. The unlawful conduct of Defendants herein alleged were taken with malice and

reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Intervenor.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

23. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein each of the allegations

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 22, as if fully set forth herein at length.

24.
84921.doc

The actions of the Defendants were due solely to the female gender of Intervenor.

25. The actions of the Defendants constitute deliberate, intentional violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 26. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25, as if fully set forth herein at length. 27. The actions of the Defendants constitute a tort of sexual harassment under the laws of the State of Ohio. 28. Intervenor is entitled to bring this pendent state claim by virtue of the holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Kerns v. Porter Paint Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 486.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 29. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28, as if fully set forth herein at length. 30. The actions of the Defendants constitute gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment in violation of §4112.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 31. The Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 30, as if fully set forth herein at length. 32. The conduct of the Defendants was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society. 33. At all times relevant herein the actions of Defendants were intentional and/or reckless and the Defendants knew or should have known to a substantial certainty that its conduct would cause Intervenor to suffer severe emotional distress.
84921.doc

34. Intervenor, as a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of the Defendants, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional mental anguish.
35. This Court has pendent jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the state claims of Intervenor.
MONETARY RELIEF 36. Intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 35, as if fully rewritten at length herein. 37. Intervenor is entitled to an award of compensatory damages exceeding $25,000.00 against Defendants for their wrongful, illegal and tortious conduct and the consequences thereof. 38. Intervenor is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants for the intentional, willful, malicious and bad faith violations of her legal rights. 39. Intervenor is entitled to be made whole by Defendants for the violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq., and Ohio law by including prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor prays this Court for a judgment on all Counts as follows: 1. That an Order issue making Intervenor whole and that the Defendants be ordered to pay Intervenor compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at trial; 2. That the Defendants be ordered to pay Intervenor punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial; 3. That the Intervenor recover from Defendants all costs of this action and reasonable attorney's fees;
84921.doc

4. That the Intervenor recover from Defendants pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all sums recovered;
5. That Defendants be ordered to cease and desist all unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment; and
6. That the Intervenor be awarded such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper by this Court or otherwise provided by law and equity.
JURY DEMAND Intervenor demands a trial by jury on all issues raised in each of her claims as provided by law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Linda C. Ashar Linda C. Ashar (No. 0002774) E-mail lashar@wickenslaw.com Thomas J. Stefanik, Jr. (No. 0066605) WICKENS, HERZER, PANZA, COOK & BATISTA A Legal Professional Association 35765 Chester Road Avon, OH 44011-1262 (440) 930-8000 (Main) (216) 447-4418 (Cleveland) (440) 937-4466 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR/PLAINTIFF GORETTI NEWMAN
84921.doc

PROOF OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Amended Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon) has been sent via the Court's electronic filing system on this 30th day of June 2004 to Plaintiff EEOC as follows:
C. Larry Watson, Esq. Donna L. Williams Alexander, Esq. John D. Sargent, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1660 West Second Street 850 Skylight Tower Cleveland, OH 44113-1454
Further, Defendant IBEW Local 998 and New Party Defendant IBEW have been served with the Amended Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon) on this 30th day of June 2004 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and concurrently by ordinary U.S. Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Mr. Ed Hill, President International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1125 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
and
Mr. Panatleon A. Ancog IBEW Local Union 998 P.O. Box 324 Vermilion, OH 44089
/s/ Linda C. Ashar Linda C. Ashar Thomas J. Stefanik, Jr.
9545-371
84921.doc

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff,
Goretti Newman, Intervenor/Plaintiff,
v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 998 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ,
Defendants,

Case No. 3:02CV7374 ORDER

This is a workplace harassment suit initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Goretti Newman against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 998 (Local 998). Newman is an employee of Lithonia Down Lighting (Lithonia) in Vermilion, Ohio and has been a member in good standing of Local 998 since May, 1998. Lithonia’s employees, in addition to Newman, are represented in collective bargaining by Local 998.
At an unspecified time during her employment, Newman complained to Lithonia management and Local 998 that she was sexually harassed by a male co-worker. Following that complaint, Newman filed a charge with the EEOC on February 12, 2001. Newman alleged that, in retaliation for

1

complaining to Local 998 and Lithonia, Local 998 assisted others in harassing her, processed an internal union charge against her, and refused to represent her.1
Seventeen months later, on July 25, 2002, the EEOC filed a complaint with this court on behalf of Newman. In its complaint, the EEOC alleges that Local 998 violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by harassing, discriminating, and retaliating against Newman.
Newman subsequently intervened; she has since filed an amended complaint, joining the codefendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). She claims that the IBEW is the alter ego of Local 998, and thus liable for the actions of the local.
Newman also asserts three state common law and statutory violations: 1) common law tort of sexual harassment; 2) gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation claim in violation of O.R.C § 4112.02; and 3) common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional stress.
Pending is IBEW’s motion to dismiss Newman’s state law claims as time-barred. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss Newman’s state law claims shall be granted in part and denied in part.
Jurisdiction This court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to § 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 1367. See Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers 6, 493 U.S. 67, 83-84 (1989); see also Kunz v. Food & Commercial Workers Local 876, 5 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1993).
Standard of Review
1 The alleged conduct of Local 998, which is the subject of the EEOC’s and Newman’s complaints, took place as early as August 1, 2000 and no later than October 25, 2000.
2

A motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), questions the sufficiency of the pleadings. No complaint shall be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the defendant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957); see also Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., 295 F.3d 522, 525-26 (6th Cir. 2002). When deciding a motion to dismiss, the inquiry is essentially limited to the content of the complaint. See Yanacos v. Lake County, 953 F. Supp. 187, 191 (N.D. Ohio 1996). However, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record, and attached exhibits also may be taken into account. Id. A court may also consider documents referred to in the complaint without thereby converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507, 524 (6th Cir. 1999).
The court's task is to determine not whether the complaining party will prevail on its claims, but whether it is entitled to offer evidence in support of those claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The court must accept all the allegations stated in the complaint as true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the defendant. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); see also Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236. The court, however, is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). While Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) does not expressly include a defense based on the statute of limitations, the Sixth Circuit has concluded that the defense of the statute may be raised on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when it is apparent on the face of the complaint that the time limit for bringing the claim has passed. Hoover v. Langston Equipment Assocs. Inc., 958 F.2d 742, 744 (6th Cir. 1992).
Discussion
3

In Ford Motor Co., v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337 (1953), the Supreme Court concluded that § 9(a) of the NLRA grants unions exclusive authority to represent collective bargaining units. This statutory authority also implicitly requires unions to serve the members of those collective bargaining units fairly and without hostility, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct. Id.
This duty of fair representation preempts and displaces analogous state law when an employee alleges that a union has discriminated against her while acting as her representative. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967). IBEW argues that Newman’s three state claims evolved out of defendants’ alleged discriminatory and hostile conduct, and thus relate to the duty of fair representation and are preempted. Accordingly, IBEW insists that Newman’s state claims are time-barred by the NLRA’s six month limitations period. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(b).
Newman contends, however, that her state law claims are within § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), rather than being related to the duty of fair representation under § 9(a) of the NLRA.
Newman asserts that preemption under § 301(a) of the LMRA is absolute only when the resolution of the state law claim substantially depends on interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 423 (1988). Under this standard, Newman argues that her state law claims are not preempted because the gravamen of those claims lies outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. Newman fails, however, to provide support for her contention that § 301 of the LMRA governs rather than the duty of fair representation.
Section 301(a) of the LMRA provides relief where an employee has sued an employer for violations of contract between that employer and the labor organization representing the employee. Lingle, 486 U.S. at 403. Section 301 preemption, however, is not limited to suits for breach of
4

contract; suits alleging tortuous conduct may also be preempted if those suits involve interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Allis Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 218 (1985). Newman, however, has not made her employer party to this complaint and argues that defendants’ actions arose outside of the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, Newman is not alleging claims which can be construed under § 301(a)of the LMRA. In Re Glass & Pottery Workers Local 173, 983 F.2d 729 (6th Cir. 1993). Consequently, Newman’s fails to rebut defendant’s argument that her state law claims relate to the duty of fair representation.
The duty of fair representation encompasses an area of labor law which has been occupied so fully by Congress that it forecloses state regulation. Maynard v. Revere Copper Prods., Inc., 773 F.2d 733, 735 (6th Cir. 1985). Therefore, whether stated in terms of federal or state law, claims for breach of the duty of fair representation are governed by federal law. Id. at 735.
As a result, tort claims based on theories nominally derived from state law are preempted when in fact they are premised on the duty of fair representation. In Re Glass, 983 F.2d at 728-29. Because Newman has failed to articulate theories clearly independent of rights covered by the duty of fair representation, Newman’s argument that her harassment and discrimination claims are governed by Ohio law is unpersuasive. Id. at 729.
Duty of fair representation claims include, inter alia, allegations of unfair, dishonest, or arbitrary treatment of workers by unions. DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 170 (1983). A union, therefore, breaches its duty to fairly represent a union member when its conduct toward that member is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33, 44 (1998). Newman’s original complaint to the EEOC, and her amended complaint to this court, are premised on statements alleging that defendants either “failed to represent [her]” or that “[d]efendants failed and
5

refused to remedy the conduct.” (Doc. 42, Attachment 1 at 15; Doc. 33 at 4). Because Newman alleges that the defendants allegedly failed to represent her fairly and without discrimination or hostility, her state law claims essentially allege violations of the federal duty of fair representation. Therefore, they are preempted.
Newman argues that, even if her discrimination and harassment claims are preempted by federal law, her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress falls within a narrow exception to preemption recognized by the Supreme Court in Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290 (1977). In Farmer, the Supreme Court concluded that such emotional distress claims are not preempted, stating that “[n]o provision of the National Labor Relations Act protects the ‘outrageous conduct’ complained of . . . [therefore] there is no federal protection for conduct on the part of union officers which is so outrageous that ‘no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.’” Id. at 302. (internal citations omitted).
The Court in Farmer cautioned that this exception to preemption should only be applied to allegations of state torts that are: 1) unrelated to the employment discrimination; or that are 2) a function not of the discrimination itself, but of the particularly abusive manner in which the discrimination is accomplished. Id. at 305 (emphasis added).
It cannot be said that the emotional distress Newman complained of was unrelated to the alleged employment discrimination. However, the emotional distress she allegedly encountered did not result from the mere fact of discrimination or harassment. The methods of harassment and discrimination were allegedly “extreme and outrageous and exceed[ing] all bounds of decency tolerated by civilized society.” (Doc. 33 at 5). Hence, a trier of fact might find that the resulting emotional distress resulted from the abusive manner of the harassment and discrimination. Therefore, Newman’s
6

emotional distress claim falls within the Farmer exception to federal preemption and is, consequently, not preempted by the duty of fair representation.
Statute of Limitations In Adkins v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 769 F.2d 330, 335 (6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit stated that the six-month limitations period of § 10(b) of the NLRA applies to all unfair representation claims, regardless of the nature or presence of a concomitant LMRA § 301 claim. The limitations period begins to run when the claimant discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged violation. Robinson v. Central Brass Mfg. Co., 987 F.2d 1235, 1238 (6th Cir. 1993). Because Newman claims that the alleged harassment and discrimination violations occurred no later than October 25, 2000, neither the harassment nor the discrimination claims were filed within the applicable six-month limitations period. Therefore, Newman’s harassment and discrimination claims are time-barred and are appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 480 (6th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to O.R.C. § 2305.09, the Ohio Supreme Court in Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St..3d 369 (1983), concluded that the statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in Ohio is four years. Because Newman’s emotional distress claim is not preempted by the duty of fair representation, Ohio law governs the limitations period for this claim. Therefore, Newman’s emotional distress has been filed in a timely manner and is properly before this court.
Conclusion In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
7

ORDERED THAT 1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenor’s second cause of action hereby is, granted; 2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenor’s third cause of action hereby is, granted; 3) Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenor’s fourth cause of action hereby is, denied. So ordered.
/s/ James G. Carr United States District Judge
8

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n,
Plaintiff,
Goretti Newman,
Intervenor Plaintiff,
v. Int’l Bro. of Elec. Workers,
Local 998, et al.,
Defendant

Case No. 3:02CV7374 ORDER

This is an employment discrimination case brought initially by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Local 998 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Local 998). Thereafter, Goretti Newman, the union member whose complaint to the EEOC about discrimination by Local 998 led to this suit, was granted leave to intervene as a plaintiff. She filed an amended complaint, joining the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International), with which Local 998 is affiliated.
At present, the real parties in interest are Ms. Newman and the International. Pending is the International’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion shall be granted.
Background Newman worked at Lithonia Downlighting of Vermilion, Ohio (Lithonia) and was a member of Local 998. She claims that beginning in February, 2000, a co-worker, Clifford Monske, subjected her to

harassment on the basis of her gender, and that the harassment continued for a little over a year until Monske was fired.
Newman complained frequentlyto officersofLocal 998; they were unresponsive to her complaints and requests for assistance. Newman next complained to her employer. As a result of those complaints, Monske filed a charge with Local 998 that Newman’s conduct was detrimental to the union.
Following an internal union hearing, Local 998 dismissed that charge. Nonetheless, according to Newman, officers and members of Local 998 continued to harass and discriminate against her. The union taking no action in response to her complaints, Newman filed her EEOC charge against Local 998 on February 12, 2001.
The EEOC, findingmerit to Newman’s complaints of discriminationon the basis of hergender, filed this suit against Local 998. Lithonia has since gone out of business, and Local 998, which represented only Lithonia’s employees, is essentially defunct. Its counsel has been granted leave to withdraw.
Newman claims the International is vicariously liable for the discrimination incurred at the hands of Local 998 and its members. The International contends that its relationship with Local 998 is not such that it can be held liable for the actions of Local 998.
In support of her contention that the International is the alter ego of Local 998, Newman points to several attributes of the relationship between the International and Local 998:
1. As a member of Local 998 and employee of Lithonia, Newman was automatically a member of the International; 2. Ten dollars of Newman’s monthly dues to Local 998 of $19.95 went to the International; 3. Local 998 and its members are subject to the International’s Constitution and its provisions relating to local unions, including their charters, officers, and duties;
2

4. By-laws adopted by local unions, including Local 998, followed a pattern provided by the International, and became valid only when approved by the International; and
5. Collective bargaining agreements between local unions and employers likewise were not effective until approved by the International.
In addition to these general attributes of the structural relationship between the International and
its local unions, Newman claims that several aspects of the dealings between the International and Local
998 as evidencing an alter-ego relationship. These include:
1. Attendance by representatives of the International at negotiating sessions between Local 998 and Lithonia;
2. Advice given by an International official, Mr. Curley, to Local 998 with regard to collective bargaining;
3 An interest-free unsecured loan of $15,000, granted by the International to Local 998 in response to a request for a cash infusion of $35,000 to cover debts incurred in collective bargaining;
4. Participation by an official from the International, Mr. Cook, in two arbitrations, and his presentation of cases for the grievant and authorship of briefs;
5. Negotiation of a settlement by Mr. Curley between Local 998 and an aggrieved union member; and
6. Curley’s attendance at a case management conference in this case even before the International had been joined as a party.1
1
The International’s opening brief contends that the incidents of the International/Local 998 relationship which I can consider are limited to those recited by Newman in her answers to interrogatories (Local 998 gave her a copy of the International Constitution and paid a portion of her dues to the International; representatives of the International attended negotiating sessions with Lithonia and the case management conference in this case and participated in arbitration hearings; and the International loaned $15,000 to Local 998). Because the same result is reached by considering all the incidents of that relationship to which Newman points in her opposition brief, I consider all those incidents, rather than the more limited aspects in her interrogatory answers.
3

Newman contends that these activities, viewed in light of the overall structure of the relationship between the International and its local unions under the International’s Constitution show that the International is not a legally distinct entity apart from Local 998 and thus is liable for any acts of unlawful discrimination toward the plaintiff inflicted by Local 998.
The International, on the other hand, points out that Local 998: conducts its own day-to-day affairs. It admits its own members, elects its own officers, conducts its own meetings, negotiates its own collective bargaining agreements, processes its own grievances, collects its own dues, controls its own funds, and owns its own property. Decisions on collective bargaining, on contract enforcement and internal union discipline are made by Local 998 and not by the [International]. (Doc. 55 at 13). Newman does not dispute the accuracy of this summary of Local 998's daily activities and operations.
Discussion As a general rule, an international union and its affiliated locals are deemed to be separate legal entities. This rule has been applied to the InternationalBrotherhood ofElectricalWorkers in cases involving efforts, similar to that being made by Newman in this case, to impose liability on the International for unlawful discrimination by local unions. Childs v. IBEW Local 18, 719 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1983) (International not liable on an agency theory where an affiliated local operated autonomously); EEOC v. IBEW, 476 F. Supp. 341, 346-47 (D. Mass. 1979) (holding that the local “operated independently of the International in disciplining [the intervener]”.). The International argues, and persuasively so, that the structure of its relationship with its local unions, including Local 998, does not make it the alter-ego of the locals. To be sure local unions must, to
4

become and remain affiliated with the International, meet certain requirements of the International’s Constitution and submit their by-laws and collective bargaining agreements for approval to the International. Newman has not, however, shown that these requirements and practices were either intended to or did result in direct involvement in the locals’ affairs and activities generally, or in those of Local 998 in particular.
Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Newman to do so in light of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Shimman v. Frank, 625 F.2d 80 (6th Cir. 1980). In that case, as in this case, the plaintiff claimed that the local was “an agent of the International because of the International’s retention of substantial regulatory and supervisory powers.” Id. at 97 (footnote omitted).
This contention, the Sixth Circuit stated in Shinman, ignored “the local’s substantial autonomy in handling its own affairs.” Id. at 98. Local 998 retained a similar degree of autonomy in what it did day in and day out on behalf its members, so that it, like the local in Shinman, is “simply not an arm of the International for all purposes.” Id.
A contrary finding must, as the Supreme Court made clear in Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 395 (1922), be based on common-law principles of agency. Accord, Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers, 444 U.S. 212, 216 (1979) (International union liable for the acts of a local only “when the union may be found responsible according to the common-law rule of agency.”).
Neither the general attributes, based in the International’s Constitution, of the International’s relationship with Local 998 nor its specific activities on behalf of Local 998 show that there was an agency relationship between the two entities. Requiring conformity to some general requirements, as prescribed
5

by the International’s Constitution, did not subject either the general or daily operations of Local 998 to the International’s control.
Likewise, the fact that the International or its representatives attended some negotiating sessions, gave advice about collective bargaining, assisted at arbitrations, resolved internal disputes within the Local 998, and provided modest financial assistance did not dissolve the legal distinction between the Local 998 and the International. There is nothing to indicate that the International’s assistance made it dominant, or enabled it to dictate how the Local 998 went about its work for Lithonia’s employees. That the International provided service did not make it Local 998’s servant, or vice-versa.
Moreover, as the Sixth Circuit stated in Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers, 177 F.3d 394, 409 (6th Cir. 1999), the common law agency theories of vicarious liability mean that “a plaintiff must adduce specific evidence that the international ‘instigated, supported, ratified, or encouraged’ [discriminatory] actions, or ‘that what was done was done by their agents in accordance with their fundamental law of association.’” Id. (citing Carbon Fuel, 444 U.S. at 217-18).
Ratification requires affirmance of conduct undertaken on one’s behalf by a subordinate. Small v. IBEW, 626 F. Supp. 96, 99 (S.D. Ohio 1985); Restatement (Second) Agency § 82. To show that the International ratified Local 998's activities, Newman must show that Local 998, without authorization, purported to act on behalf of the International, which thereafter, in turn, treated Local 998’s actions as though they had been authorized from the outset.
Newman argues the International was aware of her problems with Local 998, but turned a blind eye and deaf ear to her situation and complaints. Assuming the International was aware of her complaints – which is not clear from or substantiated by the record – such response did not constitute ratification as
6

a matter of law. Newman offers, in any event, no proof that Local 998’s treatment of her was undertaken in the name of the International.
Conclusion I conclude, accordingly, that the International was not the alter-ego of Local 998, and no agency relationship existed between Local 998 and the International. The International cannot, therefore, be held liable vicariously for the actions of Local 998. It is entitled to summary judgment. It is, therefore ORDERED THAT the motionof the InternationalBrotherhood ofElectricalWorkers forsummary judgment be, and the same hereby is granted. So ordered.
s/James G. Carr James G. Carr Chief Judge
7

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

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD

)

OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,

)

LOCAL UNION NO. 998

)

)

DEFENDANT.

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:02 CV7374 JUDGE JAMES G. CARR CONSENT DECREE

This action was commenced on July 25, 2002, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) filed a complaint alleging that Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 998 (“Local 998"), had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (“Title VII”), and Title I of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“CRA of 1991") by engaging in discrimination on the basis of harassment based on sex, female and retaliation for engagement in activity protected by Title VII .
The Defendant denies the material allegations raised by the Complaint. The Defendant has acknowledged receipt of Summons and a copy of the Commission’s Complaint filed in this matter, has entered an appearance, and for purposes of this Consent Order only, admits the jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action. The Commission and Defendant have conferred and resolved their differences and have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the instant controversy without the burden, expense and delay of further litigation. This Order resolves all claims of the Commission alleged in this Action against Local 998, including claims for injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs arising out of this lawsuit. NOW THEREFORE, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law raised by the Commission’s Complaint herein, it is the finding of this Court that: 1) This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1343 and 1345; 2) The provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will be carried out by the implementation of this Consent Order; 3) This Consent Order is intended to and does resolve all matters in controversy between the parties.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
2

1. The term of this Order shall be two (2) years from the date of entry by the Court. 2. Nothing contained in this Consent Order shall be construed to be an admission by Defendant that it has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 3. Defendant shall pay the total amount of $5,500.00 to Charging Party Goretti Newwman. Defendant shall issue the check to Goretti Newman directly and shall provide the Commission with a copy of the check written to Ms. Newman. 4. Within ten (10) days after the entry of this Order, Defendant shall post in its Vermillion, Ohio facilities, in conspicuous locations, the Notice attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”. Said Notice shall remain posted for one year from the entry of this Order. 5. Within six months’ of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall conduct mandatory training for all of its members in the laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Said training shall include a substantive discussion on harassment based on sex and retaliation for engagement in activities protected by Title VII.. Local 998 shall provide the Commission with the identities and credentials of the person(s) conducting the training in the laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Local 998 shall also provide the Commission with the sign in list of all members attending the aforementioned training. 6. Defendant shall report in writing to the Commission within six weeks after each of the obligations set forth herein has been accomplished. Reports should be directed to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC Cleveland District Office. 7. Nothing in this Consent Order shall preclude the Commission from bringing suit
3

to enforce the terms of this Consent Order. 8. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of insuring compliance with this Consent Order and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Consent Order. 9. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs.

9th

January,

IT IS SO ORDERED this _________day of _____________2006

s/ James G. Carr __________________________________________ CHIEF JUDGE JAMES G. CARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4

 
 Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

Cat03, Expedite, Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Toledo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv-07374-JGC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. IBEW Local No. 998 Assigned to: Hon. James G. Carr Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 07/25/2002 Date Terminated: 01/11/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C. Larry Watson U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Cleveland 3001 AJC Federal Bldg. 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7455 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: larry.watson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna L. Williams-Alexander U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Cleveland 3001 AJC Federal Bldg. 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7454 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: Donna.WilliamsAlexander@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John D. Sargent INVALID - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 850 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113-1454 216-522-7438 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: John.Sargent@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

Plaintiff/Intervenor Ms. Goretti Newman V. Defendant IBEW Local No. 998
Defendant

represented by Linda C. Ashar Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook & Batista 35765 Chester Road Avon, OH 44011-1262 440-930-8052 Fax: 440-937-4466 Email: lashar@wickenslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bryan P. O'Connor Goldstein & O'Connor 1040 Leader Bldg. 526 Superior Avenue, E Cleveland, OH 44114 216-771-6633 Fax: 216-771-7559 Email: boconnor@unionlaw.cc TERMINATED: 01/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea L. Whitaker Friedman & Gilbert 1700 Standard Bldg. 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 330-241-1430 Fax: 330-621-0427 Email: whitakerandrea@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 01/13/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joyce Goldstein Law Office of Joyce Goldstein 1040 Leader Bldg. 526 Superior Avenue, NE Cleveland, OH 44114 216-771-6633 Fax: 216-771-7559 Email: jgoldstein@unionlaw.cc TERMINATED: 01/13/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

represented by Marilyn L. Widman Allotta, Farley & Widman - Perrysburg Ste. W 27457 Holiday Lane Perrysburg, OH 43551 419-874-7188 Email: marilynlw@afwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Kurnick Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig
Ste. 1000 900 7th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202-785-9300 Fax: 202-775-1950 Email: kurnick@shermandunn.com
Joseph J. Allotta Allotta, Farley & Widman - Toledo 2222 Centennial Road Toledo, OH 43617 419-535-0075 Fax: 419-535-1935 Email: jallotta@afwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/25/2002
07/25/2002 12/16/2002
12/20/2002 01/13/2003

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint (filing fee waived) (0 summons and Magistrate Consent Forms issued) against Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(G, D) Modified on 7/20/2004 (L, V). (Entered: 07/26/2002)

2 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System (G, D) (Entered: 07/26/2002)

3 Order signed by Judge Carr. This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for a file review. It appearing to the Court that no return of service has yet been filed, it is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff shall perfect service within two weeks of this order or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (S, A L) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

4 Notice of Service of waiver of service for summons. Summons sent 11/13/02 and received by certified mail on 11/15/02 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (G, D) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

5 Answer filed by all defendants. (Related document(s)1) (Whitaker, Andrea) (Entered: 01/13/2003)

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

01/13/2003 01/29/2003 02/26/2003 03/17/2003
03/18/2003 03/24/2003 03/26/2003 04/07/2003
05/14/2003
05/14/2003 06/02/2003 06/19/2003 07/16/2003

6 Motion to change/transfer venue to Eastern Division filed by all defendants. (Whitaker, Andrea) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
7 Response (Related Motion(s) 6) to Motion to Transfer to Eastern Division filed by all plaintiffs. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
8 Order signed by Judge Carr. Defendant's motion to transfer this case to the Eastern Division is overruled; Erie County is in the Western Division. (Related Doc # 6) (S, A L) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
9 Case Management Conference Scheduling Notice: Case management conference to be held on 4/1/2003 at 12:00 PM. Recommended track: expedited. Out of town counsel may participate by phone; parties need not attend. (S, A L) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2003 (S, A L). (Entered: 03/17/2003)
10 Attorney Appearance by Goldstein & O'Connor filed by on behalf of IBEW Local No. 998. (Goldstein, Joyce) Modified on 3/18/2003 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/18/2003)
11 Motion to intervene as a party filed by Goretti Newman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
12 Joint Report of Parties' Planning Meeting filed by all parties. (WilliamsAlexander, Donna) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
13 Case Management Conference Order signed by Judge Carr. Conference held 3/31/03. Track: expedited. Ordered that discovery due by 8/30/03, summary judgment motion due by 9/15/03; opposition due 10/6/03; reply due 10/15/03. Jury Trial set for 1/20/04 at 1:30 p.m. Parties consent to voir dire by US Magistrate Judge on 1/20/04 at 9:00 a.m. An initial settlement conference is scheduled for 6/16/03 at 3:30 p.m. A final settlement conference to be held on 12/15/03 at 3:00 p.m. All further pleadings to be filed electronically. (S, A L) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
14 Order signed by Judge Carr granting Goretti Newman's motion to intervene as a party. Schedule previously set in case management order of 4/7/03 (doc. #13) is confirmed. (Related Doc # 11) (S, A L) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
15 Intervenor's complaint with jury demand. Filed by Goretti Newman. (S, A L) Modified on 5/16/2003 (R, Ci). (Entered: 05/14/2003)
16 Answer to Intervenor's Complaint (Related Doc # 15) filed by IBEW Local No. 998. (Whitaker, Andrea) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
17 Order signed by Judge Carr. Conference held 6/16/03. Ordered that the prior schedule is confirmed. (S, A L) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
18 Proposed Stipulation to respond to IBEW's first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents until 7/21/03 filed by IBEW Local No. 998 and Goretti Newman. (N, D)System down 7/14/037/18/03 (Entered: 07/23/2003)

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

07/23/2003
07/29/2003 08/06/2003 08/11/2003 09/02/2003
09/05/2003 09/23/2003
12/29/2003 12/30/2003 12/30/2003 01/13/2004
04/01/2004

19 Notice/Proof of Service that defendant IBEW 998's First Set of Interrogatories for plaintiff-intervenor and defendant IBEW 998's First Request for Production of Documents for plaintiff-intervenor was served upon counsel on 7/21/03. filed by Linda C. Ashar on behalf of Goretti Newman. (B, T) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
20 Stipulation & Order: Ordered that Newman's motion to extend time to respond to IBEW's first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents until 7/21/03 is granted. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 7/29/2003. (S, A L) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
21 Joint Motion to extend all scheduled dates 60 days filed by all parties. (Related document(s)13) (Whitaker, Andrea) Modified on 8/7/2003 (R, Ci). (Entered: 08/06/2003)
22 Notice of Hearing: A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 25, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. (S, A L) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
23 Order: Conference held 8/25/03. (Related Doc # 21) Discovery due by 10/15/2003, Summary Judgment Motion due by 11/14/2003; opposition/cross motion due 12/15/03; reply/opposition due 1/15/04; reply due 1/26/04. Jury Trial set for 4/6/2004 at 9:00 a.m. Parties consent to voir dire by US Magistrate Judge on 4/5/04 at 1:30 p.m. A settlement conference to be held on 3/22/2004 at 2:30 p.m. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 9/2/2003.(S, A L) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
24 Motion to withdraw as attorney (Goldstein & O'Connor) filed by IBEW Local No. 998. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Pat Ancog)(Goldstein, Joyce) Modified on 9/11/2003 (G, D). (Entered: 09/05/2003)
25 Order: Conference held 9/11/03. Ordered that motion for leave to allow Goldstein & O'Connor to withdraw as counsel for defendant is denied without prejudice. Further proceedings are stayed pending further court order. Status reports are due quarterly, commencing 12/30/03. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 9/23/2003. (S, A L) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
26 Status Report filed by IBEW Local No. 998. (Goldstein, Joyce) Modified on 12/31/2003 (N, D). (Entered: 12/29/2003)
27 Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
28 Quarterly Status Report of Intervenor-Plaintiff filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
29 Order: Conference held 1/9/04. Ordered that the law firm of Goldstein & O'Connor is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant. Union to obtain new counsel by 3/15/04. Plaintiff to file status report by 4/1/04. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 1/13/2004. (S, A L) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
30 Status Report of Intervenor-Plaintiff filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 04/01/2004)

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

04/01/2004 04/14/2004 06/30/2004
06/30/2004 07/08/2004 07/09/2004 07/12/2004 07/15/2004
07/15/2004 07/16/2004
07/20/2004
07/21/2004

31 Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
32 Order: leave granted to plaintiffs to join additional parties by 6/30/04. Status report due 6/30/04. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 4/14/2004. (S, A L) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
33 First Amended complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff with jury demand against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW Local No. 998. Filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 7/1/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 06/30/2004)
34 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 7/1/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 06/30/2004)
35 Notice of Hearing: A telephone pretrial conference is set for 7/13/2004 at 10:30 AM, in Courtroom 209, before Judge James G. Carr (S, A L). Modified on 7/13/2004 to edit text (M, C). (Entered: 07/08/2004)
36 Attorney Appearance by Joseph J. Allotta and Marilyn L. Widman filed by on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Allotta, Joseph) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
37 Second Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
38 Motion for appearance pro hac vice of attorney Robert D. Kurnick for limited purpose of representing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, filed by Robert D. Kurnick. Modified on 7/16/2004 (PHV Fee Paid $190.00, #318358) (B, T). Modified on 7/19/2004 (L, V). (Entered: 07/16/2004)
39 Affidavit/Declaration of Robert D. Kurnick in support of motion pro hac vice filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Related document(s)38. (B, T) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $190.00 received for motion to appear pro hac vice by attorney Robert D. Kurnick on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Receipt # 318358 Related document(s)38. (M, L) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
40 Order granting International Brotherhood of Electrical Worker's motion for appearance pro hac vice of Attorney Robert D. Kurnick (Related Doc # 38). Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 7/20/2004.(S, A L) Modified on 7/21/2004 to edit text (B, T). (Entered: 07/20/2004)
41 Order: Rule 26 disclosures due 8/16/04. Leave is granted to International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to answer or otherwise plead by 8/16/04. Discovery to be completed by 11/1/04. Dispositive motions (re. veil piercing) to be filed by 11/30/04; opposition due 12/30/04; reply due 1/14/05. Attorney Richard D. Kurnick's motion to appear pro hac vice for defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is granted. Further scheduling is held in abeyance pending ruling on summary judgment motions. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 7/21/2004. (S, A

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

08/06/2004 08/10/2004 08/16/2004 08/23/2004 08/27/2004
10/06/2004 10/07/2004 10/07/2004 10/21/2004 10/22/2004 10/29/2004 11/02/2004 11/04/2004
11/30/2004

L) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
42 Motion to dismiss filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss) (Kurnick, Robert) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
43 Answer to Amended Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff (Related Doc # 33) filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Kurnick, Robert) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
44 Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 8/20/2004 (M, L). (Entered: 08/16/2004)
45 Opposition to Motion to dismiss filed by Goretti Newman. Related document(s)42. (Attachments: # 1 Case Law)(Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
46 Reply Memorandum in support of Motion to dismiss filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Related document(s)42. (Kurnick, Robert) Modified on 8/31/2004 to edit text (B, T). (Entered: 08/27/2004)
47 Status Report Of Plaintiff Intervenor filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
48 Quarterly Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
49 Status Report filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Kurnick, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
50 Notice of Hearing: A pretrial conference is scheduled for 10/26/04 at 2:30 p.m. (S, A L) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
51 Notice of Service of responses to first set of interrogatories filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 10/25/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 10/22/2004)
52 Order: leave is granted to intervenor to conduct discovery re. recently produced documents . Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 10/29/2004. (S, A L) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
53 Notice of Service of first set of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and request for admissions filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 11/3/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 11/02/2004)
54 Order granting in part and denying in part IBEW's Motion to dismiss. Ordered: 1) Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenors second cause of action hereby is, granted; 2) Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenors third cause of action hereby is, granted; 3) Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff/intervenors fourth cause of action hereby is, denied. (Related Doc # 42). Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 11/4/2004.(R, Ke) Modified on 11/5/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 11/04/2004)
55 Motion for summary judgment filed by International Brotherhood of

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

12/01/2004 12/21/2004 12/22/2004 12/22/2004 12/30/2004 01/19/2005 02/01/2005
02/10/2005 02/11/2005 02/18/2005 03/30/2005 04/07/2005

Electrical Workers. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Manual Filing Notice)(Kurnick, Robert) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
56 Appendix to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Complete 183 page document on file in clerk's office) Related document(s)55. (R, Ci) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
57 Motion to Compel and Order for Sanctions filed by Goretti Newman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Ashar, Linda) Modified on 12/22/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 12/21/2004)
58 Response to Plaintiff/Intervenor's Motion to Compel filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Related document(s)57. (Kurnick, Robert) Modified on 12/27/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 12/22/2004)
59 Reply to defendant's response to Motion to compel discovery and Order for Sanctions filed by Goretti Newman. Related document(s)57. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 12/27/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 12/22/2004)
60 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
61 Order. 1/18/05 pretrial vacated. Response to motion for summary judgment due 2/1/05; reply 2/11/05. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 1/19/05. (A, P) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
62 Opposition to IBEW's Motion for summary judgment filed by Goretti Newman. Related document(s)55. (Attachments: # 1 Attestation of Document Exhibits# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K)(Ashar, Linda) Modified on 2/2/2005 (N, D). (Entered: 02/01/2005)
63 Address Change Notice by Robert D. Kurnick filed by on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (Kurnick, Robert) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
64 Reply in support of Motion for summary judgment filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Related document(s)55. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bylaws of IBEW Local Union 998)(Kurnick, Robert) Modified on 2/14/2005 (N, D). (Entered: 02/11/2005)
65 Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment (Related Doc # 55). Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 2/18/2005.(S, A L) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
66 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
67 Notice of Hearing: A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for 4/28/2005 at 12:00 PM. (S, A L) (Entered: 04/07/2005)

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

04/28/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005 07/18/2005 07/29/2005
08/15/2005 09/30/2005 10/05/2005 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/11/2006

68 Order: Stay of discovery vacated. Status reports to be filed on or before July 1, 2005. Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 4/28/2005. (S, A L) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
69 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified on 7/6/2005 (N, D). (Entered: 07/01/2005)
70 Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
71 Order: a pretrial conference is scheduled for 7/28/05 at 9:30 a.m. . Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 7/18/2005. (S, A L) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
72 Order: The parties shall submit further status reports by August 15, 2005. Leave granted plaintiffs to file motion for summary judgment or for other dispositive relief on or before August 31, 2005; defendant Local 998 to file opposition through counsel within ten days of filing of said motion or default will be entered. Clerk to serve copy of this order by fax on Pat Ancog, Business Manager of Local 998, by fax at his place of employment, Lithonia Lighting, in Vermillion, Ohio. signed by Judge James G. Carr (S, A L) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
73 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
74 Status Report filed by Goretti Newman. (Ashar, Linda) Modified text 10/3/2005 (C, K A). (Entered: 09/30/2005)
75 Marginal Entry Order. Parties having indicated settlement, dismissal entry shall be filed 11/1/05 74 Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 10/5/05. (A, P) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
76 Joint Motion to Enter and Approve Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) Modified on 1/13/2006 (G, D). (Entered: 01/06/2006)
77 Proposed Order for Entry of Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Related document(s)76. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
78 Consent Decree (see order for full details) . Signed by Judge James G. Carr on 1/9/2006. (S, A L) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/11/2007 10:47:52

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:02-cv-07374-JGC

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215747438812143-L_353_0-1

5/11/2007