Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 25

1 Paul Strauss, #153937
Robert S. Libman, #139283 2 Nancy Maldonado
M/NER, BARNHILL & GALLAND
3 14 W.. Elie Street Chicago, IL 60610

4 (312) 75 t- 1170 (telephone) (312) 751-0438 (telefax)
5

MoI~is .l.. BalleL #048928 6 Robelta L. Steele, # 188198

7

Nina Rabin, #229403 GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

8. BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside D~.., Suite 1000

9 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763-9800 (telephone) 10 (510) 835-1417 (telefkx)

11 Attoiileys for Plaintiffg

t2

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICI COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS Case No. C04-0281-1SW

16

POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

17

SILVERS (folmelly VICK), SANDRA EVANS, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, lAMES MORGAN

18

and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of themselves

and all others similally situated.

Complaint filed lanuaW 20, 2004

19

Plaintiffs,

20
VS.

21 CINI’AS CORPORATION,

22

Defendants..

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.- CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 2 of 25

1

PIaintift’s Robert Ramixez, Robert Harris, Luis Pocasangre Ca~doza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle

2 Ihompson, Coretta Silvers (formerly Vick), Sandra Evans, Blanca Nelly Avalos, .lames Morgan and

3 Anthony Jones, fo~ themselves and all other persons similarly situated, complain of deI~ndant Cintas

4 Corporation ("Cintas" o~ the "Company") as follows

5

NATURE OF THE CASE

6

1

Fhis is an employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to the provisions of the

7 Civil Rights Act of’ 1866, 42 U.S C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Section

8 1981"); Iitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S C §§2000e, et se__q:., as amended ("Iitle

9 VII"); the Califbmia 1: ai~ Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§12940, et ~

10 ("I~EHA"); and the Calitbmia Unfair Business Practices Act, Business and Professions Code § 17200 11 et se_~., also known as the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") Plaintiff~ allege that defendant Cintas 12 has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a company-wide pattern and practice of employment 13 discrimination, both intentional and systemic, on the basis of’ race, national origin, and sex, against

14 themselves and a class of’ similarly situated African American, Hispanic, and female employees,

15 former employees, and applicants for employment as alleged in this Complaint. Cintas’ discriminatory

16 practices include, but are not limited to, discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotion, transfer, iob 1’7 assignment, and compensation, on a classwide basis as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff~ seek

18 declmato~y, injunctive, and equitable monetary ~elief from these practices; compensato~y and punitive 19 damages; equitable remedies of accounting, restitution and disgo~gement; and an award of costs, 20 expenses, and attorneys’ fees; all for themselves individually and on behalf’ of the class or classes they

21 seek to represent.

22

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

23

2.. .Iurisdiction. Ihis Corot has original ju~isdiction ofplaintiff~’ Section 1981 claims

24 pu~suant to 28 U.S C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4).. Ihe Corot has original iudsdiction of’plaintift~’ Title

25 VII claims pursuant to those two provisions as well as 42 U.S C. §2000e-5(f)(3) -the Court has

26 supplemental iu~isdiction ofplaintiff~’ FEHA and UCL claims pmsuant to 28 US C. §1367.

27

28

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 3 of 25

1

3. Venue.. Venue is pi’ope~ in this District pus’suant to 28 U..S.C § 1391(c) and 42 U.S .C.

2 §2000-5(f)(3). Cintas is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District in that it maintains fgcilities and

3 business operations in this District, employs or employed plaintifth Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, .lames

4 Morgan and member’s ofthe class in this District, and committed some of the discriminatory acts

5 alleged herein in this District

6

4. Intradistrict Assignment. Venue is proper in the San Francisco Division of this Court

7 pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) - (d) because a substantial part of the events which give rise to the claims

8 asserted in this COmplaint occurred in Alameda County.. In particular, Cintas employed plaintift~

9 Pocasang~e Cardoza and lames Morgan, and employs, employed, or’ rejected employment applications

10 of, other class members in its fgcility in San Leandro, Alameda County, California, and there

11 .committed acts of’ discrimination in employment as alleged in this complaint.

12

PARTIES

I3

5. ]?he named plaintift~ a~e cur~ent and former’ employees, or’ r’e.jected applicants for’

14 employment, of’ defendant Cintas.

15

6.. Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cavdoza is a Hispanic male and a resident of’ Oakland,

16 California, within this District. He was born in E1 Salvador. Mr’. Pocasangre Cardoza worked for

17 Cintas as a loader at its San Leand~o, California f~cility in 2003. In or’ about .July 2003, Cintas 18 discriminatorily refused to hire and then promote plaintiffPocasang~e Catdoza to a driver’ position at t9 that fgcility, because ofhis race and national origin Mr’.. Pocasangre Cardoza resigned on or about

20 August 6, 2003 as a ~esult of the discrimination. On or about November’ 18, 2003, plaintiffPocasang~e

21 Cardoza filed a Cha~ge of’Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

22 Commission (EEOC). On or about lune 9, 2004, the EEOC issued him a notice ofRight to Sue on that

23 Char’ge.. Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached to this complaint as Exhibits 1A and 1B,

24 ~espectively.

25

7. PlaintiffRobert Ramirez is a I~ispanic male and a resident ofLas Vegas, Nevada He

26 was born in Mexico. Mr. Ramirez worked for Cintas in its Las Vegas, Nevada fgcility as a driver and

27 p~oduction supervisor’ fr’om on or’ about July 6, 1992 until his termination in or about Iuly 2003.

28

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR IURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 4 of 25

1 Because of his ~’ace and national origin, Cintas reduced M~’. Ramirez’s pay in 2000, denied him pay

2 iaises and promotions between 2002 and 2003, and ultimately teiminated him in or about July 2003.

3 On of about November 18, 2003, plaintiftRamirez filed a ChaIge of’ Discrimination with the EEOC.

4 On or about Iune 7, 2004, the EEOC issued Mr Ramirez a Notice ofRight to Sue on his Chmge.

5 Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits 2A and 2B, iespectively.

6

8. PlaintiftSandra Evans is an African Ameiican f~male and a iesident of’Biookside,

7 Pennsylvania. lZrom on or about Ma~eh 2002 to the present, Ms.. Evans has woiked for Cintas in the

8 stock~’oom at its Aston, Pennsylvania fiacility, applying emblems to unifoims. In o~ about April 2002,

9 Cintas hired a white employee to woik in a comparable position in the stocl~’oom and paid her a higher

l0 hourly wage than plaintift’Evans. Cintas paid, and continues to pay, Ms. Evans a lower hourly wage

1t than the white cowoIker because of Ms. Evans’ race. On or about NovembeI 17, 2003, plaintiftEvans

12 filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC On of about August 17, 2004, the EEOC issued hera

13 Right to Sue letter on her chaxge.. Copies of that Char’ge and Notice aIe attached as Exhibits 3A and

14 3B, iespectively~

15

9. PlaintiffRobext Hairis is an African American male and a resident of Rochester, New

16 York He was employed by Cintas as a loader in its Rochester, New Yoik fgcility fi’om in ox’ about

17 April ox’ May 2003 to October 2003.. Because ofhis race, Cintas refused to hire plaintift Harris as a

18 d~iver in of about Apiil or’ May 2003, refused to pIomote him to the position ot dliver afteT hMng him

t9 as a loader, and terminated him on or about OctobeI 9, 2003. On of about November 18, 2003,

20 plaintiffHa~lis filed a Charge of’Discrimination with the EEOC On oI about May 21, 2004, the

21 EEOC issued him a Notice of Right to Sue on his Charge.. Copies of that Cha~’ge and Notice are

22 attached as Exhibits 4A and 4B, iespectively.

23

10 Plaintiff lose Salcedo is a Hispanic male and a resident oft~reeport, New York. He was

24 born in the Dominican Republic. He was employed by Cintas at its Central Islip, New Yoik fgcilitg as

25 a production supervisor from in or about Novembe~ 1999 to October 2002. Because of his face and

26 national oiigin, Cintas denied plaintiff Salcedo promotion to the position of plant manager in or about

27 March 2002, reassigned him to a less desir’able shift in or about June 2002 and terminated him on or

28 about October 9, 2002.

3
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL- CASE NO C04-0281-ISW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 5 of 25

1

11. PlaintiffA. Shappelle Ihompson is an Afiican American male and a resident of

2 Rochester, New Yo~k. He worked for Cintas as a driver at its Rochester, New York f~cility ftom in or

3 about April 2000 to .lanuat’y 2002 Because of his race, Cintas took away one ofMr Ihompson’s

4 bette~ accotmts in or around .lune 2001, reassigned him to an undesirable route in or about November

5 2001, and terminated him in or about lanuary 2002.

6

12. Plaintiff’ Coretta Silver’s (formerly Vick) is an Afiican American female and a resident

7 of Raleigh, North Carolina. She worked for Cintas in an accounts receivable position at its Rateigh,

8 North Carolina fiacility fr’om approximately tuly 5, 2002 to approximately lZebruary 5, 2003. Because

9 of’ he~ race, Cintas paid plaintiff Silvers less than a white co-worker’ with the same position and job

10 duties. On or’ about Ianua~y 8, 2004, plaintiff Silvers (then Vick) filed a charge ofDiscrimination with

11 the EEOC. On or about .June 28, 2004, the EEOC issued her a Notice of Right to Sue on her Charge.

12 Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits 5A and 5B, r’espectively.

13

13. PlaintiffBlanca Nelly Avalos is a Hispanic female and a resident of’Panorama City,

14 California. She was born in Ecuador.. Cintas refused to hire plaintiffAvalos as a driverat its Van

15 Nuys, California f~cility in or around early 2004 because of her’ sex and national origin. On or about

16 .June 23, 2004, plaintiffAvalos filed a Cha~ge of’the Discrimination with the EEOC.. On or’ about

17 October 26, 2004, the EEOC issued hera Right to Sue letter on her Cha~ge.. Copies of that Charge and

18 Notice are attached as Exhibits 6A and 6B, respectively.

19

14 Plaintift .James Morgan is an Afiican American male and a ~’esident of Hayward,

20 California. Mr. Morgan was employed by Cintas fiom on or about Decembe~ 27, I999 to Mar’ch 26,

21 2004 as a driver in its San Leandro, California fiacility Cintas paid plaintiffMo~gan less than white

22 drivers by assigning him inferior’ low volume delivery routes and assigning him a low Key 23 Performance Indicators percentage, which were the two key determinants of a driver’s compensation, 24 because of his race. Although Morgan was designated as a Certified Route Trainer (CRT), he was not 25 given the duties or’ compensation of that position due to Cintas’ refusal to assign ttainees to Mr’. 26 Morgan, which were regularly assigned to white CRTs, because ofhis race As a result of these 27 discriminatory practices, which were intolerable, Mr Morgan was constructively discharged on or’ 28 about March 26, 2004. On or about December 29, 2004, plaintiff Morgan filed a Charge of

4
FO URTH AM ENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIA L - CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 6 of 25

1 Disclimination with the EEOC.. On or about .July 15, 2005, the EEOC issued him a Right to Sue letteI

2 on his ChaIge. Copies of that Chalge and Notice aIe attached as Exhibits 7A and 7B, respectively.

3

15 Plaintiff Anthony Jones is an African American male and a iesident of Camden,

4 Delawme. Because of’his race, Cintas refused to hire plaintiff.Jones as a d~ver at its Dover, Delawme

5 f~cility between November 2004 and IZebmary 10, 2005 despite his qualifications for the position. On

6 or about May 11, 2005, plaintiff Jones filed a Chalge of Disclimination with the EEOC. On or about

’7 June 24, 2005, the EEOC issued him a Right to Sue letter on his Charge. Copies of’that Chmge and

8 Notice aie attached as Exhibits 8A and 8B, iespectively

9

Defendant

10

16 Cintas is a national corporation headqualter’ed in Cincilmati, Ohio. FoI fiscal yeaI 2004,

11 Cintas Iepolted more than $2.8 billion in sales and ovei $272 million in plofits.

12

17.. Defendant Cintas’ major’ business involves i’enting unifbrms, mats, and towels to

13 commercial enterprises. Cintas’ production workers clean, iepai~, hang and assemble the uniforms and

14 materials to be delivered to the customers Dlivers, also known as selvice sales iepiesentatives (SSRs)

15 delivei clean clothing, mats and towels to customers and pick up dirty items fiom customers.

16

18. Defendant Cintas has moie than 27,000 employees and operates approximately 344

I7 rental f~acilities across the country in its Rental Division.

18

19 Ihe employees in Cintas’ Rental Division ~ental facilities can be grouped into five

19 categories: (a) pioduction, or laundly, worker’s; (b) selvice depaltment wolkeis, including d~ivers, oi

20 SSRs, and helpers; (c) sales employees; (d) office and human resource employees; and (e) supervisoi’s

21 and manageis

22

20. Cintas operates under’ a nationwide business plan that is established at its headqualters

23 in Cincinnati, Ohio and similalty implemented at each of its Rental Division fhcilities ttuoughout the

24 country, which plan includes strategies and pr’oglams regarding methods of operation and selvice

25 systems.

26

21. Cintas has developed and continually reinfoIces a centralized colpotate culture that is

27 implemented at each ofits Rental Division fkcilities tba’oughout the country.. Cintas regularly moves

28 uppei level manageis fiom one Rental Division fhcility to another, and often from one state to another.

5
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL- CASE NO (204-0281 -JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 7 of 25

1 This p~actice is done in paxt to ensuie that a unifbIm Cintas culture opet’ates consistently th~’oughout all 2 of’ its Rental Division fgcilities.

3

FACTS RELATING TO TI-IE PATTERN OF INTENTIONAL AND

SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT CINTAS

4

5

22, Defendant Cintas’ employment p~actices and systems discriminate against Afi’ican

6 American, Hispanic and f~male employees and applicants for empto,yrnent, because of’ their ~ace,

7 national oIigin and/or sex, in Rental Division fgcilities. ][he disc6minatoty p~actices engaged in by

8 Cintas’ Rental Division are intentional and systemic in natuie, and adve~sely affect plaintiff~ and

9 members ofthe class with ~espect to opportunities for hii~ng, p~’omotion, transfer,.job assignment, 10 compensation, and other te~ms and conditions of employment, as specifically summarized below

11

23., Accozding to Cintas 2004 Annual Report, Cintas’ upper’ levet management, with the

12 exception of a few women, is comprised almost exclusively of’ white men The homogenous racial and

13 gender’ composition of Cintas’ management at the highest levels is ~’eflected in management t1~oughout

14 the fiacilities in the Rental Division, which also is p~edominantly white and male..

15

24, Upper level white male manager’s have communicated Cintas’ discriminatory policies

t6 and p~actices in explicit terms to lowe~’ level managers who make pe~sonnet decisions, l:ox’ example,

17 tegional vice p~esident John Milligan inst~cted managez’s at the Painesville, Ohio fiacility to reduce the

18 numbe~ of’ Hispanic wotke~s, saying "knock off this Mexican c~ap,"

19

25, White male managers have echoed these biased sentiments, I~ot’ example, Painesville,

20 Ohio gene~al mange~ A1 Kocsis di~ected his white managers and supe~viso!s to hi~e "people who look

21 like you and me" because Hispanics "don’t share om values" and "don’t come fi’om the same culture."

22 M~, Kocsis also derisively commented that the plant looked like a "little Havana" and that the Hispanic

23 employees we~’e "stinking up the cafeteria" with the "kind of ctap they axe eating in the~’e."

24

26, White male managers have also made ~’acially and ethnically de~ogato~y and offensive

25 comments and other statements evidencing their animus and bias against African Americans and

26 Hispanics~ 1:o~ example, Mike Palo, genetal manager of Cintas’ I~ington, New Jersey fiacility,

27 frequently ~ efet~ed to black employees as "nigge~s" and often stated that he was "black fi’om the waist

28 down," A sales service manage~ at Cintas’ Houston, Iexas fiacility stated that "’it didn’t look good to

6
FOURTH AMENDISD COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL- CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 8 of 25

1 have blacks and Hispanics on the trucks" "[he plant manager’ at the same facility stated that Hispanics

2 didn’t have a "tidy appearance." Brian Dudley, a service training coordinator’ in Cintas’ Springfield,

3 Missouri facility, said in a sales meeting that Cintas fgcilities in A~kansas would not hire blacks

4 because customers would not like it.

5

27. Similarly negative statements have been made about the employment of women for

6 SSR positions in Cintas’ Rental Division. Scott Ihomas, a production supervisor in Michigan, told a

7 female employee who wanted to become a &iver that the ’~job was too hat’d fbr’ women."

8

28.. Senior Cintas officials, managers, and supervisors have made sexually derogatory and

9 offbnsive comments and other statements evidencing their’ animus and bias against women., l~or’

10 example, Mike Palo, genelal manager of Cintas’ Irvington, New Jersey fhcility, fi’equently referred to

11 women as ~’sIuIsY

12 A. 13

Discrimination Against Hispanic Supervisors in Promotions~ T~’anst~rs and Job Assignments

14

29. Management and supervisor~ jobs at the rental fiacilities include: general manager’ o~’

15 b~anch manager, production manager’, service sales manager’, production supervisor, sales manager,

16 and of~ce manager.

17

30 Hispanic salmied supewiso,s are discriminated against in promotion or transfbr to these

18 supervisory and managerial positions

19

31.. Through at least the end of 2004, Cintas did not post supervisory and managerial

20 positions available in its Rental Division. When Cintas filled open positions from its pool ofcurrent

21 employees, it typically used a "tap on the shoulder"’ method undel which the predominantly white male

22 managers made subjective and biased decisions to fill supervisora/and managerial positions with non-

23 Hispanic employees Consequently, open supervisory and managerial positions were unknown to

24 Hispanic employees who are not given an opportunity to apply and compete equally for these

25 positions.

26

32. Hispanic salaried supervisors a~e discriminated against in the scope and extent oftheir

27 job assignments as a result of’ subjective and biased decisions made by predominately white male

28 managers.

7
FOURTH AMENDED COMPL AINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIA L - CASE NO C04-028 I-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 9 of 25

1

Discrimination against Women, Atrican Americans and Hispanics in Hiring to SSR

Positions.

2

3

33 Drivers, also known as service sales representatives (SSRs), work in the service

4 department at Rental Division f~cilities. They deliver clean tmiforms, mats, and towels to clients and

5 pick up dirty items, which they retusn to the t~cility for laundering. Drivers are the key contacts for’

6 developing good relationships with Cintas’ customers. A critical pint of their iob duties entails selling

7 additional products and services to existing Cintas customer’s. Drivers are the highest paid non-

8 supervisory worker’s in the Rental Division.

9

34 Afiican Americans, Hispanics and women are discriminated against in hiring to SSR

10 positions in Cintas’ Rental Division.

11

35. Cintas does not have uniform practices or obiective standards or criteria for making

12 hiring decisions foi SSR positions in its Rental Division.. Cintas managers ar’e flee to make those

13 employment decisions based on their’ own subjective p~eferences rather’ than objective ciiteria and

14 individual qualifications. As a result of’these practices, African Americans, Hispanics and women are

15 discriminated against in hiring for SSR positions in the Rental Division.

16

36. African Americans and Hispanics are under-repx’esented in the SSR position While the

17 substantial majority of the production workers are Afiican American and Hispanic, those groups make

18 up only a small fiaction of SSRs. For example, on information and belief; in or about Iuty 2003,

19 80-90% of the pIoduction woIkels at Cintas’ Las Vegas, Nevada fhcility were Hispanic, but of the 34

20 SSRs, at the f~cility, only one was Hispanic, one was African American, one was Asian, and the

21 balance were white.

22

37.. Very fbw women are hired into or’ assigned to SSR jobs. On information and belief;

23 Cintas employs app~oximately 5,000 SSRs nationwide, of which only 5% oi less are female..

24 Conversely, a substantial majority of the workers employed in production jobs in the Rental Division

25 f~citities are female.

26

38. Helpers are assigned to work with some SSRs in the Rental Division.. The helpers ride

27 the routes with the SSRs and assist with heavy lifting. The helper’s ar’e almost always men and most

28

8
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 10 of 25

1 often Hispanic or Afiican American. Notwithstanding their qualifications for’ SSR positions, helper’s

2 rately me moved into SSR positions..

3

39 As part ofthe hiring process fox SSR positions, applicants ate taken tbta day long "ride

4 along" with a cuxrent SSR. The SSRs who take applicants for a ride along, almost all of whom are

5 men, and most of whom at’e white, at’e often able to effectively veto the applicant’s hire. On

6 information and belief; SSRs are not given objective or standardized criteria to use in evaluating the

7 fitness ofapplicants for’ the job. Those SSRs often exercise that power against minority and/or f~male

8 applicants in a biased manner.

9

40. Cintas also may require applicants for SSRs positions to take a written test that may

10 have a dispat’ate impact on Afiican Americans and Hispanics..

11 C. 12

Discrimination Against Aitican Americans in SSR Positions in Compensation and Route Assignments.

13

41 SSR compensation is detelmined by two key f~ctor’s: route volume and Key

14 Performance Indicator (KPI) percentages, both of which at’e influenced to a Iatge extent by route

15 assignments. Some routes have a higher volume and are more lucrative than others Industrial or

16 galment mutes involve the detivery of’ uniforms, mats, and towels, t~ acilities selvices oi bulk routes

17 involve the delively ofmats and towels only. Facilities selvices routes geneiate less income than do

18 industlial routes. Additionally, some routes ate longeI; furtheI away fi’om Cintas f~.cilities, have fewe~

19 stops, and/or have customers with smaller accounts, all ofwhich require the SSRs to work longe~ horns

20 without generating additional income

21

42. Cintas does not have a system for’ distribution of r’outes to SSRs that is based on

22 objective criteria Rather, routes aie distlibuted in a biased manner by mostly white male managers

23 based on their own subjective decision-making. As a result, African American SSRs in Cintas’ Rental

24 Division are more likely to be assigned less lucrative ioutes, routes that require more travel and longer

25 houis, and ioutes that go thiough low income and minority neighborhoods.

26

43~ Cintas does not have a system for’ setting the KPI percentages for SSRs that is based on

27 objective criteria and/or is not subject to manipulation. Rather, KPI percentages me set in a biased

28 manner’ by mostly white male managers based on their’ own subjective decision-making As a result,

9
FOURTH AMENDED COMPL,A1NT AND DEMAND FOR fURY TR1AL.- CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 11 of 25

I Afiican American SSRs are more likely to have lower KPI percentages than similasly situated white

2 cMvers, whose KPI percentages are adjusted upwards to compensate fo~ low volume route,

3

44, SSRs who are selected as Certified Route Irainers (CRTs) receive additional

4 compensation for training new SSRs Cintas does not have a system for distributing training

5 assignments to the CRTs, Rather’, training assignments are distributed in a biased manner by mostly

6 white male managers based on their own subjective decision-making As a result, African American

7 CRIs in Cintas’ Rental Division receive f~wer training assignments and emn less compensation than

8 white CRTs.

9 D,, 10

Discrimination in Compensation against African American Non-Exe.,,..m..p.t Employees in Cintas’ Rental Division Facilities.

1t

45. Cintas discliminates against non-exempt Afiican American employees with iegaxd to

12 pay in its Rental Division f~cilities,

13

46., Afiican American non-exempt employees in the Rental Division aze paid less than

14 similagy situated non-African American non-exempt employees for’ similar work and,job performance,,

15 The amount of compensation an employee receives is not determined by any objective ciite~ia or

16 standards, but rather is determined by subiective, arbitrary and capricious decision-making by Cintas’

17 neaxty all white male managers in the Rental Division This subiective system results in African

18 American non-exempt employees in the Rental Division receiving less compensation than similarly

19 situated white non-exempt employees,

20

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21

47. Plaintiffs bring their claims under’ Section 1981, ~[itle VII, and FEHA as a class action

22 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of’the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of

23 themselves and all other’s similarly situated, as more specifically described below,

24

48, The pIaintift~ seek to represent a class, of which they are membexs, consisting of!

25

a, Women who were denied hi~ing to service sales representative (SSR) positions

26 in Cintas’ Rental Division dining the limitations period;

27

b. Afiican Americans who were denied hiring to service sales ~epresentative (SSR)

28 positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

10
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAI_

CASF NO C04L028|-tSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 12 of 25

1

c Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sates representative (SSR) positions

2 in Cintas’ Rental Division dining the limitations period;

3

d. Afiican Americans who have held service sales representative (SSR) positions

4 in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period and who have been subjected to Cintas’

5 discriminatory p~actices with regard to SSR route assignments and compensation;

6

e. Afiican Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Cintas’ Rental

7 Division du~ing the limitations period and who have been subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory

8 compensation practices; and

9

f. Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supeivisors o~ managers in Cintas’

10 Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) position during the

11 limitations period who have been subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory practices with regatd to

12 opportunities for promotion out of’those positions and the scope and extent of’theix job assignments..

13 As used in this pa~’agraph, "promotion" includes t~ansfei to anothe~ position that would provide

14 additional wages, benefits, better’ working conditions, or’ an opportunity fox’ career development,

15 additional training, or experience that might reasonably lead to future advancement.

16

49. Plaintift~ Pocasang~e Caxdoza, Avalos, and Morgan seek to ~epresent a subclass, of

17 which they are members, consisting of!

18

Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions

19 in Cintas’ Rental Division in California dining the limitations period;

20

b

Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales rep~esentative (SSR) positions

21 in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations period; and

22

c.. African Americans who have held an SSR position in Cintas’ Rental Division in

23 California during the limitations period and who have been subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory

24 practices with regard to SSR route assignments and compensation.

25

50. The named plaintiff~ as class representatives and subclass representatives, and the class

26 and subclass as definedabove, meet each ofthe requirements of role 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of 27 the t~ederal Rules of’ Civil Procedme for certification of’ this case as a class action, for the reasons

28 stated below

1I
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAl_,- CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 13 of 25

1

51. Rule 23(a)(1) - Numerosity l’he exact number of members ofthe class and subclass is

2 not known at present, and will be determined tl~ough discovery, It is estimated that the~e are hundreds

3 or thousands of African Americans, hundreds or thousands of Hispanics, and hundreds or thousands of’

4 women, who are class members or subclass member’s In addition, the class member’s axle spread

5 tNoughout the regions and states of the country, and a~e located in dozens of’ sepmate fgcilities as

6 employees and communities as potential employees, The class and subclass a~e therefore so numerous

7 and so situated that individual .joinder of class membezs and subclass members is impracticable,

8

52., Rule 23(a)(2) - Commonality Ihere ate numerous common questions oIfiact and law

9 in this action that relate to and affect the claims of relief sought by the class and subclass, as well as the

10 anticipated defenses thereto. These common questions inctude, without limitation, the following:

11

a. Whether women, African Americans and Hispanics were denied hiring to

12 service sales ~’epresentative (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period

13 because of their’ gender; race or national origin;

14

b

Whether African Americans who have held a service sales representative (SSR)

I5 position in Cintas’ Rental Division du~ing the limitations period have been discriminated against in

16 route assignments and compensation because oftheir ~ace;

17

c. Whether’ Afiican Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Cintas’

18 Rental Division during the limitations period have been discriminated against in compensation because

19 of their race;

20

d, Whether Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers

21 below a General Manager (o~ B~anch Manager o~ equivalent) position in Cintas’ Rental Division

22 during the limitations period have been discriminated against in opportunities fo~ ptomotion out of

23 those positions;

24

e. Whether Cintas has given decision-making authority in the above-descxibed

25 personnel matters to managers who exe~cise uncontrolled, unsupewised discretion that provides a

26 ready means for discrimination, and whether that authority is used to discriminate in decision-making;

27

28

12
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281 ~JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 14 of 25

1

f. Whether there is a pattern or class-wide practice in Cintas’ above-described

2 decision-making in per’sormel matters ofintentional face and national origin discTimination against

3 African Americans and Hispanics, and of’ sex discrimination against women;

4

g, Whether statistical analyses of the compensation of African Americans in non-

5 exempt positions, Hispanics in supervisory and managerial positions, and African Americans in SSR

6 positions show adverse impact;

7

h. Whether statistical analyses of’ applicant flow, labor market and selection data of

8 Afiican Americans, Hispanics and women in SSR positions show adverse impact;

9

i

Whether the above-described policies and practices of’ Cintas’ Rental Division

10 result in adverse impact against African Americans, Hispanics, and/or women; and if’ so, whether they

11 are job-related and consistent with business necessity;

12

.j., What relief is appropTiate to remedy the claims of plaintiffs and the class

13 resulting from Cintas’ above-described discriminatory employment practices pursuant to Iitle VII,

t4 I~EHA and the UCL;

15

k The appropriate standards for grant of’injunctive relief; both equitable and in the

t6 fbtm of damages, to remedy Cintas’ above-described discriminato~y employment practices;

17

t.,

Whether, as a result of Cintas’ above-described discriminatory pr’actices,

18 plaintift~ and the class suffered lost wages and other monetary damages;

19

m. Whether Cintas’ above-described discriminatory actions ase "intentional" within

20 the meaning of’authorities applying Section 1981 and 42 U S,,C, §1981a(a)(1); and

21

n

Whether’ Cintas acted with malice or reckless indift~rence by the above-

22 described discrSmination against plaintift~ and the class and subclass in the tgce of a perceived risk that

23 its actions would violate their’ rights such that an awa~d of punitive damages to the class and subclass is

24 appropriate; and, if so, how such award should be determined and distributed to members ofthe class

25 and subclass

26

53 Rule 23(a)(3) - ~fypicality, Ihe claims of the named plaintiffs, who are representatives

27 ofthe class and subclass, are typical of’the claims of’the class and subclass The named plaintiffs have

28 been personally aft~cted and discriminated against by the same practices that plaintiffs allege in this

13
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 15 of 25

1 complaint have haxmed the class and subclass as a whole and other class and subclass members

2 individually.

3

54. Rule 23(a)(4) - Adequacy, Ihe named plaintiff~ will faMy and adequately ~’epresent

4 the interests of the class and subclass., Ihere is no conflict between any named plaintiff and other

5 members ofthe class or subclass with respect to this action or the claims for relief set froth in this

6 complaint The attorneys for the plaintiffs are experienced and competent in rep~esentation of classes

7 in employment disciimination actions, and they have and will devote adequate staft and other

8 resouaces to the case.

9

55, Rule 23(b)(2) - Case Maintainable Under this Rule,, This action is p~ope~ly maintained

10 as a class action puxsuant to subsection (b)(2) of’Rule 23 in that defendant Cintas has acted o~’ refused

11 to act on grounds which ate geneially applicable to the class and subclass, in pa~ticula~ race, national

12 o~igin, and/or sex, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief and coiTesponding declaratory relief

13 with respect to the class and subclass as a whole,

14

56, Rule 23(b)(3) - Case Maintainable Undex this Rule. This action is also properly

15 maintained as a class action pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of Rule 23, particulaxly with respect to the

16 claims ofclass and subclass members for damages, With Iespect to those claims, questions oflaw and

17 f~tct common to the members of’ the class and subclass predominate ove~ questions affecting only

18 individual class and subclass members; and a class action is superior to other available methods for the

19 fgit and efficient adjudication of the controveisy., Individual class and subclass members have minimal

20 interest in individually maintaining oi contiolling separate actions in this case; no other litigation has

21 been commenced asseiting the interests and claims advanced in this case; inte~ests of’ fairness,

22 efficiency, and consistency of outcome will be seTved by concentrating the litigation of the class and

23 subclass members’ claims in this particular foium and action; this case will be manageable as a class

24 action, and f~r mote easily manageable than the multiplicity of individual actions in different

25 jurisdictions that would iesult if this case is not peimitted to proceed as a class action,

26

27

28

14
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAl - CASE NO C04-0281 -JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 16 of 25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981 (ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC
PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS)

57. Plaintiffs repeat and realtege and incoiporate by this tefe~ence the allegations set forth

in pat’agraph 1 tl~’ough 56, inclusive, as though full?/set fbrth herein.

58.. Defendant’s discrimination against Robin Beasley, Sand~a Evans, Robert Harris, Luis

6 Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Rami~ez, .lose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, Coretta Silvers (fotmerl,/

7 Vick), Blanca Nell,/Avalos, lames Morgan, and Anthony Jones and the members of the class, is in

8 violation otthe fights of plaintiffs and the class afforded them b?/the Civil Rights Act 1866, 42 U.S.C.

9 §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

10

59. By the conduct described above, defendant Cintas intentionall?/deprived the above-

11 named African American and Hispanic members ofthe class of the same fights as are enjoyed b,/

12 white citizens tothe creation, performance, enjo.yment, and all benefits and privileges, of their

13 cont,actual emplo?/ment relationship with Cintas, in violation of 42 U.S..C § 1981.

I4

60. As a ~’esult of defendant Cintas’ discrimination in violation of Section 1981, the African

15 American and Hispanic plairttift~ and members of the class have been denied employrnent

16 opportunities providing substantial compensation and benefits, thereby entitling them to injunctive and

17 equitable monetary relief:, and have suft~red anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience and loss of

18 enjo?/ment of life because of Cintas’ actions, thereby entitling them to compensator?/damages.

19

61 In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Cintas has acted with malice or reckless

20 inditference to the rights of’ the above-named African American and Hispanic plaintitt~ and class

21 members, thereby entitling them to an awax’d ofpunitive damages

22

62. 2o remed‘/the violations of’the fights ofplaintift~ and the class sectued by Section

23 1981, plaintiffs request that the Court award them the relief prayed for below.

24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

25

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS)

26

63 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by ref~ence herein the allegations of paragraphs 1

27 through 62, inclusive, as set forth above.

28

15
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, - CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 17 of 25

1

64. Defendant’s discrimination against plaintiffs Pocasangre Caxdoza, Ramirez, Evans,

2 Ha~is, Silvers, Avalos, Morgan and lones and member’s of the class is in violation of’ the ~ights

3 secured to plaintiff~ and the class by Iitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 US.C.. §§2000e et

4 se__q~., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 199I.

5

65 By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally violated the rights of plaintiff~

6 Pocasang~e Cat~doza, Ramirez, Evans, Harris, Silvers, Avalos, Mo~gan, and lones and members of the

7 class under Title VII..

8

66 Defendant’s conduct also has had an adverse impact against plaintiffs Pocasang~e

9 Cmdoza, Ramirez, Evans, Hat,is, Silver’s, Avalos, Morgan and lones and members ofthe class, and is

t0 neither iob-~elated r~of consistent with business necessity, and therefore violates the rights of ptaintiff~

11 and members of’ the class under Title VII.

12

67. As a ~esult of the violation of the ~fitle VII fights of plaintift~ Pocasangre Caz’doza,

13 Ramir’ez, Evans, Ha~is, Silvers, Avalos, Morgan, and lones and the class, those plaintift.~ and

14 members of the class a~e entitled to equitable and injunctive relief; including "rightful place" and

15 "make whole" ~emedies and equitable monetary relief; to remedy and compensate fo~ the effects of

16 defendant’s unlawful actions

17

68. As a result of the defendant’s intentional violation of’the Iitle VII ~ights of the plaintift~

18 Pocasangre Car’doza, Ramir’ez, Evans, Harris, Silvers, Avalos, Morgan and lones and the class, those

19 plaintift~ and members of the class have suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience and loss

20 of enjo.yment of life, thereby entitling them to compensatory damages.

21

69 In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Cintas has acted with malice or reckless

22 indifference to the rights of the above-named African American, Hispanic, and female plaintiff~ and

23 class members, thereby entitling them to an award of punitive damages

24

70. To ~’emedy the violation of’the rights of plaintiffs Pocasangre Caxdoza, Ramirez, Evans,

25 Hazels, Silvers, Avalos, Morgan, and Iones and the class secured by Title VII, plaintiff~ x’equest that the 26 Court award them the reliefprayed fo~~ below..

27

28

16
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAl - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 18 of 25

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

2

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS

3

WHO RESIDE(D), WORK(ED), OR APPLIED FOR EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA)

4 71. Plaintift~ re-allege and incorporate by ref~rence herein the allegations of paragraphs 1
5 through 70, inclusive, as set forth above..
6 72. Defendant’s discrimination against plaintiffs Pocasangre Cmdoza, Avalos, and Morgan

7 and rnembers of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for’ Cintas in California, and/or applied fox

8 employment with Cintas in California, is in violation of the rights secured to plaintiff~ and the subclass
9 by F EHA, California Government Code § § 12940 et seq.

10 73.. By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally violated, the rights of plaintiffs
11 Pocasangre Cardoza, Avalos and Morgan and members of the subclass under I~EHA
12 74. Defendant’s conduct also has had an adverse impact on plaintiff~ Pocasangn’e Cardoza,
13 Avalos, and Morgan and members of the subclass, and is neither job-r elated nor consistent with
14 business necessity, and therefore violates the rights of plaintift’s and members of the subclass under’
15 FEHA.
16 75.. As a result of’the violation of the FEHA rights of the California plaintiffs and class
17 member’s who reside(d) and/or work(ed) fox Cintas in California, and/or applied for’ employment with
18 Cintas in California, those plaintiffs and members of the subclass are entitled to equitable and
19 injunctive relief; including monetary relief; compensatory and punitive damages to remedy and
20 compensate for’ the effects of’ defendant’s unlawful actions and injuries caused by those actions
21 76.. To remedy the violation of the rights of the California pIaintiffs and class members who
22 reside(d) and/or wmk(ed) in California, and/or applied for employment with Cintas in Califolnia, as
23 secured by FEHA, plaintiff~ request that the Court award them the reliefprayed for below.
24

25

26

27

28

17
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAI_- CASE NO C04-0281-ISW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 19 of 25
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE/UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS WHO RESIDE(D), WORK(ED), OR APPLIED FOR EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA)
77, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by r’efbrence herein the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 76, inclusive, as set forth above
78. Ihe UCL, Califbmia Business and Professions Code § § 17200 et seq=, prohibits "unfkir
competition.." Under the UCL, "unfgir competition" is defined as "any unlawful, tmfgfi or fraudulent 8
business act or practice ......". Violations of other statutes, including § 1981, ~Iitle VII, and I:EHA, as 9
alleged herein, which constitute unfhir, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices, also violate the UCL 10
and give rise to a claim for’ relief as specified in Business & Professions Code §17203. 11
79. Plaintiffg Pocasangre Cardoza, Avalos, and Morgan are residents of California and were 12
employed by or’ applied for’ an SSR position with defendant Cintas in Calitbrnia within the period 13
actionable under the UCL 14
80.. Plaintift~ Pocasangre Cardoza, Avalos, and Morgan bring this case as a representative 15
action on behalf of themselves and on behalf’of’Hispanics~ women and Afiican Americans who 16
reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or who applied for’ an SSR position with Cintas 17
in California, and on behalf of the general public, pulsuant to § 1’7204 of the California Business and 18
Professions Code. Under this Cause of Action, plaintiftg seek relief under the UCL only for those t9
plaintiftg and members of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for’ Cintas in California, and/or 20
applied for employment in California. 21
81. To remedy the violation of the rights of the California plaintift~ and class members who 22
reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or applied for emplo.yment with Cintas in 23
California as secured by the UCL, on behalf’of’themselves and the gene~ al public, and in order to 24
enforce California’s public policy and laws against employment discrimination and to seek restitution 25
and disgorgement of defendant’s ill-gotten gains secured in violation of law, plaintiff~ request that the 26
Court award them the relief prayed for below. 27
28
18
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAFNT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 20 of 25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHERE1; ORE, plaintift~ pray that the Court giant relief on their FiIst, Second, Third and

1: ourth Causes of Action as specified below.

82. Plaintift~ pray that the Court assign the case for’ healing(s) at the earliest practicable

date(s) and cause the case to be in evely way expedited, pmsuant to 42 U.S .C.. §2000e-5(f)(5).

83. Plaintift~ pray that the Coult certify a class defined as:

a.. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions

8 in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

9

b

African Americans who were denied hiling to seI~ice sales representative (SSR)

10 positions in Cintas’ Rental Division duling the limitations period;

11

c. Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions

12 in Cintas’ Rental Division duling the limitations period;

13

d. African American who have held selvice sales representative (SSR) positions in

14 Cintas’ Rental Division dining the limitations period and who have been subjected to Cintas’

15 discliminatory practices with regaxd to SSR route assignments and compensation;

16

e.. Aflican Amelicans who have held non-exempt positions in Defendant’s Rental

17 Division during the limitations peliod and who have been subjected to Cintas’ discriminatoi’y

18 compensation practices; and

19

f. Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers in Cintas’

20 Rental Division below the Gener’al Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) position duling the

21 limitations period and who have been subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory practices with iegmd to

22 opportunities for’ promotion out of those positions and the scope and extent of their job assignments ~

23 As used in this paragraph, "promotion" includes transf~r to another’ position that would p~ovide

24 additional wages, benefits, better working conditions, oi an opportunity for career development,

25 additional training, or’ experience that might reasonably lead to future advancement..

26 Plaintiffs further pray that the Court certify the named plaintitt~ and their attolneys as representatives 27 ofthis class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the 1~ ederal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28

19
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CASE. NO C04T028I~tSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 21 of 25

1

84 Plaintiffs pray that the Court certif) a subclass for’ purposes ofreliet on the l’hird and

2 l:ourth Causes of Action defined as;

3

a. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions

4 in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations period; and

5

b., Hispanics who we~’e denied hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions

6 in Cintas’ Rental Division in California du~ing the limitations period;

7

c, Afiican Amelicans who have held service sales representative (SSR) positions

8 in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations period and who have been subiected to

9 Cintas’ discriminato~,y practices with r’egard to SSR route assignments and compensation.,

10

d., Plaintift~ fialther~ p~’ay that the Coult certit) the named plaintift~ Pocasang~e

11 Ca~doza, Avalos and Morgan mad their attorneys as representatives of’this subclass, pursuant to Rule

12 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the 1~ ederal Rules of Civil Procedure

13

85. Plaintiffs pray that the Corot issue a declaratot3~ judgment against defendant Cintas

14 finding that Cintas’ Rental Division has violated the rights of’plaintiff~ and the class and subclass

15 Section under’ 1981, Title VII, and the FEHA, by denying and depriving plaintiff~, the class, and the

16 subclass of equal employment opportunities on the basis of race, national o~igin, or sex, as alleged in

17 this complaint; and that the violations of Section 1981, Title VII, and I:EHA rights as specified above

18 constitute unfiair, unlawfial and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of the UCL

19

86 Plaintiff~ pray that the Coult issue a preliminaly and peimanent injunction pursuant to

20 §1981, Iitle VII, I:EHA, and the UCL, enjoining defendant Cintas, its otticels, agents, employees, and

21 all others acting for oi succeeding Cintas, fiom engaging in the discriminatory employment practices

22 alleged in this complaint that disctiminate against plaintiffs, the class, or the subclass in violation of’

23 Section 1981, Title VII, oi I~EHA, on the basis of race, national origin, oi sex,

24

87. Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter a preliminaiy and permanent injunction ordeling and

25 r’equiling that defbndant Cintas folmulate, institute, adopt and maintain policies and practices which

26 will provide equal employment opportunities to plaintift~, the class, the subclass, and futui’e African

27 American, Hispanic and female employees and applicants for employment, and which will to the

28 extent practicable iemedy the continuing effects of past disclimination against plaintiffs and the class

2O
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CASE NO C04-028|~JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 22 of 25

and subclass, and restore them to the employrnent status and position they would have held and

enjoyed but for the unlawful discrimination complained of herein.. 88.. Plaintift~ pray that the Court award monetary relief as follows:

a. On the First Cause ofAction, order defendant to pay equitable monetary relief;

compensator’y and punitive damages to plaintift~ and members of the class on whose behalf claims are

asse~ted unde~ Section 1981 in that Cause ofAction, in an amount to be proved at trial;

’7

b. On the Second Cause of Action, order defendant to pay equitable monetary

8 relief; compensatory and punitive damages within the limits of’ 42 U.. S .C. § 1981 a(a)(1) to plaintitt~ and

9 members of the class on the claims asse~ted under Title VII in that Cause ofAction, in an amount to be

10 proved at trial;

11

c. On the Third Cause of’Action, order defendant to pay equitable monetasy reliet[;

12 compensatm’y and punitive damages to plaintiffs and class members who reside(d) and/or work(ed) fo~

13 Cintas in California and/or applied for employment with Cintas in California on the claims asserted 14 under the I~EHA in that Cause of Action, in an amount to be proved at trial;

15

d. On the Fourth Cause of’Action, order defbndant to make restitution to the

16 plaintiffs and member’s of the public who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in Califo,nia and/or

17 applied for employment with Cintas in California and who were adversely treated and/or affected by 18 Cintas’ disc6minato~y practices, and who were deprived of wages, compensation, fiinge benefits, o~

19 other monetax’y benefits as a result of’ Cintas’ violations of law for which the UCL provides such

20 remedies; and to disgorge profits or’ ill-gotten gains obtained by Cintas fiom its p~actices which violate

21 §1981, Iitle VII, or the FEHA as alleged therein, in an amount to be proved at trial.

22

89~ Plaintift~ pray that the Cou~t award them their costs, expenses and attorneys’ f~es,

23 payable by defendant Cintas, as follows:

24

a

By determining that plaintift~ a~e prevailing pa~ties on the First, Second, and

25 ~fhixd Causes of Action, and thereupon awarding plaintiffs their reasonable costs, expenses, and

26 attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action, pursuant to 42 U.S C. §1988 on the First Cause of

27 Action, §1988 and 42 U.S.C §2000e-5(k) on the Second Cause of Action, and Government Code

28 § t2965(b) on the Ihird Cause of Action..

21
FOURTH AMI::NDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 23 of 25

1

b. By awaz’ding plaintift~ theil reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ I~es on

2 their l:omth Cause of Action based on their creation of a common fund to the benefit ofthe class, and 3 pmsuant to California Civil Code § 1021.5 fbr the benefits, including monetmy relief; obtained on 4 behalf of plaintiff~ and members of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California

5 and/or applied for employment with Cintas in California, and the general public of’ California, and for

6 serving as "p~ivate attorneys general" in acting to enfm’ce the public policy, interest and law of’ the

7 State of’ California.

8

90. Plaintift~ p~ay that the Cou~t order Cintas to pay pre- and post:judgment interest in all

9 monetary amounts awa~ded in this action, as p~ovided by law.

10

91. Plaintiffs pray that the Corot ietain im~sdiction of’this case for a sufficient period of

11 time to assme that defendant Cintas has fully complied with the preliminary and peimanent injunctions 12 ~equested herein and has ~emedied to the g~eatest extent p~acticable the discriminatory policies and

t3 practices complained ofherein, and that Cintas is ope~ating in full compliance with the requitements of 14 § 1981, Iitle VII, the FEHA and the UCL with regard to its employment policies and practices

15

92. Plaintiff~ pray that the Court award such other and further ~eliefas this Cou~t deems

16 equitable and just.

17 Dated: July__, 2005 I8 19 20 21 22 23

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Strauss, #153937 Robert S. Libman, #139283 Nancy Maldonado MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W.. E~ie Stteet Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-11’70 (telephone) (312) 751-0438 (telefhx)

24

25

26

27

28

22
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAl_, - CASE NO C04-028 I-JSW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 24 of 25

1

Mo~s J, Ballei, #048928

Roberta L, Steele, #188198

2

Nina Rabin, #229403

3

GOLDSIEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN

4

300 Lakeside Dr.,, Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 94612

5

(510) 763-9800 (telephone)

(510) 835-1417 (telefhx) 6

7

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-028I-ISW

Case 3:04-cv-OO281-JSW Document 118-1 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 25 of 25

1

DEMAND 1: OR JURY IRIAL

2

On behalf of themselves and the class and subclass, plaintiffs demand tiial by jury on all claims

3 stated in this complaint on which they a~e entitled to a jmy trial

4 5 Dated: May__, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

6

/s/

7

Paul Strauss, #153937

8

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - CASE NO C04-0281 -JSW

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 1 of 29

1 Paul Strauss, #153937
Miner, Barnhill & Galland 2 14 W. Erie St.
Chicago, IL 60610 3 (312) 751-1170 (telephone)
(312) 751-0438 (telefax) 4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8

ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN 9 BEASLEY, SANDRA EVANS,

) ) No. C 04-00281 JSW

ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS 10 POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE

) ) CLASS ACTION

SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE

)

11 THOMPSON, and CORRETTA VICK, )

behalf of themselves and all other 12 persons similarly situated,

) FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR

) JURY TRIAL

13

Plaintiffs,

)

)

14

v.

)

)

15 CINTAS CORPORATION,

)

)

16

Defendant. ) Complaint filed January 20, 2004

17
Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis 18
Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, and Coretta Vick, for 19
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, complain of defendant Cintas 20
Corporation ("Cintas," "defendant," or "the company") as follows. 21

22

NATURE OF THE CASE

23
1. This is an employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to the provisions of 24
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 25
("§1981"), and pursuant to the California Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business 26
and Professions Code §17200 et seq. ("the UBPA"). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief; 27
backpay; accrued interest; compensatory and punitive damages; restitution; and attorneys' 28
fees, expenses, and costs.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 2 of 29

1

2. Count I of this complaint alleges claims under §1981. Count I is brought by

2 plaintiffs for themselves and a class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As described below,

3 plaintiffs seek class certification of a nationwide class of minority employees and applicants.

4

3. Count II states plaintiffs' claims under the UBPA. Count II is brought as a

5 representative action, as allowed under the UBPA. In Count II, plaintiffs seek to represent

6 women and minorities who have worked for Cintas, or applied for work with Cintas in

7 California.

8

AFTER THEY RECEIVE RIGHT-TO-SUE LETTERS FROM

9

THE EEOC, PLAINTIFFS WILL SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT TO ADD TITLE VII SEX DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS. 10

11

4. On or about November 18, 2003, plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley,

12 Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, and Luis Pocasangre Cardoza filed charges of discrimination

13 with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Plaintiff Coretta

14 Vick filed a charge with the EEOC in January, 2004.

15

5. In most circumstances, plaintiffs must receive a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC

16 before they may file a lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII. Plaintiffs have a right to

17 receive a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC 180 days after they filed their EEOC charges.

18 Accordingly, the named plaintiffs have a right to receive right-to-sue letters from the EEOC

19 starting in about May, 2004.

20

6. After they have been issued right-to-sue notices by the Equal Employment

21 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), plaintiffs will move to amend this complaint to add a

22 cause of action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as

23 amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), alleging sex, race, and national

24 origin discrimination. At that time, plaintiffs also will move to add additional plaintiffs who

25 have sex discrimination claims under Title VII. And, at that time, plaintiffs will move to

26 amend the complaint to request class certification of a nation-wide class on behalf of women

27 and minorities who have worked for Cintas or applied for work at Cintas.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 3 of 29

1

JURISDICTION

2
7. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3
§§1331 and 1343(a)(4). 4
8. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims pursuant 5
to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 6

7

VENUE

8
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c). 9

10

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

11
10. This case is properly assigned to the San Francisco division of this Court because 12
part of the events giving rise to the claims of plaintiffs and the class occurred in San 13
Francisco County, California. 14

15

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16
11. Count I of this complaint is brought by the named plaintiffs as a class action, on 17
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and 18
Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19
12. The class represented by plaintiffs in this action, and of which plaintiffs are 20
themselves members, consists of all applicants for employment at Cintas and employees of 21
Cintas who are African-American, Hispanic, or members of other racial and ethnic minority 22
groups. African-Americans, Hispanics, and members of other racial and ethnic minority 23
groups are referred to collectively in this complaint as "minorities." The terms "Hispanic" 24
and "Latino" are used interchangeably in this complaint. 25
13. Plaintiffs do not seek to represent or include in the class employees or applicants 26
for employment in positions: (a) in manufacturing facilities; (b) in corporate headquarters in 27
Cincinnati; (c) outside the rental, sales, and distribution facilities, in the finance, accounting, 28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 4 of 29

1 manufacturing, logistics, research and development, and information systems departments;

2 (d) as general manager, branch manager, company vice president or at a level above vice

3 president; or (e) as lawyers or other positions in the company's legal department.

4

14. The exact number of members of the class is not known, but it is estimated that

5 there are over 1,000 people in the class. The class is so numerous that individual joinder of

6 all members is impracticable.

7

15. There are common questions of law or fact in the action that relate to and affect

8 the rights of each member of the class and the relief sought is common to the class. The

9 common questions of law or fact include the following:

10

(a) Has Cintas violated 42 U.S.C. §1981 by regularly discriminating

against minority applicants and employees in the terms and conditions

11

of employment?

12

(b) As a result of defendant's discrimination, have plaintiffs and the class

they represent suffered damages, including the loss of substantial

13

employment opportunities and benefits?

14

(c) Does defendant's conduct make final injunctive relief appropriate?

15

16. The claims of the named plaintiffs, who are representatives of the class, are

16 typical of the claims of the class, in that the claims of all members of the class, including the

17 named plaintiffs, depend upon a showing of the acts and omissions of defendant Cintas

18 giving rise to the right of plaintiffs to the relief sought herein. As set forth herein, the

19 named plaintiffs have personally suffered from those practices that they allege have harmed

20 the class as a whole.

21

17. The maintenance of the action as a class action will result in substantial benefits

22 to the Court and to the individual class members.

23

18. There is no conflict between any individual named plaintiff and other members of

24 the class with respect to this action, or with respect to the claims for relief herein set forth.

25

19. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

26 The attorneys for plaintiffs are experienced in representing plaintiffs in cases of this type.

27

20. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of

28 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 5 of 29

1 which are generally applicable to the class, and by reason of such conduct has made

2 appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

3 entire class.

4

21. The portions of this case that involve the award of compensatory damages are

5 properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

6 Procedure. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate

7 over any questions affecting only individual members. It is unlikely that individual class

8 members have any interest in individually controlling separate actions in this case. Class

9 members' lack of knowledge of the legal system and modest means would deprive many

10 class members of the practical opportunity to pursue their claims if a class action were not

11 certified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A). No other litigation concerning this controversy has

12 been commenced by or against class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B). Finally, the

13 benefits of maintaining this action on a class basis far outweigh any administrative burdens.

14 Conducting this case as a class action would be far less burdensome than prosecuting

15 numerous separate actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D).

16
PLAINTIFFS 17

18

22. The named plaintiffs are current and former employees of defendant Cintas.

19

23. Plaintiff Robert Ramirez is a Hispanic man. He worked for Cintas at its Las

20 Vegas, Nevada facility. Because of his race and national origin, Mr. Ramirez suffered a

21 pay cut in or around 2000, was denied pay raises and promotions between approximately

22 2002 and 2003, and was terminated in approximately 2003.

23

24. Plaintiff Robin Beasley is an African-American woman. She was employed by

24 Cintas from approximately September 20, 2002, until approximately July 7, 2003, at its

25 Kentwood, Michigan facility working in the stockroom. Ms. Beasley was terminated by

26 Cintas on approximately July 7, 2003 because of her race.

27

25. Plaintiff Sandra Evans is an African-American woman. From March 2002 to

28 the present, she has worked for Cintas in the stockroom at its Ashton, Pennsylvania facility,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 6 of 29

1 applying emblems to uniforms with a heat sealer. In or around April 2002, Cintas hired a

2 white employee to work in the stockroom and paid her a higher hourly wage than Ms.

3 Evans. Cintas paid Ms. Evans a lower hourly wage than the white co-worker because of

4 Ms. Evans' race.

5

26. Plaintiff Robert Harris is an African-American man. He was employed by

6 Cintas as a loader at its Rochester, New York facility from approximately May to October

7 2003. Because of his race, Cintas refused to hire Mr. Harris as a driver in approximately

8 May 2003, refused to promote him to the position of driver after hiring him as a loader, and

9 terminated him on or about October 9, 2003.

10

27. Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza is a Hispanic man. Mr. Pocasangre worked

11 for Cintas as a loader at its San Leandro, California plant for approximately five days in the

12 summer of 2003. Because of his race and national origin, Cintas refused to hire Mr.

13 Pocasangre as a driver in or around July 2003 and refused to promote him to the position of

14 driver after hiring him as a loader.

15

28. Plaintiff Jose Salcedo is a Hispanic man. He was employed by Cintas at its

16 Central Islip, New York facility as a production supervisor from November 1999 to October

17 2002. Because of his race and national origin, Cintas reassigned Mr. Salcedo to a less

18 desirable shift in or around June 2002 and terminated him on or about October 9, 2002.

19

29. Plaintiff A. Shappelle Thompson is an African-American man. He worked for

20 Cintas as a driver at its Rochester, New York facility from approximately April 2000 to

21 approximately January 2002. Because of his race, Cintas took away one of Mr.

22 Thompson's better accounts in or around June 2001, reassigned him to an undesirable route

23 in or around November 2001, and terminated him in or around January 2002.

24

30. Plaintiff Coretta Vick is an African-American woman. She worked for Cintas in

25 an accounts receivable job at it Raleigh, North Carolina facility from approximately July 5,

26 2002 to approximately February 5, 2003. Because of her race, Cintas paid Ms. Vick less

27 than a white co-worker with the same position and job duties.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 7 of 29

1
DEFENDANT 2

3

31. Defendant Cintas is a national corporation with headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

4

32. Cintas has approximately 30,000 employees and operates approximately 365

5 facilities located across the country, including rental facilities, 14 manufacturing plants, and

6 seven distribution centers.

7

33. Cintas' major business involves renting uniforms, mats, and towels. Cintas

8 drivers deliver clean clothing, mats, and towels and pick up dirties each week. Production

9 workers clean, repair, hang, and assemble uniforms and materials to be delivered the next

10 week. The company also sells sanitation supplies, cleanroom services, and first aid and

11 safety products and services.

12

34. On its website, Cintas describes itself as "the leader in the corporate identity

13 uniform industry" and "the largest uniform supplier in North America, with more than

14 500,000 clients." Cintas says that "[m]ore than five million people wear Cintas clothing

15 each day" and that it has "a national presence reaching 93 percent of the U.S. and Canadian

16 population."

17

35. For fiscal year 2003, Cintas reported $2.7 billion in sales and $249 million in

18 profits.

19
CINTAS' DISCRIMINATORY AND EXCLUSIONARY CORPORATE CULTURE 20

21

36. Cintas utilizes a nationwide business plan and attributes its success to the

22 development and implementation of national strategies and programs including expansion

23 and acquisition plans, market research, sales systems, marketing programs, product

24 development strategies, methods of operation, and service systems. According to its

25 website, Cintas credits its "unique corporate culture" as the "driving force" behind its

26 success.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 8 of 29

1

37. Like its nationwide business plan, Cintas' corporate culture is established and

2 implemented by its upper-level managers both in its headquarters in Cincinnati and at each

3 of its 365 facilities across the country.

4

38. Cintas' management at all levels establishes and reinforces a corporate culture in

5 which white, male applicants and white, male employees are preferable for many jobs --

6 including particularly higher-paying jobs and jobs that have greater opportunity for

7 advancement, such as supervisor and manager jobs -- and that minority and female

8 applicants and employees are less desirable for those jobs.

9

39. This culture is reflected in the homogeneous racial and gender make-up of

10 Cintas' upper level management. With few exceptions, the highest-level managers of the

11 company are and always have been white men. Cintas' 2002 Annual Report listed no

12 women on its Board of Directors, only one women corporate officer, Treasurer Karen

13 Carnahan, and no women as an operating or staff officer.

14

40. The Board of Directors, corporate officers, and operating and staff officers listed

15 in Cintas' 2002 Annual Report were:

16

Board of directors:

17

Paul R. Carter -- President of Wal-Mart Realty Company

Gerald V. Dirvin -- Retired Executive Vice President and Director of Procter

18

Gamble Co.

Richard T. Farmer -- Chairman of the Board of the Corporation

19

Scott D. Farmer -- President & Chief Operating Officer of the Corporation

James J. Gardner -- Retired Vice President of the Corporation

20

Robert J. Herbold -- Retired Executive Vice President and Chief Operating

Officer of Microsoft Corp.

21

Roger L. Howe -- Retired Chairman of the Board of U.S. Precision Lens, Inc.

Donald P. Klekamp -- Associated with Keating, Muething & Klekamp

22

Robert J. Kohlhepp -- Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation

23

Corporate officers:

24

Robert R. Buck -- Senior Vice President & President -- Uniform Rental

Division

25

Karen L. Carnahan -- Vice President & Treasurer

Scott D. Farmer -- President & Chief Operating Officer

26

Thomas E. Frooman -- Vice President & Secretary, General Counsel

William C. Gale -- Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

27

Robert J. Kohlhepp -- Chief Executive Officer

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 9 of 29

1

Operating and staff officers: 2

David B. Armbrester -- Vice President, Great Lakes Rental Group

3

James J. Case -- Vice President, Southwest Rental Group

James V. Critchfield -- Vice President, Northcentral Rental Group

4

William L. Cronin -- President, National Account Sales Division

Gregory J. Eling -- Vice President, Central Rental Group

5

Larry L. Fultz -- Vice President, Human Resources

Michael P. Gaburo -- Vice President, Cleanroom Division

6

Arnold Gedmintas -- Vice President, Northern Rental Group

William W. Goetz -- Vice President, Marketing & Merchandising

7

J. Todd Gregory -- Vice President, Southcentral Rental Group

Larry A. Harmon -- Vice President, Western Rental Group

8

J. Phillip Holloman -- Vice President, Distribution

Jeffry E. Jones -- Vice President, Northwest Rental Group

9

James J. Krupansky -- Vice President

Glenn W. Larsen -- Vice President, Logistics & Manufacturing

10

John W. Milligan -- Vice President, Midwest Rental Group

John E. Myers -- Vice President, MidAtlantic Rental Group

11

Robert A. Oswald -- Vice President

David Pollak, Jr. -- Vice President, First Aid & Safety Division

12

Rodger V. Reed -- Vice President, Northeast Rental Group

Bruce E. Rotte -- Vice President, Southeast Rental Group

13

Michael E. Schneider -- Vice President, Research & Development

Richard B. Surdykowski, Jr. -- Vice President, MidSouth Rental Group

14

G. Thomas Thornley -- Vice President & Chief Information Officer

15

41. Cintas' corporate culture concerning the exclusion of women and minorities from

16 many jobs, including supervisor and manager jobs, has been communicated in explicit terms

17 to supervisors and managers who make hiring, promotion, assignment, and other

18 employment decisions.

19

42. For example, a former assistant plant manager and plant manager, Eric Honnold,

20 was told by his regional vice president, John Milligan, and by Al Kocsis, the general

21 manager at the Painesville, Ohio plant, that they did not want Honnold to hire Hispanics.

22 During a tour of a plant in Ohio with a large number of Hispanic employees, regional vice

23 president John Milligan said to the managers, including Honnold, "You guys got to knock

24 this off with this Mexican crap." Later, in 2002, when Honnold was the plant manager at

25 the Painesville, Ohio plant and hired a number of Hispanic employees, his general manager

26 (Kocsis) said he was not satisfied with the caliber of the employees that were being hired.

27 Asked to explain, Kocsis said that the Latino employees don't share our values; they don't

28 come from the same culture; and they don't communicate well with us. Kocsis, the general

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 10 of 29

1 manager, instructed Honnold to hire "people who look like me and you." Kocsis made

2 offensive comments about the Hispanic employees. He said, for instance, "I don't know

3 what kind of crap they are eating in there; they are stinking up the cafeteria" and "We look

4 like little Havana."

5

43. Roughly 75% of the applicants at the Painesville, Ohio plant in 2002 were

6 Hispanic; 20% were white. But as a result of these discriminatory directives from Cintas'

7 management, about 50% of the employees hired were white and about 45% were Hispanic.

8 That is, the hiring rate for white applicants was about 2.5 times higher than the application

9 rate, while the hiring rate for Hispanic applicants was only about six-tenths of the

10 application rate.

11

44. Similar statements have been made about the employment of women. For

12 example, Stacey Stern has a lawsuit pending in the federal district court in Chicago. In her

13 complaint, she says she worked as manager of National Account Services and was

14 responsible for hiring and firing national account executives and national sales and service

15 coordinators. In that job, she alleges, she was instructed not to interview or hire women for

16 sales positions.

17

45. Managers at Cintas have said that women are not suited for jobs in the rental

18 division. When a female employee, Shari Dilg, complained to Bill Cronin, general manager

19 at the South Florida facility, that there were very few women in management at Cintas, he

20 told her that women don't go into laundry because it's a dirty business. In 2003, Mr.

21 Cronin was working for Cintas as president of national account sales division (NASD) (also

22 known as the direct sales division).

23

46. When Mary Wiley, a low-level production employee at a Cintas plant in

24 Michigan, told Scott Thomas, the production supervisor, that she wanted to be a driver, he

25 told her that the job is too hard for a woman. When Amy Severson, a former employee

26 who worked in Springfield, Missouri, asked for the service manager job, she was told by

27 her general manager, Cliff Smith, that she could not have it because it is physically

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 11 of 29

1 demanding. When women at the Las Vegas plant asked if they could work in the "wash

2 alley," the production manager, Scott Saobskogebo, just laughed them off.

3

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE RENTAL FACILITIES

4

AND DEMOGRAPHIC MAKE-UP OF THE WORKFORCE

5
47. Cintas' exclusionary and discriminatory corporate culture extends to the 6
company's rental facilities, where the vast majority of Cintas employees work, and is 7
reflected in the demographic makeup of the workforce. 8
48. Women and minorities are concentrated disproportionately in the company's 9
lowest-level, lowest-paying jobs. They make up a large portion of the company's 10
production workers, performing dull, repetitive work in the plants at the company's rental 11
facilities. However, very few women and minorities serve as supervisors and managers. 12
49. The employees at the rental facilities can be roughly divided into five groups: (a) 13
production workers; (b) drivers, helpers, and other employees in the service department; (c) 14
sales jobs; (d) office and human resource employees; and (e) supervisors and managers. 15
Production Department 16
50. The tasks of washing, repairing, sorting, hanging, folding, and assembling 17
uniforms, mats, and towels is done by production workers in the "plant" and stockroom. 18
(The plant is part of a rental facility, but is not the entire rental facility.) These are the 19
lowest-paid jobs in the rental facilities. 20
51. Women make up the vast majority of the employees in the rental facility plants. 21
And in many plants these women are almost all members of minority groups, many of 22
whom are immigrants from Mexico and other countries. 23
52. While women are assigned to most of the production jobs in the plant, two 24
production jobs within the plant are held almost entirely by men: jobs in the "wash alley" 25
and jobs operating machines that roll mats. Those jobs pay more than the entry-level jobs 26
typically held by women. At one time these jobs involved heavy and repetitive lifting. The 27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 12 of 29

1 wash alley jobs are now mechanized and no longer require repetitive lifting. Nonetheless,

2 these jobs are still held almost solely by men.

3

53. Loaders and unloaders work in production jobs outside the plant itself. These

4 employees unload trucks as they come in with dirty uniforms, towels, and mats at the end of

5 the day and load trucks with clean items so they are ready to go out the next day. There are

6 almost no women in these jobs. At some facilities, such as San Diego, Central Islip, and

7 New York, all or almost all of these jobs are held by Hispanic employees.

8

54. Production jobs at the Cintas rental facilities are divided into "classes" from IV

9 to I. Class IV jobs are the lowest-paid; Class I are the highest.

10

55. The Class IV jobs involve routine, repetitive jobs performed at high rates of

11 speed, such as folding towels and hanging uniforms. Those jobs are held almost solely by

12 women.

13

56. Jobs that require repetitive lifting, such as the loader and unloader jobs are Class

14 III jobs. Those jobs are held almost solely by men.

15

57. The starting pay for Class IV jobs is less than for Class III jobs. As a result,

16 women hired into entry-level jobs at Cintas typically earn less than men hired into entry-

17 level jobs.

18

58. Notwithstanding the fact that some production jobs involve heavy lifting, women

19 are found in those jobs at Cintas in much lower numbers than one would expect, given

20 national statistics that describe the representation of women and men in similar jobs across

21 the country.

22

59. Moreover, the distribution of women and men into different production jobs at

23 Cintas cannot be explained by the lifting requirements that go with the jobs. The assignment

24 of almost no men to Class IV jobs cannot be explained by lifting requirements. And as

25 noted above, the "wash alley" jobs do not require heavy lifting, but they are held almost

26 solely by men. The almost uniform practice of assigning new employees who are women to

27 Class IV jobs in the plant, and assigning newly-hired men to Class III jobs is due to

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 13 of 29

1 intentional discrimination by Cintas' male managers, who act based on stereotypes of

2 women and men, and the jobs that are appropriate for them.

3 Service Department

4

60. Drivers work in the Service Department. Drivers deliver uniforms, mats, and

5 towels to clients and pick up dirties. They go out on their routes on the first shift and

6 typically deliver and pick up on weekdays, Monday through Friday. The number of drivers

7 working at any particular facility ranges from five to fifty.

8

61. Driver jobs are the best-paid non-supervisory jobs in the rental facilities.

9

62. Cintas treats the drivers as key contacts for relations with Cintas' customers. An

10 important part of the driver's job involves trying to sell to existing clients additional

11 products and services such as polo shirts, golf shirts, coats, air fragrance for bathrooms, and

12 paper products. Reflecting these roles, the drivers are called Service Sales Representatives

13 ("SSRs").

14

63. Minority employees are under-represented in driver jobs. In production jobs, at

15 many plants, virtually all of the production workers are members of minority groups. But at

16 the same facilities minorities make up only a small fraction of the drivers. For instance,

17 plaintiff Robert Ramirez worked as a production supervisor at Cintas' facility in Las Vegas

18 until about the end of July, 2003. He recalls that about 80-90% of the production workers

19 at the plant were Hispanic. But of about 34 drivers, he recalls only one Hispanic driver,

20 one African-American driver, and one Asian driver. All the rest were white. Plaintiff Jose

21 Salcedo worked as a production supervisor in Central Islip, New York. He recalls that

22 almost all the production employees there were Hispanic, but the majority of the drivers

23 were white.

24

64. Women hold very few of the driver jobs. On information and belief, Cintas

25 employs roughly 5,000 drivers, of whom only 5% are women. Employees at a number of

26 Cintas plants across the country estimate that at least half of the employees at the rental

27 facilities where they work are women, but there are no female drivers, or only one.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 14 of 29

1

65. In the past, Cintas' drivers have been paid based on the volume of their route,

2 with commissions and bonuses based on additional sales. As a consequence, the assignment

3 of routes is very important to the drivers. Some routes produce significantly more income

4 for the driver than others. In addition, some routes involve driving long distances from the

5 Cintas facility to the beginning of the route and from the end of the route back to the Cintas

6 facility. Drivers who cover those routes have to work longer hours before they can start

7 generating income and spend more time at the end of the day driving back to the facility.

8

66. There are two basic types of routes. "Industrial" routes (also sometimes referred

9 to as "garment" routes) involve distribution of uniforms as well as mats and towels.

10 "Facilities services" routes (also known as "FS" routes, and sometimes referred to as "bulk"

11 routes) involve delivery of mats and shop towels, but not uniforms. FS routes usually

12 generate less income than industrial routes.

13

67. Drivers at a number of facilities report an apparent pattern of distribution of

14 routes by race, in the following ways:

15

(a) Latino and African-American drivers are more likely than white drivers

to be assigned to FS routes. That is, minority drivers are more likely to

16

be assigned to routes that produce less income for the drivers.

17

(b) Where there are routes that go through low-income neighborhoods,

those routes typically are assigned disproportionately to Latino and

18

African-American drivers.

19

(c) Minority drivers are more likely to be assigned to routes that require

more travel, so they have to work longer hours to cover their route. 20

68. Some drivers are assigned helpers who ride the route with them and help with 21

heavy lifting. The helpers are almost always men and are often Latinos or African22

Americans or members of other minority groups. Helpers are rarely promoted to become 23

drivers. 24

69. Drivers assume more responsibility if they move into a position as a Certified 25

Route Trainer (CRT) or as a Service Training Coordinator (STC). 26

70. Like the drivers, CRTs and STCs are virtually all men. 27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 15 of 29

1

71. The service department also includes employees known as customer service

2 representatives, who act as liaisons between the drivers and the Cintas customers. A typical

3 facility might have a customer service representative and a customer service manager, or

4 just a customer service representative. Most customer service representatives are women.

5 These jobs are typically filled with new hires, rather than by promoting employees within

6 the company. Sometimes customer service jobs are filled by movement of an employee

7 from an office job.

8 Sales Department

9

72. The rental facilities typically have a sales department, which works on trying to

10 attract and sell business to new customers. This department usually includes a sales

11 manager, sales representatives, and sales associates. Sales representatives are typically paid

12 a base salary with commission. Sales associates provide support functions (e.g., sending

13 mailers, scheduling appointments).

14 Office and Human Resource Jobs

15

73. The office at each rental facility is usually staffed by an office manager and

16 employees working as a receptionist, accounts receivable clerk, accounts payable clerk, etc.

17 A facility usually has one human resources employee. Besides possible movement into a

18 customer service job, the office and human resource jobs offer almost no opportunity for

19 promotion to any other part of the company. Office and human resource jobs typically are

20 held by women.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 16 of 29

1 Supervisors and Managers

2

74. Management and supervisory jobs at the rental facilities include the following:

3

(a) General Manager ("GM") -- overall manager of the facility;

4

(b) Branch Manager -- manager of a facility that does not have a production

department (i.e., laundry is not cleaned at the facility); 5

(c) Production Manager (also known as the Plant Manager) --

6

responsible for all production, including production employees

in the plant and loaders and unloaders, who work outside the

7

plant;

8

(d) Service Sales Manager -- manager of a group of drivers. A single

facility may have several groups of drivers, each supervised by a

9

service sales manager;

10

(e) Production Supervisor -- a supervisor in production, usually responsible

for a particular shift. Plants may have more than one shift and more

11

than one production supervisor;

12

(f) Stock Room Manager; and

13

(g) Sales Manager -- manager of sales representatives and sales associates.

14

75. The vast majority of the supervisors and managers in the operations areas (i.e.,

15 production and service departments) are men, and Latinos and African-Americans make up

16 only a small fraction of the men in those jobs.

17

76. The general manager and branch manager positions are almost always held by

18 men, with very few minorities among them. On information and belief, there are about 270

19 or more general managers and branch managers, of whom only about five (2%) are women.

20

77. Almost all of the plant managers at Cintas are men.

21

78. Most of the production supervisors and stock room managers are men, even

22 though most of the employees they supervise are women.

23

79. On information and belief, of the 519 service sales managers, approximately 480

24 (92%) are men.

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 17 of 29

1

80. Thus, for example:

2

(a) former Cintas employee Amy Severson recalls that when she worked at

the Springfield, Missouri facility from roughly mid-March 2001 to

3

April 1, 2003, the following positions were all held by white men: the

general manager; the plant manager; the stock room supervisor; the two

4

service managers; and the customer service manager. She recalls no

woman or minority employee that has held any of these jobs; 5

(b) Linda Whitfield, a Cintas employee who worked at a New Jersey

6

facility from approximately 1992 until October 2002, recalls that every

general manager, plant manager, production supervisor, stock room

7

supervisor, service manager, and sales manager at that facility was a

white man and all the drivers were men; 8

(c) plaintiff Robert Ramirez, who worked in the Las Vegas facility for

9

approximately ten years, and worked as a production supervisor from

roughly September 2000 to roughly the end of July 2003, recalls that all

10

the other managers and supervisors were white;

11

(d) at the San Diego facility in 2002, all of the key operations managers,

i.e., general manager, service managers, plant manager, and production

12

supervisor, were white men;

13

(e) at the Landover, Maryland facility, the general manager, plant

manager, and all five service managers are white men. 14

81. In 2002, in the midwest, a typical management trainee would start with an annual 15

salary of about $27,000; the stock room manager typically was paid a salary over 16

$40,000.00; the service manager typically was paid a salary in the range of $50,000 to 17

$60,000; and a plant manager might receive a salary of about $55,000, with total pay in the 18

mid-$60,000 to $70,000 range when bonus was included. A general manager could earn 19

substantially more. It was not typical, but it was not unusual for a general manager to make 20

$250,000 or more per year, including salary and bonus. The starting wage for production 21

workers ranged from $6.50 to $10.00 per hour. 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 18 of 29

1

FAILURE TO ANNOUNCE JOB VACANCIES, LACK OF STANDARDIZED

SELECTION PROCEDURES, AND SUBJECTIVE DECISION-MAKING

2

3

82. Cintas has no uniform practice for announcing or posting job vacancies, and no

4 objective standards or criteria for making employment decisions such as hiring, assignments,

5 transfers, promotion, pay, discipline, termination, and other terms and conditions of

6 employment. Rather, Cintas uses subjective methods to make such decisions. These

7 subjective employment practices provide a means for discrimination against women and

8 minorities.

9

83. As a result of these practices and through their application, minorities and

10 women are disproportionately hired and assigned into low-skilled, low-paying jobs in

11 production. Those jobs provide little opportunity for advancement into higher-paying

12 supervisory and management jobs in the company.

13

84. When personnel decisions are made at Cintas – decisions on hiring, job

14 assignments, and promotions, e.g. -- they are likely to be made by white men. If women

15 and minorities participate at all, they are likely to be vastly outnumbered in the

16 decisionmaking process.

17

85. Cintas managers are free to make employment decisions based on their subjective

18 preferences rather than objective criteria and individual qualifications.

19

86. In production jobs, for instance, when higher-paying Class II and Class I jobs

20 open up, plant managers can fill those positions by hiring new employees from outside the

21 company or by promoting almost anyone they choose. They are not required to select based

22 on, or even consider, seniority. Nor are they required to make decisions based on objective

23 performance criteria. As a consequence, women and minority employees in low-level

24 production jobs have no assurance that they can work their way into higher-level jobs. It

25 does not matter how long, how hard, or how well they work. Someone else can always be

26 chosen. This system -- or lack of a system -- leaves ample room for biased decisionmaking.

27

87. Minorities and women usually cannot apply for promotions, because Cintas

28 usually does not tell its employees when positions are open and does not take applications

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 19 of 29

1 from its employees. This is likely to have harmful consequences. First, managers who

2 operate based on assumptions (women don't want loading jobs, e.g.) are not informed that

3 those assumptions are incorrect. They are not required to take into account actual

4 information about employees' desires to be promoted. Second, managers are not forced to

5 look to a pool of candidates who have expressed interest in promotion. They can focus on a

6 single employee without considering others.

7

88. Among the employment practices that tend to confine women and minorities to

8 low-level, low-paying jobs are the following:

9

(a) failing to notify employees of job openings; failing to formally post

open jobs and allow employees to bid or apply for them before they are

10

filled; and failing to take seniority into account in making promotion

decisions and filling open jobs; 11

(b) filling supervisory positions by hiring a new employee from outside the

12

company rather than by internal promotion;

13

(c) failing to consider employees from other departments and areas of the

company for transfer and promotion into open jobs (e.g., women and

14

minorities in production jobs are rarely recruited or promoted to

become drivers); 15

(d) failing to recruit and promote current employees into the company's

16

management-training program;

17

(e) requiring an applicant for a driver job to take a route ride with a driver

and then allowing the driver who takes the applicant on the route ride to

18

veto or heavily influence the hiring decision; and

19

(f) relying heavily on a system of recruiting employees by paying bonuses

to employees for referrals. 20

89. A written test may also be used in selecting drivers and that test may have a 21

disparate impact on minority applicants without being job-related and consistent with 22

business necessity. 23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 20 of 29

1 EXCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES FROM MANAGEMENT POSITIONS
2 90. Rising in the Cintas organization generally requires starting in one of the lower-
3 level management jobs such as production supervisor or stock room manager. Despite the
4 fact that there are many qualified women and minorities working in lower-level positions at
5 Cintas, these jobs usually are not filled by promoting employees from within the company.
6 Rather, they usually are filled by individuals selected for a management-training program.
7 91. Individuals are hired into the management-training program, are assigned to
8 management jobs, and then move up through the ranks of management jobs. Approximately
9 80% of all Cintas' managers come through the management-training program. Almost all of
10 the management trainees are male, and they are usually white.
11 92. Cintas' recruitment and hiring methods for the management-training program
12 results in minorities and women being hired for the training program at disproportionately
13 low rates. There typically is no system for notifying employees of openings or a process by
14 which they can apply or bid for management positions. To the contrary, Cintas' supervisors
15 and managers discourage and deter minority and female employees from asking for or
16 applying for jobs that are held predominantly by whites and men.
17 93. The management trainees typically have no prior experience with the company
18 and its operations or even the industry. For instance, men become service managers and
19 supervise drivers without prior experience working as drivers (except during brief training).
20 But women who have worked in the company as sales representatives and sales managers
21 are almost never cross-trained or promoted to jobs working as production supervisors or
22 managers or as drivers or service managers. Cintas' failure to move women laterally and
23 train them for other positions keeps them locked in dead-end jobs.
24 94. Hiring from outside the company to fill lower-level management jobs results in
25 almost no women, and very few Latinos, African-Americans, and other minorities in
26 management jobs in operations (production and service departments).
27
28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 21 of 29

1

95. At Cintas, there are few opportunities for women to advance to supervisory or

2 management jobs. Women are employed disproportionately in jobs as office managers,

3 customer service managers, and sometimes as sales managers. These jobs generally do not

4 lead to any further movement upward in the company. Nor do they lead to lateral

5 movement that might allow movement upwards. Very few women working as office

6 managers, customer service managers, or sales managers are moved into jobs as production

7 supervisors, production managers, or service sales managers, that might lead to higher-

8 paying management jobs.

9

96. Minorities and women are heavily represented among production workers. They

10 are logical candidates for possible promotion to supervisory-level positions in production,

11 such as stock room manager and production supervisor. But because Cintas usually fills

12 those jobs with employees hired from outside the company, very few minorities and women

13 are promoted to fill these positions.

14

97. Within management, employees are selected for promotion without any

15 requirement that a group of employees be considered as possible candidates and selected

16 based on their performance. For instance, plaintiff Robert Ramirez worked in Las Vegas as

17 a driver and production supervisor. While he worked as a production supervisor, the

18 company filled the service sales manager and production manager jobs at his facility with

19 white employees who were new to the company or had less seniority, without even talking

20 to him about the jobs or asking if he was interested.

21
DRIVER POSITIONS AND ROUTE ASSIGNMENTS 22

23

98. In filling driver jobs, Cintas discriminates against minority and female applicants

24 by preferring white, male applicants and employees to fill those jobs. Those minorities who

25 are employed as drivers are assigned disproportionately to less desirable, lower-paying

26 routes.

27

99. As part of the hiring process, applicants for driver jobs are taken for a one-day

28 "ride-along" with a current driver. The driver in many cases can effectively veto the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 22 of 29

1 candidate. In a company where almost all drivers are white men, this veto power is likely

2 to act as a barrier to hiring minorities and women as drivers.

3

100. Among drivers, there is no fair, clear, objective system for assignment of

4 drivers to routes. In many companies with driving jobs, routes are posted and drivers can

5 bid on them by seniority. Cintas does not have such a system, or any system that ensures

6 that routes are assigned based on objective criteria. Again, this provides an opportunity for

7 biased decisionmaking. Minority drivers disproportionately get less-preferable, lower-

8 paying routes as a consequence.

9

101. Cintas' supervisors, managers, and top management believe, follow, and foster

10 the stereotypical view that it is important and valuable to the company to have drivers who

11 "look like the customer" and that Cintas' customers -- particularly its biggest and most

12 important customers -- prefer to be served by white drivers. Acting on this view restricts

13 the opportunities for minorities to be hired, assigned, and promoted to driver jobs.

14

102. Cintas' supervisors, managers, and top management believe, follow, and foster

15 the stereotypical view that minority drivers should be assigned mainly to routes in

16 predominantly Latino, African-American, and minority areas, with predominantly minority

17 customers. Acting on this view (a) restricts the opportunities for minorities to be hired,

18 assigned, and promoted to driver jobs; and (b) results in minority drivers being assigned

19 disproportionately to facilities services (FS) routes and other routes that provide lower

20 earnings and less opportunity for advancement and promotion.

21

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

22

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981

23
103. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations 24
set forth in ¶¶1-102, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 25
104. Defendant's discrimination against plaintiffs Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, 26
Robert Harris, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle 27
Thompson, and Coretta Vick, and the class they represent, is in violation of the rights of 28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 23 of 29

1 plaintiffs and the class afforded them by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as

2 amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

3

105. By the conduct described above, defendant Cintas intentionally deprived

4 plaintiffs of the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens to the performance, and

5 enjoyment of all benefits and privileges, of their contractual relationship with Cintas, in

6 violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

7

106. As a result of this discrimination, plaintiffs and the class they represent have

8 suffered periods of unemployment, have been damaged financially, and have been denied

9 substantial employment opportunities and benefits.

107. As a further consequence of

10 defendant's actions, plaintiffs Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis Pocasangre

11 Cardoza, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, and Coretta Vick, and the

12 members of the class have suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss

13 of enjoyment of life.

14

108. In taking the actions described above, defendant Cintas acted with malice or

15 with reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiffs Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert

16 Harris, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson,

17 and Coretta Vick and the class they represent.

18

109. Plaintiffs individually and the class they represent have no plain, adequate, or

19 complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit for permanent

20 injunctive relief is the only means for securing adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the plaintiff

21 class are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from the defendant's

22 policies, practices, and customs, as described in this complaint.

23

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 24

(a) issue a declaratory judgment finding that defendant Cintas has

25

discriminated against minority applicants and employees in the terms

and conditions of their employment, including recruitment, hiring, job

26

assignments, transfers, promotions, pay, the requirements imposed for

movement into better-paying jobs, discipline, terminations, and

27

transfers in lieu of termination;

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 24 of 29

1

(b) grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant Cintas, its officers,

agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert

2

or participation with them from engaging in discrimination in

recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, pay, the

3

requirements imposed for movement into better-paying jobs, discipline,

terminations, transfers in lieu of termination, and other terms and

4

conditions of employment because of race or national origin;

5

(c) order defendant Cintas to institute, adopt, and carry out policies and

practices which provide equal employment opportunities for minority

6

applicants and employees;

7

(d) order defendant Cintas to make whole those persons adversely affected

by the unlawful employment practices described herein, including Robin

8

Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza,

Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, and Coretta

9

Vick, by providing appropriate backpay for lost wages and benefits in

an amount to be proven at trial; by hiring or reinstating plaintiffs and

10

class members who have been adversely affected by defendant's

discriminatory practices and providing them the seniority, rate of pay,

11

and benefits they would have received but for defendant's

discrimination, and by providing other affirmative relief necessary to

12

eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful employment practices;

13

(e) order defendant Cintas to pay to plaintiffs and members of the class

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 14

(f) order defendant Cintas to pay to plaintiffs and members of the class

15

punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

16

(g) order defendant to pay to the named plaintiffs and the class they

represent their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of this

17

action;

18

(h) order defendant Cintas to pay prejudgment and post-judgment interest at

the maximum rate of interest provided by law; 19

(i) retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Court is assured

20

that the defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and 21

(j) grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just. 22

23

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Business and

24

Professions Code/Unfair Business Practice

25
110. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations 26
set forth in ¶¶1-102, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 25 of 29

1

111. At all times relevant hereto, the provisions of California Business and

2 Professions Code §§17200 et seq. were in full force and effect.

3

112. The Unfair Business Practices Act ("UBPA"), California Business and

4 Professions Code §17200 et seq., prohibits "unfair competition." Under the UBPA, "unfair

5 competition" is defined as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice...."

6

113. The California Supreme Court held in Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court

7 (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, at 383:

8

The legislature intended this "sweeping language" to include "anything that can

properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by

9

law." Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 (1992)

(quoting Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass'n, 7 Cal.3d 94, 111-112 (1972)). 10

114. Under the UBPA any member of the public may sue for relief for unfair 11

business practices. See Business and Professions ("B&P") Code §17204. A showing of 12

individual harm or personal damage is not required. 13

A plaintiff suing under [B&P] section 17200 does not have to prove he or she

14

was directly harmed by the defendant's business practices. An action may be

brought by any "person, corporation or association or by any person acting for

15

the interests of itself, its members or the general public."

16 Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.

17

It is not necessary that the predicate law provide for private civil enforcement.

(Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284,

18

1299, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20). As our Supreme Court put it, section 17200

"borrows" violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices

19

independently actionable under section 17200, et seq. (Farmers Ins. Exchange

v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 826 P.2d

20

730).

21 Saunders v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th at 838-39. Even a person who has suffered no

22 individual damages may bring suit.

23

[C]ourts have repeatedly permitted persons not personally aggrieved to bring

suit for injunctive relief under...[section 17200] on behalf of the general

24

public, in order to enforce other statutes under which such parties would

otherwise lack standing. 25

Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. v. Fisher Development, Inc. (1989) 208 26

Cal.App.3d 1433, 1440. 27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 26 of 29

1

115. Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza is a resident of California and was employed

2 by defendant Cintas in California.

3

116. The named plaintiffs bring this case as a representative action on behalf of

4 themselves, on behalf of women and minorities who have worked for Cintas in California or

5 who applied for work at Cintas in California, and on behalf of the general public pursuant to

6 §17204 of the California Business and Professions Code.

7

117. Plaintiffs seek relief under the UBPA only for people who have been employed

8 by Cintas in California or who applied for work in California.

9

118. Plaintiffs do not seek to represent or include in the class employees or

10 applicants for employment in positions: (a) in manufacturing facilities; (b) in corporate

11 headquarters in Cincinnati; (c) outside the rental, sales, and distribution facilities, in the

12 finance, accounting, manufacturing, logistics, research and development, and information

13 systems departments; (d) as general manager, branch manager, company vice president or at

14 a level above vice president; (e) as lawyers or other positions in the company's legal

15 department.

16

119. The limitations period under the UBPA is four years. B&P §17208.

17 Accordingly, plaintiffs seek relief for the period going back four years before this complaint

18 was filed and continuing during the period after the complaint was filed.

19

120. Plaintiffs' cause of action under the UBPA, in Count II of this complaint, is

20 predicated on violation of a number of laws, as described below. Plaintiffs do not seek

21 relief pursuant to the provisions of these laws themselves. Rather, plaintiffs seek relief

22 pursuant to the UBPA, because defendant's violation of those laws is an unfair business

23 practice, as that term is defined in the UBPA.

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

26

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 27 of 29

1

Violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

2
121. Plaintiffs' cause of action under the UBPA is predicated, first, on violation of 3
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil 4
Rights Act of 1991. 5
122. Defendant Cintas is an "employer" as that term is used in Title VII of the 1964 6
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. 7

8

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981

9
123. Plaintiffs' cause of action under the UBPA also is predicated on violation of the 10
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 11

12

Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act

13
124. Plaintiffs' cause of action under the UBPA also is predicated on violation of the 14
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12940 et seq. 15
125. Defendant Cintas is an "employer" as that term is used in the California Fair 16
Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12940 et seq. 17

18

Violation of the California Constitution

19
126. Plaintiffs' cause of action under the UBPA also is predicated on violation of the 20
California Constitution, Article I, §8. 21
127. The unlawful and unfair acts described herein present a continuing threat to the 22
general public which cannot be adequately remedied at law. Plaintiffs are informed and 23
believe that such conduct will continue unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to §17203 of 24
the Business and Professions Code. 25
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for restitution and injunctive relief as set forth below. 26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 28 of 29

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant Cintas as follows: 3

(a) issue a declaratory judgment finding that defendant Cintas has

4

discriminated against minority and female applicants and employees in

California in the terms and conditions of their employment, including

5

recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, pay, the

requirements imposed for movement into better-paying jobs, discipline,

6

terminations, and transfers in lieu of termination;

7

(b) grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant Cintas, its officers,

agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert

8

or participation with them from engaging in discrimination in California

in recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, pay, the

9

requirements imposed for movement into better-paying jobs, discipline,

terminations, transfers in lieu of termination, and other terms and

10

conditions of employment because of sex, race, or national origin;

11

(c) order defendant Cintas to institute, adopt, and carry out policies and

practices which provide equal employment opportunities for minority

12

and female applicants and employees in California;

13

(d) order defendant Cintas to pay restitution to make whole those persons

adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described

14

herein, including Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis

Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle

15

Thompson, and Coretta Vick, by providing appropriate backpay for lost

wages and benefits, in an amount to be proven at trial; by hiring or

16

resinstating plaintiffs and people the represent who have been adversely

affected by defendant's discriminatory practices and providing them the

17

seniority, rate of pay, and benefits they would have received but for

defendant's discrimination;, and by providing other affirmative relief

18

necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful employment

practices; 19

(e) order defendant to pay to the named plaintiffs and their attorneys their

20

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of this action,

pursuant to applicable law, including without limitation California Code

21

of Civil Procedure §1021.5;

22

(f) order defendant Cintas to pay prejudgment and post- judgment interest

at the maximum rate of interest provided by law; 23

(g) retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Court is assured

24

that the defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and 25

(h) grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just. 26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 29 of 29

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial. 3
Respectfully submitted, 4

5

/s/ Paul Strauss

6

Paul Strauss

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8 Miner, Barnhill & Galland
14 W. Erie St. 9 Chicago, IL 60610
312-751-1170 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

29

No. C 04-00281 JSW

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 1 of 27

1 Paul Strauss, #153937 Robert S. Libman, #139283
2 Nancy Maldonado Miner, Barnhill & Galland
3 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610
4 (312) 751-1170 (telephone) (312) 751-0438 (telefax)
5 Morris J. Baller, #048928
6 Roberta L. Steele, #188198 Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian
7 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612
8 (510) 763-9800 (telephone) (510) 835-1417 (telefax)
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10

11

IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN BEASLEY, SANDRA EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS,
14 LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE
15 THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), BLANCA NELLY
16 AVALOS, and AMY SEVERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
17 similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

No. C 04-00281 JSW CLASS ACTION
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19

v.

20 CINTAS CORPORATION,

21

Defendant.

Complaint filed January 20, 2004

22

23

Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis Pocasangre

24 Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, Coretta Silvers (formerly Vick), Amy Severson,

25 and Blanca Nelly Avalos, for themselves and all other persons similarly situated, complain of

26 defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas” or the “Company”) as follows.

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 2 of 27

1

NATURE OF THE CASE

2

1. This is an employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to the provisions of

3 the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991

4 (“Section 1981”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., as

5 amended (“Title VII”); the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code

6 §§12940, et seq. (“FEHA”); and the California Unfair Business Practices Act, Business and

7 Professions Code §17200 et seq., also known as the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Plaintiffs

8 allege that defendant Cintas has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a company-wide pattern 9 and practice of employment discrimination, both intentional and systemic, on the basis of race, 10 national origin, and sex, against themselves and a class of similarly situated African American,

11 Hispanic, and female employees, former employees, and applicants for employment as alleged in

12 this Complaint. Cintas’ discriminatory practices include, but are not limited to, discrimination in

13 recruitment, hiring, promotion, transfer, job assignment, and compensation, on a classwide basis

14 as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable monetary relief

15 from these practices; compensatory and punitive damages; equitable remedies of accounting, 16 restitution and disgorgement; and an award of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; all for 17 themselves individually and on behalf of the class or classes they seek to represent.

18

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

19

2. Jurisdiction. This Court has original jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claims

20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4). The Court has original jurisdiction of plaintiffs’

21 Title VII claims pursuant to those two provisions as well as 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). The Court

22 has supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ FEHA and UCL claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

23 3. Venue. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) and
24 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f)(3). Cintas is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District in that it
25 maintains facilities and business operations in this District, employs or employed plaintiff Luis
26 Pocasangre Cardoza and members of the class in this District, and committed some of the
27 discriminatory acts alleged herein in this District.
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-2-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 3 of 27

1

4. Intradistrict Assignment. Venue is proper in the San Francisco Division of this

2 Court pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) - (d) because a substantial part of the events which give rise

3 to the claims asserted in this Complaint occurred in Alameda County. In particular, Cintas

4 employed plaintiff Pocasangre Cardoza and employs, employed, or rejected employment

5 applications of, other class members in its facility in San Leandro, Alameda County, California,

6 and there committed acts of discrimination in employment as alleged in this complaint.

7

PARTIES

8

5. The named plaintiffs are current and former employees, or rejected applicants for

9 employment, of defendant Cintas.

10 6. Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza is a Hispanic male and a resident of Oakland,
11 California, within this District. He was born in El Salvador. Mr. Pocasangre Cardoza worked for
12 Cintas as a loader at its San Leandro, California facility in 2003. In or about July 2003, Cintas
13 discriminatorily refused to hire and then promote plaintiff Pocasangre Cardoza to a driver
14 position at that facility, because of his race and national origin. Mr. Pocasangre Cardoza resigned
15 on or about August 6, 2003 as a result of the discrimination. On or about November 18, 2003,
16 plaintiff Pocasangre Cardoza filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal
17 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On or about June 9, 2004, the EEOC issued
18 him a notice of Right to Sue on that Charge. Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached to this
19 complaint as Exhibits 1A and 1B, respectively.
20

21

7. Plaintiff Robert Ramirez is a Hispanic male and a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada.

22 He was born in Mexico. Mr. Ramirez worked for Cintas in its Las Vegas, Nevada facility as a

23 driver and production supervisor from on or about July 6, 1992 until his termination in or about

24 July 2003. Because of his race and national origin, Cintas reduced Mr. Ramirez’s pay in 2000,

25 denied him pay raises and promotions between 2002 and 2003, and ultimately terminated him in

26 or about July 2003. On or about November 18, 2003, plaintiff Ramirez filed a Charge of

27 Discrimination with the EEOC. On or about June 7, 2004, the EEOC issued Mr. Ramirez a

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-3-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 4 of 27

1 Notice of Right to Sue on his Charge. Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits

2 2A and 2B, respectively.

3 8. Plaintiff Robin Beasley is an African American female and a resident of Grand
4 Rapids, Michigan. Ms. Beasley was employed by Cintas from on or about September 20, 2002 to
5 July 7, 2003, at the Kentwood, Michigan facility, working in the stockroom. Ms. Beasley was
6 terminated by Cintas on or about July 7, 2003 because of her race. On or about November 18,
7 2003, plaintiff Beasley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. On or about June 9,
8 2004, the EEOC issued her a Notice of Right to Sue on her Charge. Copies of that Charge and
9 Notice are attached as Exhibits 3A and 3B, respectively.
10

11

9. Plaintiff Sandra Evans is an African American female and a resident of Brookside,

12 Pennsylvania. From on or about March 2002 to the present, Ms. Evans has worked for Cintas in

13 the stockroom at its Aston, Pennsylvania facility, applying emblems to uniforms. In or about

14 April 2002, Cintas hired a white employee to work in a comparable position in the stockroom and

15 paid her a higher hourly wage than plaintiff Evans. Cintas paid, and continues to pay, Ms. Evans

16 a lower hourly wage than the white coworker because of Ms. Evans’ race. On or about

17 November 17, 2003, plaintiff Evans filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. A copy of

18 that Charge is attached as Exhibit 4. Ms. Evans intends to request a Notice of Right to Sue

19 promptly after the EEOC has had time to investigate her Charge.

20 10. Plaintiff Robert Harris is an African American male and a resident of Rochester,
21 New York. He was employed by Cintas as a loader in its Rochester, New York facility from in or
22 about April or May 2003 to October 2003. Because of his race, Cintas refused to hire plaintiff
23 Harris as a driver in or about April or May 2003, refused to promote him to the position of driver
24 after hiring him as a loader, and terminated him on or about October 9, 2003. On or about
25 November 18, 2003, plaintiff Harris filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. On or
26 about May 21, 2004, the EEOC issued him a Notice of Right to Sue on his Charge. Copies of
27 that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits 5A and 5B, respectively.
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-4-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 5 of 27

1

11. Plaintiff Jose Salcedo is a Hispanic male and a resident of Freeport, New York.

2 He was born in the Dominican Republic. He was employed by Cintas at its Central Islip, New

3 York facility as a production supervisor from in or about November 1999 to October 2002.

4 Because of his race and national origin, Cintas denied plaintiff Salcedo promotion to the position

5 of plant manager in or about March 2002, reassigned him to a less desirable shift in or about June

6 2002 and terminated him on or about October 9, 2002.

7 12. Plaintiff A. Shappelle Thompson is an African American male and a resident of
8 Rochester, New York. He worked for Cintas as a driver at its Rochester, New York facility from
9 in or about April 2000 to January 2002. Because of his race, Cintas took away one of
10 Mr. Thompson’s better accounts in or around June 2001, reassigned him to an undesirable route
11 in or about November 2001, and terminated him in or about January 2002.
12

13

13. Plaintiff Coretta Silvers (formerly Vick) is an African American female and a

14 resident of Raleigh, North Carolina. She worked for Cintas in an accounts receivable position at

15 its Raleigh, North Carolina facility from approximately July 5, 2002 to approximately February 5,

16 2003. Because of her race, Cintas paid plaintiff Silvers less than a white co-worker with the same

17 position and job duties. On or about January 8, 2004, plaintiff Silvers (then Vick) filed a charge

18 of Discrimination with the EEOC. On or about June 28, 2004, the EEOC issued her a Notice of

19 Right to Sue on her Charge. Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits 6A and

20 6B, respectively.

21 14. Plaintiff Amy Severson is a female and a resident of Billings, Missouri. She
22 worked for Cintas as a service sales representative and catalog sales trainer at its Springfield,
23 Missouri facility from approximately April 19, 2001 to May 1, 2003. Because of her sex, Cintas
24 denied Ms. Severson training and administrative support and terminated her on or about May 1,
25 2003. From approximately April 2002 until the date of her termination, Ms. Severson was
26 deterred and discouraged from pursuing a promotion to the position of service manager because
27 of her sex. On or about November 18, 2003, plaintiff Severson filed a Charge of Discrimination
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-5-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 6 of 27

1 with the EEOC. On June 9, 2004, the EEOC issued her a Notice of Right to Sue on her Charge.

2 Copies of that Charge and Notice are attached as Exhibits 7A and 7B, respectively.

3 15. Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos is a Hispanic female and a resident of Panorama
4 City, California. She was born in Ecuador. Cintas refused to hire plaintiff Avalos as a driver at
5 its Van Nuys, California facility in or around early 2004 because of her sex and national origin.
6 On or about June 23, 2004, plaintiff Avalos filed a Charge of the Discrimination with the EEOC.
7 A copy of that Charge is attached as Exhibit 8. Plaintiff Avalos has requested that the EEOC
8 issue a Notice of Right to Sue on her Charge, which will be filed with the Court as soon as it is
9 received.
10

11

Defendant

12

16. Cintas is a national corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. For fiscal year

13 2003, Cintas reported $2.7 billion in sales and $249 million in profits.

14 17. Defendant Cintas’ major business involves renting uniforms, mats, and towels to
15 commercial enterprises. Cintas’ production workers clean, repair, hang and assemble the
16 uniforms and materials to be delivered to the customers. Drivers, also known as service sales
17 representatives (“SSRs”) deliver clean clothing, mats and towels to customers and pick up dirty
18 items from customers.
19

20

18. Defendant Cintas has more than 27,000 employees and operates approximately

21 344 rental facilities across the country in its Rental Division.

22 19. The employees in Cintas’ Rental Division rental facilities can be grouped into five
23 categories: (a) production, or laundry workers; (b) service department workers, including drivers,
24 or SSRs, and helpers; (c) sales employees; (d) office and human resource employees; and (e)
25 supervisors and managers.
26

27

20. Cintas operates under a nationwide business plan that is established at its

28 headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio and similarly implemented at each of its Rental Division

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-6-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 7 of 27

1 facilities throughout the country, which plan includes strategies and programs regarding methods

2 of operation and service systems.

3 21. Cintas has developed and continually reinforces a centralized corporate culture
4 that is implemented at each of its Rental Division facilities throughout the country. Cintas
5 regularly moves upper level managers from one Rental Division facility to another, and often
6 from one state to another. This practice is done in part to ensure that a uniform Cintas culture
7 operates consistently throughout all of its Rental Division facilities.
8

FACTS RELATING TO THE PATTERN OF INTENTIONAL AND

9

SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT CINTAS

10

22. Defendant Cintas’ employment practices and systems discriminate against African

11 American, Hispanic and female employees and applicants for employment, because of their race,

12 national origin and/or sex, in Rental Division facilities. The discriminatory practices engaged in

13 by Cintas’ Rental Division are intentional and systemic in nature, and adversely affect plaintiffs

14 and members of the class with respect to opportunities for hiring, promotion, transfer, job

15 assignment, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment, as specifically

16 summarized below.

17 23. According to Cintas 2003 Annual Report, Cintas’ upper level management, with
18 the exception of a few women, is comprised almost exclusively of white men. The homogenous
19 racial and gender composition of Cintas’ management at the highest levels is reflected in
20 management throughout the facilities in the Rental Division, which also is predominantly white
21 and male.
22

23

24. Upper level white male managers have communicated Cintas’ discriminatory

24 policies and practices in explicit terms to lower level managers who make personnel decisions.

25 For example, regional vice president John Milligan instructed managers at the Painesville, Ohio

26 facility to reduce the number of Hispanic workers, saying “knock off this Mexican crap.”

27

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-7-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 8 of 27

1

25. White male managers have echoed these biased sentiments. For example,

2 Painesville, Ohio general manger Al Kocsis directed his white managers and supervisors to hire

3 “people who look like you and me” because Hispanics “don’t share our values” and “don’t come

4 from the same culture.” Mr. Kocsis also derisively commented that the plant looked like a “little

5 Havana” and that the Hispanic employees were “stinking up the cafeteria” with the “kind of crap

6 they are eating in there.”

7 26. White male managers have also made racially and ethnically derogatory and
8 offensive comments and other statements evidencing their animus and bias against African
9 Americans and Hispanics. For example, Mike Palo, general manager of Cintas’ Irvington, New
10 Jersey facility, frequently referred to black employees as “niggers” and often stated that he was
11 “black from the waist down.” A sales service manager at Cintas’ Houston, Texas facility stated
12 that “it didn’t look good to have blacks and Hispanics on the trucks.” The plant manager at the
13 same facility stated that Hispanics didn’t have a “tidy appearance.” Brian Dudley, a service
14 training coordinator in Cintas’ Springfield, Missouri facility, said in a sales meeting that Cintas
15 facilities in Arkansas would not hire blacks because customers would not like it.
16

17

27. Similarly negative statements have been made about the employment of women

18 for SSR positions in Cintas’ Rental Division. Scott Thomas, a production supervisor in

19 Michigan, told a female employee who wanted to become a driver that the “job was too hard for

20 women.”

21 28. Senior Cintas officials, managers, and supervisors have made sexually derogatory
22 and offensive comments and other statements evidencing their animus and bias against women.
23 For example, Mike Palo, general manager of Cintas’ Irvington, New Jersey facility, frequently
24 referred to women as “sluts.”
25

26

27

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-8-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 9 of 27

1 A. Discrimination Against Hispanic Supervisors in Promotions, Transfers and Job

2

Assignments.

3 29. Management and supervisory jobs at the rental facilities include: general manager
4 or branch manager, production manager, service sales manager, production supervisor, sales
5 manager, and office manager.
6

7

30. Hispanic salaried supervisors are discriminated against in promotion or transfer to

8 these supervisory and managerial positions.

9 31. Through at least the end of 2003, Cintas did not post supervisory and managerial
10 positions available in its Rental Division. When Cintas filled open positions from its pool of
11 current employees, it typically used a “tap on the shoulder” method under which the
12 predominantly white male managers made subjective and biased decisions to fill supervisory and
13 managerial positions with non-Hispanic employees. Consequently, open supervisory and
14 managerial positions were unknown to Hispanic employees who were not given an opportunity to
15 apply and compete equally for these positions.
16

17

32. Hispanic salaried supervisors are discriminated against in the scope and extent of

18 their job assignments as a result of subjective and biased decisions made by predominantly white

19 male managers.

20 B.
21
22

Discrimination against Women, African Americans and Hispanics in Hiring to SSR Positions.

23

33. Drivers, also known as service sales representatives (“SSRs”), work in the service

24 department at Rental Division facilities. They deliver clean uniforms, mats, and towels to clients

25 and pick up dirty items, which they return to the facility for laundering. Drivers are the key

26 contacts for developing good relationships with Cintas’ customers. A critical part of their job

27 duties entails selling additional products and services to existing Cintas customers. Drivers are

28 the highest paid non-supervisory workers in the Rental Division.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

-9-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 10 of 27

1

34. African Americans, Hispanics and women are discriminated against in hiring to

2 SSR positions in Cintas’ Rental Division.

3 35. Cintas does not have uniform practices or objective standards or criteria for
4 making hiring decisions for SSR positions in its Rental Division. Cintas managers are free to
5 make those employment decisions based on their own subjective preferences rather than objective
6 criteria and individual qualifications. As a result of these practices, African Americans,
7 Hispanics and women are discriminated against in hiring for SSR positions in the Rental
8 Division.
9

10

36. African Americans and Hispanics are under-represented in the SSR position.

11 While the substantial majority of the production workers are African American and Hispanic,

12 those groups make up only a small fraction of SSRs. For example, on information and belief, in

13 or about July 2003, 80-90% of the production workers at Cintas’ Las Vegas, Nevada facility were

14 Hispanic, but of the 34 SSRs, at the facility, only one was Hispanic, one was African American,

15 one was Asian, and the balance were white.

16 37. Very few women are hired into or assigned to SSR jobs. On information and
17 belief, Cintas employs approximately 5,000 SSRs nationwide, of which only 5% or less are
18 female. Conversely, a substantial majority of the workers employed in production jobs in the
19 Rental Division facilities are female.
20

21

38. Helpers are assigned to work with some SSRs in the Rental Division. The helpers

22 ride the routes with the SSRs and assist with heavy lifting. The helpers are almost always men

23 and most often Hispanic or African American. Notwithstanding their qualifications for SSR

24 positions, helpers rarely are moved into SSR positions.

25 39. As part of the hiring process for SSR positions, applicants are taken for a day long
26 “ride along” with a current SSR. The SSRs who take applicants for a ride along, almost all of
27 whom are men, and most of whom are white, are often able to effectively veto the applicant’s
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-10-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 11 of 27

1 hire. On information and belief, SSRs are not given objective or standardized criteria to use in

2 evaluating the fitness of applicants for the job. Those SSRs often exercise that power against

3 minority and/or female applicants in a biased manner.

4 40. Cintas also may require applicants for SSRs positions to take a written test that
5 may have a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics.
6

7 C. Discrimination Against African Americans in SSR Positions in Route Assignments.

8 41. Route assignments to a large extent determine the commissions and bonuses SSRs
9 earn. Some routes are more lucrative than others. Industrial or garment routes involve the
10 delivery of uniforms, mats, and towels. Facilities services or bulk routes involve the delivery of
11 mats and towels only. Facilities services routes generate less income than do industrial routes.
12 Additionally, some routes are longer and/or further away from Cintas facilities, requiring the
13 SSRs to work longer hours without generating additional commission or bonus income.
14

15

42. Cintas does not have a system for distribution of routes to SSRs that is based on

16 objective criteria. Rather, routes are distributed in a biased manner by mostly white male

17 managers based on their own subjective decision-making. As a result, African American SSRs in

18 Cintas’ Rental Division are more likely to be assigned less lucrative routes, routes that require

19 more travel and longer hours, and routes that go through low income and minority

20 neighborhoods.

21 43. Cintas does not have a system for setting the commission rates for SSRs that is
22 based on objective criteria. Rather, commission rates are set in a biased manner by mostly white
23 male managers based on their own subjective decision-making. As a result, African American
24 SSRs are more likely to be given lower commission rates than white drivers.
25

26

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-11-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 12 of 27

1 D. Discrimination in Compensation Against African American Non-Exempt Employees in

2

Cintas’ Rental Division Facilities.

3 44. Cintas discriminates against non-exempt African American employees with regard
4 to pay in its Rental Division facilities.
5

6

45. African American non-exempt employees in the Rental Division are paid less than

7 similarly situated non-African American non-exempt employees for similar work and job

8 performance. The amount of compensation an employee receives is not determined by any

9 objective criteria or standards, but rather is determined by subjective, arbitrary and capricious

10 decision-making by Cintas’ nearly all white male managers in the Rental Division. This

11 subjective system results in African American non-exempt employees in the Rental Division

12 receiving less compensation than similarly situated white non-exempt employees.

13

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

14

46. Plaintiffs bring their claims under Section 1981, Title VII, and FEHA as a class

15 action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf

16 of themselves and all others similarly situated, as more specifically described below.

17 47. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class, of which they are members, consisting of:
18

19

a. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative

20

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

21 b. African Americans who were denied hiring to service sales
22 representative (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations
23 period;
24

25

c. Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales representative

26

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-12-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 13 of 27

1

d. African Americans who have held an SSR position in Cintas’

2

Rental Division during the limitations period and who have been subjected to

3

Cintas’ discriminatory practices with regard to SSR route assignments;

4 e. African Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Cintas’
5 Rental Division during the limitations period and who have been subjected to
6 Cintas’ discriminatory compensation practices; and
7

8

f. Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or

9

managers in Cintas’ Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch

10

Manager or equivalent) position during the limitations period who have been

11

subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory practices with regard to opportunities for

12

promotion out of those positions and the scope and extent of their job assignments.

13

As used in this paragraph, “promotion” includes transfer to another position that

14

would provide additional wages, benefits, better working conditions, or an

15

opportunity for career development, additional training, or experience that might

16

reasonably lead to future advancement.

17 48. Plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos seek to represent a subclass, of which
18 they are members, consisting of:
19

20

a. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative

21

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations

22

period; and

23 b. Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales representative
24 (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations
25 period.
26

27

49. The named plaintiffs as class representatives and subclass representatives, and the

28 class and subclass as defined above, meet each of the requirements of Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-13-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 14 of 27

1 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certification of this case as a class action, for

2 the reasons stated below.

3 50. Rule 23(a)(1) -- Numerosity. The exact number of members of the class and
4 subclass is not known at present, and will be determined through discovery. It is estimated that
5 there are hundreds or thousands of African Americans, hundreds or thousands of Hispanics, and
6 hundreds or thousands of women, who are class members or subclass members. In addition, the
7 class members are spread throughout the regions and states of the country, and are located in
8 dozens of separate facilities as employees and communities as potential employees. The class
9 and subclass are therefore so numerous and so situated that individual joinder of class members
10 and subclass members is impracticable.
11

12

51. Rule 23(a)(2) -- Commonality. There are numerous common questions of fact and

13 law in this action that relate to and affect the claims of relief sought by the class and subclass, as

14 well as the anticipated defenses thereto. These common questions include, without limitation, the

15 following:

16 a. Whether women, African Americans and Hispanics were denied
17 hiring to service sales representative (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division
18 during the limitations period because of their gender, race or national origin;
19

20

b. Whether African Americans who have held a service sales

21

representative (SSR) position in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations

22

period have been discriminated against in SSR route assignments because of their

23

race;

24 c. Whether African Americans who have held non-exempt positions
25 in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period have been discriminated
26 against in compensation because of their race;
27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-14-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 15 of 27

1

d. Whether Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors

2

or managers below a General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) position

3

in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period have been discriminated

4

against in opportunities for promotion out of those positions;

5 e. Whether Cintas has given decision-making authority in the above-
6 described personnel matters to managers who exercise uncontrolled, unsupervised
7 discretion that provides a ready means for discrimination, and whether that
8 authority is used to discriminate in decision-making;
9

10

f. Whether there is a pattern or class-wide practice in Cintas’ above-

11

described decision-making in personnel matters of intentional race and national

12

origin discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics, and of sex

13

discrimination against women;

14 g. Whether statistical analyses of the compensation of African
15 Americans in non-exempt positions, Hispanics in supervisory and managerial
16 positions, and African Americans, Hispanics and women into SSR positions show
17 adverse impact;
18

19

h. Whether the above-described policies and practices of Cintas’

20

Rental Division result in adverse impact against African Americans, Hispanics,

21

and/or women; and if so, whether they are job-related and consistent with business

22

necessity;

23 i. What relief is appropriate to remedy the claims of plaintiffs and the
24 class resulting from Cintas’ above-described discriminatory employment practices
25 pursuant to Title VII, FEHA and the UCL;
26

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-15-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 16 of 27

1

j. The appropriate standards for grant of injunctive relief, both

2

equitable and in the form of damages, to remedy Cintas’ above-described

3

discriminatory employment practices;

4 k. Whether, as a result of Cintas’ above-described discriminatory
5 practices, plaintiffs and the class suffered lost wages and other monetary damages;
6

7

l. Whether Cintas’ above-described discriminatory actions are

8

“intentional” within the meaning of authorities applying Section 1981 and 42

9

U.S.C. §1981a(a)(1); and

10 m. Whether Cintas acted with malice or reckless indifference by the
11 above-described discrimination against plaintiffs and the class and subclass in the
12 face of a perceived risk that its actions would violate their rights such that an
13 award of punitive damages to the class and subclass is appropriate; and, if so, how
14 such award should be determined and distributed to members of the class and
15 subclass.
16

17

52. Rule 23(a)(3) -- Typicality. The claims of the named plaintiffs, who are

18 representatives of the class and subclass, are typical of the claims of the class and subclass. The

19 named plaintiffs have been personally affected and discriminated against by the same practices

20 that plaintiffs allege in this complaint have harmed the class and subclass as a whole and other

21 class and subclass members individually.

22 53. Rule 23(a)(4) -- Adequacy. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
23 represent the interests of the class and subclass. There is no conflict between any named plaintiff
24 and other members of the class or subclass with respect to this action or the claims for relief set
25 forth in this complaint. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are experienced and competent in
26 representation of classes in employment discrimination actions, and they have and will devote
27 adequate staff and other resources to the case.
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-16-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 17 of 27

1

54. Rule 23(b)(2) -- Case Maintainable Under this Rule. This action is properly

2 maintained as a class action pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23 in that defendant Cintas has

3 acted or refused to act on grounds which are generally applicable to the class and subclass, in

4 particular race, national origin, and/or sex, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief and

5 corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole.

6 55. Rule 23(b)(3) -- Case Maintainable Under this Rule. This action is also properly
7 maintained as a class action pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of Rule 23, particularly with respect to
8 the claims of class and subclass members for damages. With respect to those claims, questions of
9 law and fact common to the members of the class and subclass predominate over questions
10 affecting only individual class and subclass members; and a class action is superior to other
11 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Individual class and
12 subclass members have minimal interest in individually maintaining or controlling separate
13 actions in this case; no other litigation has been commenced asserting the interests and claims
14 advanced in this case; interests of fairness, efficiency, and consistency of outcome will be served
15 by concentrating the litigation of the class and subclass members’ claims in this particular forum
16 and action; this case will be manageable as a class action, and far more easily manageable than
17 the multiplicity of individual actions in different jurisdictions that would result if this case is not
18 permitted to proceed as a class action.
19

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981

20

(ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC

PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS) 21

56. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations set

22

forth in paragraph 1 through 55, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

23

24

57. Defendant’s discrimination against Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris,

25 Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, Coretta

26 Silvers (formerly Vick), and Blanca Nelly Avalos, and the members of the class, is in violation of

27 the rights of plaintiffs and the class afforded them by the Civil Rights Act 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981,

28 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-17-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 18 of 27

1

58. By the conduct described above, defendant Cintas intentionally deprived the

2 above-named African American and Hispanic members of the class of the same rights as are

3 enjoyed by white citizens to the creation, performance, enjoyment, and all benefits and privileges,

4 of their contractual employment relationship with Cintas, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

5 59. As a result of defendant Cintas’ discrimination in violation of Section 1981, the
6 African American and Hispanic plaintiffs and members of the class have been denied
7 employment opportunities providing substantial compensation and benefits, thereby entitling
8 them to injunctive and equitable monetary relief; and have suffered anguish, humiliation, distress,
9 inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life because of Cintas’ actions, thereby entitling them to
10 compensatory damages.
11

12

60. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Cintas has acted with malice or

13 reckless indifference to the rights of the above-named African American and Hispanic plaintiffs

14 and class members, thereby entitling them to an award of punitive damages.

15 61. To remedy the violations of the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by Section
16 1981, plaintiffs request that the Court award them the relief prayed for below.
17

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

18

(ON BEHALF OF ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS)

19

62. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein the allegations of

20 paragraphs 1 through 61, inclusive, as set forth above.

21 63. Defendant’s discrimination against all of the plaintiffs and members of the class is
22 in violation of the rights secured to plaintiffs and the class by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
23 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
24

25

64. By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally violated the rights of

26 plaintiffs and members of the class under Title VII.

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-18-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 19 of 27

1

65. Defendant’s conduct also has had an adverse impact against plaintiffs and

2 members of the class, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity, and

3 therefore violates the rights of plaintiffs and members of the class under Title VII.

4 66. As a result of the violation of the Title VII rights of plaintiffs and the class, those
5 plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to equitable and injunctive relief, including
6 “rightful place” and “make whole” remedies and equitable monetary relief, to remedy and
7 compensate for the effects of defendant’s unlawful actions.
8

9

67. As a result of the defendant’s intentional violation of the Title VII rights of the

10 plaintiffs and the class, those plaintiffs and members of the class have suffered anguish,

11 humiliation, distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life, thereby entitling them to

12 compensatory damages.

13 68. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Cintas has acted with malice or
14 reckless indifference to the rights of the above-named African American, Hispanic, and female
15 plaintiffs and class members, thereby entitling them to an award of punitive damages.
16

17

69. To remedy the violation of the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by Title

18 VII, plaintiffs request that the Court award them the relief prayed for below.

19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

20

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS

WHO RESIDE(D), WORK(ED), OR APPLIED

21

FOR EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA)

22

70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein the allegations of

23 paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, as set forth above.

24 71. Defendant’s discrimination against plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos and
25 members of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or applied for
26 employment with Cintas in California, is in violation of the rights secured to plaintiffs and the
27 subclass by FEHA, California Government Code §§12940 et seq.
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-19-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 20 of 27

1

72. By the conduct described above, defendant intentionally violated the rights of

2 plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos and members of the subclass under FEHA.

3 73. Defendant’s conduct also has had an adverse impact on plaintiffs Pocasangre
4 Cardoza and Avalos and members of the subclass, and is neither job-related nor consistent with
5 business necessity, and therefore violates the rights of plaintiffs and members of the subclass
6 under FEHA.
7

8

74. As a result of the violation of the FEHA rights of the California plaintiffs and class

9 members who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or applied for employment

10 with Cintas in California, those plaintiffs and members of the subclass are entitled to equitable

11 and injunctive relief, including monetary relief, compensatory and punitive damages to remedy

12 and compensate for the effects of defendant’s unlawful actions and injuries caused by those

13 actions.

14 75. To remedy the violation of the rights of the California plaintiffs and class members
15 who reside(d) and/or work(ed) in California, and/or applied for employment with Cintas in
16 California, as secured by FEHA, plaintiffs request that the Court award them the relief prayed for
17 below.
18

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA

19

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE/UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS

20

WHO RESIDE(D), WORK(ED), OR APPLIED

FOR EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA) 21

76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein the allegations of

22

paragraphs 1 through 75, inclusive, as set forth above.

23

24

77. The UCL, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq., prohibits

25 “unfair competition.” Under the UCL, “unfair competition” is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or

26 fraudulent business act or practice. . . .” Violations of other statutes, including §1981, Title VII,

27 and FEHA, as alleged herein, which constitute unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices,

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-20-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 21 of 27

1 also violate the UCL and give rise to a claim for relief as specified in Business & Professions

2 Code §17203.

3 78. Plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos are residents of California and were
4 employed by or applied for an SSR position with defendant Cintas in California within the period
5 actionable under the UCL.
6

7

79. Plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos bring this case as a representative action

8 on behalf of themselves and on behalf of Hispanics and women who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for

9 Cintas in California, and/or who applied for service sales representative positions with Cintas in

10 California, and on behalf of the general public, pursuant to §17204 of the California Business and

11 Professions Code. Under this Cause of Action, plaintiffs seek relief under the UCL only for those

12 plaintiffs and members of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or

13 applied for employment in California.

14 80. To remedy the violation of the rights of the California plaintiffs and class members
15 who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California, and/or applied for employment with
16 Cintas in California as secured by the UCL, on behalf of themselves and the general public, and
17 in order to enforce California’s public policy and laws against employment discrimination and to
18 seek restitution and disgorgement of defendant’s ill-gotten gains secured in violation of law,
19 plaintiffs request that the Court award them the relief prayed for below.
20
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 21
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court grant relief on their First, Second, Third and 22
Fourth Causes of Action as specified below. 23
81. Plaintiffs pray that the Court assign the case for hearing(s) at the earliest 24
practicable date(s) and cause the case to be in every way expedited, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 25
§2000e-5(f)(5). 26

27

82. Plaintiffs pray that the Court certify a class defined as:

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-21-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 22 of 27

1

a. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative

2

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

3 b. African Americans who were denied hiring to service sales
4 representative (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations
5 period;
6

7

c. Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales representative

8

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division during the limitations period;

9 d. African Americans who have held an SSR position in Cintas’
10 Rental Division during the limitations period and who have been subjected to
11 Cintas’ discriminatory practices with regard to SSR route assignments;
12

13

e. African Americans who have held non-exempt positions in

14

Defendant’s Rental Division during the limitations period and who have been

15

subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory compensation practices; and

16 f. Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or
17 managers in Cintas’ Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch
18 Manager or equivalent) position during the limitations period and who have been
19 subjected to Cintas’ discriminatory practices with regard to opportunities for
20 promotion out of those positions and the scope and extent of their job assignments.
21 As used in this paragraph, “promotion” includes transfer to another position that
22 would provide additional wages, benefits, better working conditions, or an
23 opportunity for career development, additional training, or experience that might
24 reasonably lead to future advancement.
25

26 Plaintiffs further pray that the Court certify the named plaintiffs and their attorneys as

27 representatives of this class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

28 Procedure.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-22-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 23 of 27

1

83. Plaintiffs pray that the Court certify a subclass for purposes of relief on the Third

2 and Fourth Causes of Action defined as:

3 a. Women who were denied hiring to service sales representative
4 (SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations
5 period; and
6

7

b. Hispanics who were denied hiring to service sales representative

8

(SSR) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in California during the limitations

9

period

10 and certify the named plaintiffs Pocasangre Cardoza and Avalos and their attorneys as
11 representatives of this subclass, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
12 Civil Procedure.
13

14

84. Plaintiffs pray that the Court issue a declaratory judgment against defendant Cintas

15 finding that Cintas’ Rental Division has violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class and subclass

16 Section under 1981, Title VII, and the FEHA, by denying and depriving plaintiffs, the class, and

17 the subclass of equal employment opportunities on the basis of race, national origin, or sex, as

18 alleged in this complaint; and that the violations of Section 1981, Title VII, and FEHA rights as

19 specified above constitute unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of the

20 UCL.

21 85. Plaintiffs pray that the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction
22 pursuant to §1981, Title VII, FEHA, and the UCL, enjoining defendant Cintas, its officers,
23 agents, employees, and all others acting for or succeeding Cintas, from engaging in the
24 discriminatory employment practices alleged in this complaint that discriminate against plaintiffs,
25 the class, or the subclass in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, or FEHA, on the basis of race,
26 national origin, or sex.
27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-23-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 24 of 27

1

86. Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter a preliminary and permanent injunction

2 ordering and requiring that defendant Cintas formulate, institute, adopt and maintain policies and

3 practices which will provide equal employment opportunities to plaintiffs, the class, the subclass,

4 and future African American, Hispanic and female employees and applicants for employment,

5 and which will to the extent practicable remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination

6 against plaintiffs and the class and subclass, and restore them to the employment status and

7 position they would have held and enjoyed but for the unlawful discrimination complained of

8 herein.

9 87. Plaintiffs pray that the Court award monetary relief as follows:
10

11

a. On the First Cause of Action, order defendant to pay equitable

12

monetary relief, compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs and members of

13

the class on whose behalf claims are asserted under Section 1981 in that Cause of

14

Action, in an amount to be proved at trial;

15 b. On the Second Cause of Action, order defendant to pay equitable
16 monetary relief, compensatory and punitive damages within the limits of 42 U.S.C.
17 §1981a(a)(1) to plaintiffs and members of the class on the claims asserted under
18 Title VII in that Cause of Action, in an amount to be proved at trial;
19

20

c. On the Third Cause of Action, order defendant to pay equitable

21

monetary relief, compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs and class

22

members who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California and/or applied for

23

employment with Cintas in California on the claims asserted under the FEHA in

24

that Cause of Action, in an amount to be proved at trial; and

25 d. On the Fourth Cause of Action, order defendant to make restitution
26 to the plaintiffs and members of the public who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for
27 Cintas in California and/or applied for employment with Cintas in California and
28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-24-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 25 of 27

1

who were adversely treated and/or affected by Cintas’ discriminatory practices,

2

and who were deprived of wages, compensation, fringe benefits, or other monetary

3

benefits as a result of Cintas’ violations of law for which the UCL provides such

4

remedies; and to disgorge profits or ill-gotten gains obtained by Cintas from its

5

practices which violate §1981, Title VII, or the FEHA as alleged therein, in an

6

amount to be proved at trial.

7 88. Plaintiffs pray that the Court award them their costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees,
8 payable by defendant Cintas, as follows:
9

10

a. By determining that plaintiffs are prevailing parties on the First,

11

Second, and Third Causes of Action, and thereupon awarding plaintiffs their

12

reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action,

13

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 on the First Cause of Action, §1988 and 42 U.S.C.

14

§2000e-5(k) on the Second Cause of Action, and Government Code §12965(b) on

15

the Third Cause of Action.

16 b. By awarding plaintiffs their reasonable costs, expenses, and
17 attorneys’ fees on their Fourth Cause of Action based on their creation of a
18 common fund to the benefit of the class, and pursuant to California Civil Code
19 §1021.5 for the benefits, including monetary relief, obtained on behalf of plaintiffs
20 and members of the class who reside(d) and/or work(ed) for Cintas in California
21 and/or applied for employment with Cintas in California, and the general public of
22 California, and for serving as “private attorneys general” in acting to enforce the
23 public policy, interest and law of the State of California.
24

25

89. Plaintiffs pray that the Court order Cintas to pay pre- and post-judgment interest in

26 all monetary amounts awarded in this action, as provided by law.

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-25-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 26 of 27

1

90. Plaintiffs pray that the Court retain jurisdiction of this case for a sufficient period

2 of time to assure that defendant Cintas has fully complied with the preliminary and permanent

3 injunctions requested herein and has remedied to the greatest extent practicable the discriminatory

4 policies and practices complained of herein, and that Cintas is operating in full compliance with

5 the requirements of §1981, Title VII, the FEHA and the UCL with regard to its employment

6 policies and practices.

7 91. Plaintiffs pray that the Court award such other and further relief as this Court
8 deems equitable and just.
9

Dated: October 28, 2004 10

Respectfully submitted,

11

/s/ Paul Strauss

Paul Strauss, #153937

12

Robert S. Libman, #139283

13

Nancy Maldonado

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND

14

14 W. Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60610

15

(312) 751-1170 (telephone)

(312) 751-0438 (telefax) 16

17

Morris J. Baller, #048928

Roberta L. Steele, #188198

18

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN &

DARDARIAN

19

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

20

Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 (telephone)

21

(510) 835-1417 (telefax)

22

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

23

24

25

26

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-26-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 39 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 27 of 27

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 On behalf of themselves and the class and subclass, plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all claims

3 stated in this complaint on which they are entitled to a jury trial.

4

Dated: October 28, 2004 5

Respectfully submitted,

6

/s/ Paul Strauss

7

Paul Strauss, #153937

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-27-

No. C 04-00281 JSW

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 1 of 6

1 ROBERT D. UNITAS (MA) ERICA D. WHITE-DUNSTON (MD)
2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
4 Telephone: (202) 663-4768 FAX: (202) 663-4196
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10

11 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et. al.

)

12

Plaintiff, and

) )

13 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

) )

14 COMMISSION,

) )

15

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

) )

16

v.

) )

17 CINTAS CORPORATION,

) )

18

Defendant.

) )

19

) __________________________________________)

Case No. C04-0281-JSW COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION JURY TRIAL DEMAND

20

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

23 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

24 appropriate relief to Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and other women who have been adversely

25 affected by those practices. As alleged with more particularity below, Defendant Cintas

26 Corporation (Defendant) refused to recruit and hire and otherwise discriminated against women

27

28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 2 of 6

1 nationwide as Drivers/Service Sales Representatives because of their sex, in violation of Title

2 VII. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) intervention is limited to the

3 issue of Defendant’s refusal to recruit and hire women as Drivers/Service Sales Representatives,

4 and it covers Defendant’s practices nationwide except its facilities within the state of Michigan.

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

7 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 705(g)(6)

8 and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

9 2000e-4 and -5(f)(1) and (3) (Title VII).

10

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

11 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and

12 nationwide.

13

PARTIES

14

3. Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos is described in Plaintiff’s Second Amended

15 Complaint, incorporated herein by this reference. The class she seeks to represent with respect to

16 her Title VII claims is also described in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

17

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the

18 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

19 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 705(g)(6)

20 and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 and -5(f)(1) and (3).

21

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Cintas Corporation has been a corporation

22 that continuously has been doing business in the State of California and continuously has had at

23 least 15 employees.

24

6. At all relevant times, Defendant continuously has been an employer

25 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

26 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

27

28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

2

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 3 of 6

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

7. All conditions precedent to this intervention have been fulfilled. Attached

3 as Appendix A is a certification that this case is of general public importance.

4

8. Since at least August, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful

5 employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

6 Defendant has denied employment to Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and a class of women

7 applicants nationwide by refusing to recruit and hire them as Drivers/Service Sales

8 Representatives because of their sex. This suit excludes Defendant’s facilities within the state of

9 Michigan.

10

9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above and in

11 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint has been to deprive Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

12 class of women she seeks to represent of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

13 adversely affect their status as applicants because of their sex.

14

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above

15 and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are and were intentional.

16

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above

17 and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are and were done with malice or reckless

18 indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the class of

19 women she seeks to represent.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

3

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 4 of 6

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Wherefore, EEOC respectfully requests that this Court:

3

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,

4 assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in the unlawful

5 conduct alleged above and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex.

6

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

7 programs that provide equal employment opportunities for women and eradicate the effects of its

8 past and present unlawful employment practices.

9

C. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

10 class of women she represents by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in

11 amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

12 its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring.

13

D. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

14 class of women she represents by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses

15 resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above and in

16 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, in amounts to be determined at trial.

17

E. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

18 class of women she represents by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary

19 losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above and in

20 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, including compensation for emotional pain, suffering,

21 inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

22

F. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the class of

23 women she represents punitive damages for Defendant’s malicious and reckless conduct as

24 described above and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, in amounts to be determined at

25 trial.

26

27

28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

4

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 5 of 6

1

G. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

2 class of women she represents by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

3 effects of their unlawful practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring or,

4 alternatively, front pay.

5

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

6 public interest.

7

I. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

8

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

9

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

10

Respectfully submitted,

11

ERIC S. DREIBAND

12

General Counsel

13

JAMES L. LEE

Deputy General Counsel

14

PHILIP B. SKLOVER

15

Associate General Counsel

Systemic Litigation Services

16

BARBARA DOUGHERTY

17

Assistant General Counsel

SLS

18

19

__________________________

ROBERT D. UNITAS

20

Senior Trial Attorney

SLS

21

___________________________

22

ERICA D. WHITE-DUNSTON

Trial Attorney

23

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

24

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street N.W.

25

Washington, D.C. 20507

(202) 663-4768 OFFICE

26

(202) 663-4196 FAX

27

28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

5

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 89 Filed 04/27/2005 Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

6

Complaint-In-Intervention

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5

1 ROBERT D. UNITAS (MA) KENNETH J. KRYVORUKA (DC, OH)
2 ERICA D. WHITE-DUNSTON (DC, MD) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION 1801 L Street N.W.
4 Washington, D.C. 20507 Telephone: (202) 663-4768
5 FAX: (202) 663-4196 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

12 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et. al.

) )

13

Plaintiff, and

) )

14

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

15

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

) )

16

v.

) )

17 CINTAS CORPORATION,

) )

18

Defendant.

) )

19

) )

20 __________________________________________)

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

23 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

24 appropriate relief to Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and other women who have been adversely

25 affected by those practices. As alleged with more particularity below, Defendant Cintas

26

27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Amended Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 2 of 5

1 Corporation (Defendant) refused to recruit and hire and otherwise discriminated against women

2 nationwide as Drivers/Service Sales Representatives because of their sex, in violation of Title

3 VII. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) intervention is limited to the

4 issue of Defendant’s refusal to recruit and hire women as Drivers/Service Sales Representatives,

5 and it covers Defendant’s practices nationwide.

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

8 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 705(g)(6)

9 and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

10 2000e-4 and -5(f)(1) and (3) (Title VII).

11

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

12 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and

13 nationwide.

14

PARTIES

15

3. Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos is described in Plaintiff’s Second Amended

16 Complaint, incorporated herein by this reference. The class she seeks to represent with respect to

17 her Title VII claims is also described in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

18

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the

19 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

20 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 705(g)(6)

21 and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 and -5(f)(1) and (3).

22

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Cintas Corporation has been a corporation

23 that continuously has been doing business in the State of California and continuously has had at

24 least 15 employees.

25

26

27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Amended

2

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 3 of 5

1

6. At all relevant times, Defendant continuously has been an employer

2 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

3 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

4

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

5

7. All conditions precedent to this intervention have been fulfilled. Attached

6 as Appendix A is a certification that this case is of general public importance.

7

8. Since at least August, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful

8 employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

9 Defendant has denied employment to Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and a class of women

10 applicants nationwide by refusing to recruit and hire them as Drivers/Service Sales

11 Representatives because of their sex.

12

9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above and in

13 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint has been to deprive Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

14 class of women she seeks to represent of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

15 adversely affect their status as applicants because of their sex.

16

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above

17 and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are and were intentional.

18

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above

19 and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are and were done with malice or reckless

20 indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the class of

21 women she seeks to represent.

22

23

24

25

26

27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Amended

3

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 4 of 5

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Wherefore, EEOC respectfully requests that this Court:

3

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,

4 assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in the unlawful

5 conduct alleged above and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex.

6

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

7 programs that provide equal employment opportunities for women and eradicate the effects of its

8 past and present unlawful employment practices.

9

C. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

10 class of women she represents by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in

11 amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

12 its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring.

13

D. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

14 class of women she represents by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses

15 resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above and in

16 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, in amounts to be determined at trial.

17

E. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

18 class of women she represents by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary

19 losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above and in

20 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, including compensation for emotional pain, suffering,

21 inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

22

F. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the class of

23 women she represents punitive damages for Defendant’s malicious and reckless conduct as

24 described above and in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, in amounts to be determined at

25 trial.

26

27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Amended

4

Complaint-In-Intervention

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 5 of 5

1

G. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos and the

2 class of women she represents by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

3 effects of their unlawful practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring or,

4 alternatively, front pay.

5

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

6 public interest.

7

I. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

8

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

9

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

10

Respectfully submitted,

11

JAMES L. LEE

12

Deputy General Counsel

13

PHILIP B. SKLOVER

Associate General Counsel

14

Systemic Litigation Services

15

BARBARA DOUGHERTY

Assistant General Counsel

16

SLS

17

/S/

__________________________

18

ROBERT D. UNITAS

Senior Trial Attorney

19

/S/

20

___________________________

ERICA D. WHITE-DUNSTON

21

Trial Attorney

22

KENNETH J. KRYVORUKA

Senior Trial Attorney

23

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

24

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street N.W.

25

Washington, D.C. 20507

(202) 663-4768 OFFICE

26

(202) 663-4196 FAX

27 28 Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Amended

5

Complaint-In-Intervention

 
 CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee11ooff88

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472) markatkinson@paulhastings.com
2 ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com
3 JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
4 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
6 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

7 Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION
8 Plaintiffs’ Counsel Listed on Next Page
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT
14 HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A.
15 SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly
16 VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN
17 and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
18 situated,

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21 CINTAS CORPORATION,

22

Defendant.

23

24 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 25 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

26

Plaintiff/Intervenor.

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND
[PROPOSED ORDER]

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee22ooff88

1 MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928)

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198)

2 NINA RABIN (SB# 229403)

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

3

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

4 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-9800

5 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417

6 PAUL STRAUSS (SB# 153937) ROBERT S. LIBMAN (SB# 139283)
7 NANCY MALDONADO MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND
8 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610
9 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 Facsimile: (312) 751-0438
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND
[PROPOSED ORDER]

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee33ooff88

1

RECITALS

2

3

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2005, Plaintiff Sandra Evans (“Evans”) filed her

4 Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims on behalf of herself and as a

5 putative class representative for certain present and former employees of Defendant

6 Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”);

7

8

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Evans individually asserted claims under the Civil

9 Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991

10 (“Section 1981”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.,

11 as amended (“Title VII”); the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California

12 Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”) and the California Unfair Business

13 Practices Act, Business and Professions Code §17200 (“UCL”), specifically contending

14 that Cintas paid and continues to pay Evans a lower hourly rate than white coworkers

15 because of her race (black) (FAC ¶ 8);

16

17

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Evans sought to assert claims as a class

18 representative for African American non-exempt employees in Cintas’ Rental Division

19 who allegedly were and are paid less than similarly situated non-African American

20 employees in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and the UCL (FAC ¶¶ 45-46,

21 48(e));

22

23

WHEREAS, Evans intends to dismiss her claims and thus is not an adequate

24 class representative for any form of relief sought on behalf of the putative class described

25 in paragraph 48(e) of the FAC;

26

27

WHEREAS, Evans has agreed to withdraw as a class representative and

28 dismiss her individual and class claims with prejudice against Cintas in exchange for

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-3-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee44ooff88

1 Cintas’ waiver of its right to recover costs against Evans pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

2 Procedure 54(d);

3

4

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include

5 any attorneys’ fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Evans’ individual claims (or

6 the class claims Evans has asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent

7 the putative class described in paragraph 48(e) of the FAC), should they later apply for an

8 award of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’

9 counsel apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude

10 them from asserting that some portion of the time spent on the class claims asserted by

11 Evans should be allocated to another claim on which plaintiffs prevailed; and nothing in

12 this stipulation will preclude defendant from asserting any legal arguments in opposition

13 to such an allocation; and

14

15

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, notwithstanding the stipulated

16 dismissal of Evans’ claims, if a class of Cintas employees is certified and Evans falls

17 within the definition of any such class, Evans may participate and receive any benefit to

18 which she would be entitled as a member of the class, if any.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-4-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee55ooff88

1

STIPULATION

2

3

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY

4 STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

5

6

1. Plaintiff Sandra Evans withdraws as the named, representative

7 plaintiff and dismisses with prejudice her class claims for the putative class of African

8 American non-exempt employees in Cintas’ Rental Division who contend they were paid

9 less than similarly situated non-African American employees in violation of Section 1981,

10 Title VII, FEHA and the UCL;

11

12

2. Plaintiff Sandra Evans dismisses with prejudice her individual claims

13 for discriminatory pay in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and the UCL;

14

15

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include any attorneys’ fees or costs

16 incurred as part of maintaining Evans’ individual claims (or the class claims Evans has

17 asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent the putative class

18 described in paragraph 48(e) of the FAC), should they later apply for an award of

19 attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel

20 apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude them

21 from asserting that some portion of the time spent on the class claims asserted by Evans

22 should be allocated to another claim on which plaintiffs prevailed; and nothing in this

23 stipulation will preclude defendant from asserting any legal arguments in opposition to

24 such an allocation; and

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-5-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee66ooff88

1

4. Cintas waives its right to recover costs against Plaintiff Sandra Evans

2 after the dismissal of her individual and putative class claims as permitted by Federal Rule

3 of Civil Procedure 43(d).

4

5 DATED: December 7, 2005 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Respectfully submitted,

By:

/s/ Paul Strauss

PAUL STRAUSS

Paul Strauss Robert S. Libman Nancy Maldonado MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 751-1170 Fax: (312) 751-0438

Morris J. Baller Roberta L. Steele Nina Rabin GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417

Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, et al.

19 DATED: December 7, 2005

20

By: /s/ Nancy L. Abell

NANCY L. ABELL

21

Nancy L. Abell

22

Mark W. Atkinson

Elena R. Baca

23

Heather A. Morgan

Joseph W. Deng

24

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor

25

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228

Phone: (213) 683-6000

26

Fax: (213) 627-0705

27

Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-6-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee77ooff88

1

ORDER

2

3

BASED ON THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE

4 APPEARING THEREFORE, this Court finds that Plaintiff Sandra Evans is not an

5 adequate class representative and may not represent the alleged class of African American

6 non-exempt employees in Cintas’ Rental Division who contend they were paid less than

7 similarly situated non-African American employees in violation of Section 1981, Title

VII, FEHA and the UCL, as set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint at paragraphs 458

46 and 48(e); on this basis the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Sandra 9

Evans’ claims on behalf of this alleged class. 10

11

12

This Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Sandra Evans’

13 individual claims that Cintas has violated Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and the UCL by

14 paying Evans less because of her race (black) than white coworkers.

15 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to recover any
16 amount in attorneys’ fees and costs attributable to pursuing Evans’ individual claims
17 18 herein (or the class claims Evans has asserted if there is no adequate class representative 19 to represent the putative class described in paragraph 48(e) of the FAC).

20

21

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include

22 any attorneys’ fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Evans’ individual claims (or

the class claims Evans has asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent 23

the putative class described in paragraph 48(e) of the FAC), should they later apply for an 24

award of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. 25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-7-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118802-1 FFilieledd1122/0/087/2/2000055 PPaaggee88ooff88

1

Finally, the Court finds that Cintas may not recover costs against Plaintiff

2 Sandra Evans as it would be otherwise permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3 43(d).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 DATED: D__e_c_e_m_b_e_r_8___, 2005
7 8

______ HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 52914231.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-8-

PLAINTIFF SANDRA EVANS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 
 CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee11ooff88

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472) markatkinson@paulhastings.com
2 ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com
3 JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
4 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
6 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

7 Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION
8 Plaintiffs’ Counsel Listed on Next Page
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT
14 HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A.
15 SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly
16 VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN
17 and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
18 situated,

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21 CINTAS CORPORATION,

22

Defendant.

23

24 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 25 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

26

Plaintiff/Intervenor.

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee22ooff88

1 MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928)

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198)

2 NINA RABIN (SB# 229403)

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

3

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

4 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-9800

5 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417

6 PAUL STRAUSS (SB# 153937) ROBERT S. LIBMAN (SB# 139283)
7 NANCY MALDONADO MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND
8 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610
9 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 Facsimile: (312) 751-0438
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee33ooff88

1

RECITALS

2

3

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2005, Plaintiff Robert Harris (“Harris”) filed his

4 Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims on behalf of himself and as a

5 putative class representative for certain present and former employees of Defendant

6 Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”);

7

8

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Harris individually asserted claims under the Civil

9 Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991

10 (“Section 1981”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et

11 seq., as amended (“Title VII”), specifically contending that Cintas refused to hire him as a

12 driver (“SSR”), refused to promote him to the position of SSR, and terminated him

13 because of his race (African American) (FAC ¶ 9);

14

15

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Harris sought to assert claims as a class

16 representative for African Americans who allegedly were discriminated against in hiring

17 to SSR position in Cintas’ Rental Division in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII

18 (FAC ¶¶ 33-40, 48(b));

19

20

WHEREAS, Harris intends to dismiss both his individual and class claims

21 and therefore cannot serve as a class representative for any form of relief sought on behalf

22 of the putative class described in paragraph 48(b) of the FAC;

23

24

WHEREAS, Harris has agreed to dismiss with prejudice his individual and

25 class claims against Cintas in exchange for Cintas’ waiver of its right to recover costs

26 against Harris pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d);

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-3-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee44ooff88

1

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include

2 any attorneys’ fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Harris’ individual claims (or

3 the class claims Harris has asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent

4 the putative class described in paragraph 48(b) of the FAC), should they later apply for an

5 award of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’

6 counsel apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude

7 them from arguing that some portion of the time and costs spent on the class claims

8 asserted by Harris should be allocated to a claim on which plaintiffs prevailed (including a

9 claim of discrimination in hiring for the SSR job, if plaintiffs prevail on that claim);

10 nothing in this stipulation will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal arguments in

11 opposition to such an allocation; and nothing in this stipulation will preclude the Court

12 from ruling that such an allocation should or should not be made; and

13

14

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, notwithstanding the stipulated

15 dismissal of Harris’ claims, if a class of Cintas employees is certified and Harris falls

16 within the definition of any such class, Harris may participate and receive any benefit to

17 which he would be entitled as a member of the class, if any.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-4-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee55ooff88

1

STIPULATION

2

3

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY

4 STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

5

6

1. Plaintiff Robert Harris withdraws as a named, representative plaintiff

7 and dismisses with prejudice his class claims for the putative class of African American

8 non-exempt employees in Cintas’ Rental Division who contend they were denied hiring to

9 driver (“SSR”) positions in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII;

10

11

2. Plaintiff Robert Harris dismisses with prejudice his individual claims

12 for discriminatory hiring, failure to promote, and termination in violation of Section 1981

13 and Title VII;

14

15

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include any attorneys’ fees or costs

16 incurred as part of maintaining Harris’ individual claims (or the class claims Harris has

17 asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent the putative class

18 described in paragraph 48(b) of the FAC), should they later apply for an award of

19 attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel

20 apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude them

21 from arguing that some portion of the time and costs spent on the class claims asserted by

22 Harris should be allocated to a claim on which plaintiffs prevailed (including a claim of

23 discrimination in hiring for the SSR job, if plaintiffs prevail on that claim); nothing in this

24 stipulation will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal arguments in opposition to

25 such an allocation; and nothing in this stipulation will preclude the Court from ruling that

26 such an allocation should or should not be made; and

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-5-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee66ooff88

1

4. Cintas waives its right to recover costs against Plaintiff Robert Harris

2 after the dismissal of his individual and putative class claims as permitted by Federal Rule

3 of Civil Procedure 43(d).

4

5 DATED: January 10, 2006 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Respectfully submitted,

By:

/s/ Paul Strauss

PAUL STRAUSS

Paul Strauss Robert S. Libman Nancy Maldonado MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 751-1170 Fax: (312) 751-0438

Morris J. Baller Roberta L. Steele Nina Rabin GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417

Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, et al.

19 DATED: January 10, 2006

20

By:

/s/ Nancy L. Abell

NANCY L. ABELL

21

Nancy L. Abell

22

Mark W. Atkinson

Elena R. Baca

23

Heather A. Morgan

Joseph W. Deng

24

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor

25

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228

Phone: (213) 683-6000

26

Fax: (213) 627-0705

27

Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-6-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee77ooff88

1

ORDER

2

3

BASED ON THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE

4 APPEARING THEREFORE, this Court finds that Plaintiff Robert Harris may not

5 represent the alleged class of African Americans who contend that they were

6 discriminated against in hiring to driver (“SSR”) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in

7 violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, as set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint at

paragraphs 33-40 and 48(b); on this basis the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 8

Plaintiff Robert Harris’ claims on behalf of this alleged class. 9

10

11

This Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Robert Harris’

12 individual claims that Cintas has violated Section 1981 and Title VII by allegedly refusing

13 to hire him as an SSR, refusing promote him to an SSR position, and terminating him

14 because of his race (African American).

15 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to recover any
16 amount in attorneys’ fees and costs attributable to pursuing Harris’ individual claims
17 18 herein (or the class claims Harris has asserted if there is no adequate class representative 19 to represent the putative class described in paragraph 48(b) of the FAC).

20

21

The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include any

22 attorneys’ fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Harris’ individual claims (or the

class claims Harris has asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent the 23

putative class described in paragraph 48(b) of the FAC), should they later apply for an 24

award of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ 25

26 counsel apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this Order will not preclude them

27 from arguing that some portion of the time and costs spent on the class claims asserted by

28 Harris should be allocated to a claim on which plaintiffs prevailed (including a claim of

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-7-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CCaassee33:0:044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt118834-1 FFilieledd0011/1/121/2/2000066 PPaaggee88ooff88

1 discrimination in hiring for the SSR job, if plaintiffs prevail on that claim); and nothing in

2 this Order will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal arguments in opposition to

3 such an allocation.

4

5

Finally, Cintas may not recover costs against Plaintiff Robert Harris.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 DATED: J_a_n_u_a_r_y_1_2____, 2006
9
10

______ HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
LEGAL_US_W # 53154404.5

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-8-

PLAINTIFF ROBERT HARRIS’ CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 1 of 8

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com
2 HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com
3 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street
4 Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
5 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
6
Attorneys for Defendant 7 CINTAS CORPORATION

8 Plaintiffs’ Counsel Listed on Next Page

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE
14 CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON,
15 CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA
16 NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of
17 themselves and all others similarly situated,
18
Plaintiffs, 19
vs. 20
CINTAS CORPORATION, 21

22

Defendant.

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF
PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER

23 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
24 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

25 Plaintiff/Intervenor.
262

7

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 2 of 8

1 MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928)

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198)

2 NINA RABIN (SB# 229403)

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

3

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

4 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-9800

5 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417

6 PAUL STRAUSS (SB# 153937) ROBERT S. LIBMAN (SB# 139283)
7 NANCY MALDONADO MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND
8 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610
9 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 Facsimile: (312) 751-0438
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262

7

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 3 of 8

1 RECITALS
2

3 WHEREAS, on August 3, 2005, Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza
4 (“Cardoza”) filed his Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims on behalf of
5 himself and as a putative class representative for certain present and former employees of
6 Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”);
7

8 WHEREAS, in the FAC, Cardoza individually asserted claims under the
9 Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991
10 (“Section 1981”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as
11 amended (“Title VII”), California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
12 Government Code § 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”), and Business and Professions Code
13 § 17200, et seq. (“Section 17200”), specifically contending that Cintas refused to hire and
14 then promote him to a driver (“Sales Service Representative” or “SSR”) position because
15 of his race (Hispanic) and national origin (El Salvador) (FAC ¶ 6), and that he resigned on
16 or about August 6, 2003 as a result of that discrimination;
17

18 WHEREAS, in the FAC, Cardoza sought to assert claims as a class
19 representative for Hispanics who allegedly were discriminated against by Cintas’s
20 decisions not to hire or promote them to the SSR position in Cintas’ Rental Division in
21 violation of Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and Section 17200 (FAC ¶¶ 33-40, 48(c),
22 49(b));
23

24 WHEREAS, Cardoza does not have standing to assert any of the claims he
25 has alleged in his FAC because:
262

7

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

1

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 4 of 8

1 (1) Cardoza filed a Voluntary Petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the
2 Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
3 California, Case No. 05-42541, on May 11, 2005;
4 (2) In his Voluntary Petition Cardoza represented to the Court that he had
5 no “suits and administrative proceedings, executions, garnishments and attachments”;
6 and
7 (3) The Bankruptcy Court issued a Discharge of Debtor and Final Decree
8 on August 2, 2005, based on Cardoza’s representations.
9

10 WHEREAS, Cardoza intends to dismiss both his individual and class claims
11 and therefore cannot serve as a class representative for any form of relief sought on behalf
12 of the putative class described in paragraphs 48(c) and 49(b) of the FAC; and
13

14 WHEREAS, Cardoza has agreed to dismiss with prejudice his individual
15 and class claims against Cintas in exchange for Cintas’ waiver of its right to recover costs
16 against Cardoza pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
17

18 STIPULATION
19

20 THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY
21 STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
22

23 1. Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza (“Cardoza”) withdraws as a named,

24 representative plaintiff and dismisses with prejudice his class claims for the putative class

25 of Hispanic applicants and Hispanic employees in Cintas’ Rental Division who contend

262 they were denied hiring or promotion to driver (“SSR”) positions in violation of Section

7 1981, Title VII, FEHA and Section 17200;

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

2

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 5 of 8

1

2 2. Cardoza dismisses with prejudice his individual claims for
3 discriminatory failure to hire and failure to promote in violation of Section 1981, Title VII,
4 FEHA and Section 17200, and for a resignation resulting from discrimination;
5

6 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include any attorneys’ fees or costs incurred
7 as part of maintaining Cardoza’s individual claims (or the class claims Cardoza has
8 asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent the putative class
9 described in paragraphs 48(c) and 49(b) of the FAC), should they later apply for an award
10 of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel
11 apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude them
12 from arguing that some portion of the time and costs spent on the class claims asserted by
13 Cardoza should be allocated to a claim on which Plaintiffs prevailed (including a claim of
14 discrimination in hiring for the SSR job, if Plaintiffs prevail on that claim); nothing in this
15 stipulation will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal arguments in opposition to
16 such an allocation; and nothing in this stipulation will preclude the Court from ruling that
17 such an allocation should or should not be made; and
18 4. Cintas waives its right to recover costs against Plaintiff Luis
19 Pocasangre Cardoza after the dismissal of his individual and putative class claims as
20 permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(d).
21

22

23

24

25

262

7

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

3

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 6 of 8

1 DATED: MARCH 8, 2006 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
DATED: MARCH 8, 2006 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 262
7 28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

Respectfully submitted,
By: /S/ MORRIS J. BALLER MORRIS J. BALLER
Morris J. Baller Roberta L. Steele Nina Rabin GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417
Paul Strauss Robert S. Libman Nancy Maldonado MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 751-1170 Fax: (312) 751-0438
Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, et al.
By:/S/ NANCY L. ABELL NANCY L. ABELL
Nancy L. Abell Elena R. Baca Heather A. Morgan Joseph W. Deng PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705
Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S
4

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 7 of 8

1

ORDER

2 BASED ON THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE
3 APPEARING THEREFORE, this Court finds that Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza may
4 not represent the alleged class of Hispanic applicants who contend that they were
5 discriminated against when they were not hired, and the alleged class of Hispanic
6 employees who contend that they were discriminated against when they were not
7 promoted, to driver (“SSR”) positions in Cintas’ Rental Division in violation of Section
8 1981, Title VII, FEHA and Section 17200 as set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint
9 at paragraphs 33-40, 48(c), and 49(b); on this basis the Court DISMISSES WITH
10 PREJUDICE Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza’s claims on behalf of this alleged class.
11

12 This Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre
13 Cardoza’s individual claims that Cintas has violated Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and
14 Section 17200 by allegedly refusing to hire him as an SSR and refusing promote him to an
15 SSR position because of his race (Hispanic) and national origin (El Salvador), and by
16 causing him to resign as a result of discrimination.
17

18 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to recover any
19 amount in attorneys’ fees and costs attributable to pursuing Cardoza’s individual claims
20 herein (or the class claims Cardoza has asserted if there is no adequate class representative
21 to represent the putative class described in paragraphs 48(c) and 49(b) of the FAC).
22

23

The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not include any 24

attorneys’ fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Cardoza’s individual claims (or the 25

class claims Cardoza has asserted if there is no adequate class representative to represent 262

the putative class described in paragraphs 48(c) and 49(b) of the FAC), should they later 7

apply for an award of attorneys’ fees or costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or 28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

5

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 192 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 8 of 8

1 Plaintiffs’ counsel apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, this Order will not
2 preclude them from arguing that some portion of the time and costs spent on the class
3 claims asserted by Cardoza should be allocated to a claim on which Plaintiffs prevailed
4 (including a claim of discrimination in hiring for the SSR job, if Plaintiffs prevail on that
5 claim); and nothing in this Order will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal
6 arguments in opposition to such an allocation.
7

8
9 Cardoza.
10
11

Finally, Cintas may not recover costs against Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 13 DATED: _M__ar_c_h_9______, 2006 14

______ HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

15

16 LEGAL_US_W # 53259394.3

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262

7

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA’S

6

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 9

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulha~tings.com ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastmgs.com .
2 HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastmgs.com
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3 515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
5 FacsImile: (213) 627-0705

6 Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION
7
Plaintiffs' Counsel Listed on Next Page 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT
13 HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A.
14 SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly
15 VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN
16 and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
17 situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

VS.

20 CINTAS CORPORATION,

21

Defendant.

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S (AKA CORETTA SILVERS) INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND HER PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIM ON BEHALF OF CURRENT AND FORMER AFRICAN AMERICAN NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES (EXCEPT SSR'S) WITH RESPECT TO PAY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

22

23

24 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 25

26

Plaintiff/Intervenor.

Date: December 14,2007 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND
[PROPOg~D ORDERl

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 9

1 MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928) mballer@gdblegal.com

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198) rsteele@gdblegal.com

2 JOSEPH E. JARAMILLO (SB# 178566) jjaramtllo@gdblegal.com

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

3

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

4 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-9800

5 FacsImile: (510) 835-1417

6 BETTY EBERLE (SB# 196914) beberle@LAWMBG.com
7 MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803
8 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255-5200
9 FacsImile: (608) 255-5380

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND
[PR:QPg~sD ORDER]

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 3 of 9

1

RECITALS

2

3

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2005, Plaintiff Coretta Vick aka Coretta Silvers

4 ("Vick") filed her Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserting claims on behalf of

5 herself and as a putative class representative for certain present and former employees of

6 Defendant Cintas Corporation ("Cintas");

7

8

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Vick individually asserted claims under the Civil

9 Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991

10 ("Section 1981"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et

11 seq., as amended ("Title VII"), specifically contending that Cintas paid Vick a lower

12 hourly rate than white non-exempt office and clerical coworkers because of her race

13 (black) (FAC ~ 12);

14

15

WHEREAS, in the FAC, Vick sought to assert claims as a class

16 representative on behalf of African American current and former non-exempt employees

17 in Cintas' Rental Division who allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory

18 compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African American

19 employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII (FAC ~~ 45-46, 48(e), 83(e); Joint

20 Case Management Statement and Order Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, filed June 10,

21 2005, at 20);

22

23

WHEREAS, Vick is the only remaining named Plaintiff who has asserted

24 class claims on behalf of any African American current and former non-exempt

25 employees in Cintas' Rental Division who allegedly have been subjected to

26 discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African

27 American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, other than the claims

28 asserted by James Morgan on behalf of African American SSR's;

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-3-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[PROPO~~D] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 4 of 9

1

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005, this Court ordered Vick to arbitrate her

2 claims and stayed this action as to her claims pending completion of an arbitration

3 proceeding in this judicial district;

4

5

WHEREAS, the parties thereafter commenced arbitration, inter alia, of

6 Vick's claims before The Honorable Eugene Lynch (Ret.), who has issued a clause

7 construction award but has not commenced proceedings on the merits ofVick's claims;

8

9

WHEREAS, Vick hereby dismisses with prejudice all of her individual

10 claims alleged in the FAC;

11

12

WHEREAS, Vick thus is not an adequate class representative for any form

13 of relief sought on behalf of the putative class of African American current and former

14 non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division who allegedly have been subjected to

15 discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African

16 American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, as described in

17 paragraphs 45-46, 48(e) and 83(e) of the FAC;

18

19

WHEREAS, Vick has agreed to withdraw as a class representative and

20 seeks the Court's permission to dismiss without prejudice her claims on behalf of the

21 putative class of African American current and former non-exempt employees in Cintas'

22 Rental Division who allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory compensation

23 practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African American employees in

24 violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, as described in paragraphs 45-46, 48(e) and 83(e)

25 of the FAC, but not dismiss the claims asserted by James Morgan on behalf of African

26 American SSR's, in exchange for Cintas' waiver of its right to recover costs against Vick

27 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d); and

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-4-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

WIWPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 5 of 9

1

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that PlaintifTs' counsel will not include

2 any attorneys' fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Vick's individual claims or the

3 class claims Vick has asserted, should they later apply for an award of attorneys' fees or

4 costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel apply for an award of

5 attorneys' fees and costs, this stipulation will not preclude them from asserting that some

6 portion of the time spent on the class claims asserted by Vick should be allocated to

7 another claim on which Plaintiffs prevailed (for example, the claims asserted by James

8 Morgan on behalf of African American SSR's, if Plaintiffs prevail on those claims); and

9 nothing in this stipulation will preclude Defendant from asserting any legal arguments in

10 opposition to such an allocation.

11

12

STIPULATION

13

14

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY

15 STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

16

17

1. Plaintiff Coretta Vick dismisses with prejudice all of her individual

18 claims asserted in the FAC for discrimination in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII;

19

20

2. PlaintiffVick withdraws as the named, representative plaintiff and

21 dismisses without prejudice her claims on behalf of the putative class of African

22 American current and former non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division who

23 allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than

24 similarly situated non-African American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title

25 VII, as described in paragraphs 45-46, 48(e) and 83(e) of the FAC, other than the claims

26 asserted by James Morgan on behalf of African American SSR's;

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-5-

PLAINTIFF CORETIA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[PReOP08ED] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 6 of 9

1

3. All claims in the FAC alleging that African American current and

2 former non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division have been subjected to

3 discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African

4 American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII and all claims for relief

5 for such discrimination are hereby dismissed without prejudice, except the claims asserted

6 by James Morgan on behalf of African American SSR's;

7

8

4. Plaintiffs' counsel will not include any attorneys' fees or costs

9 incurred as part of maintaining Vick's individual claims or the class claims Vick has

10 asserted, should they later apply for an award of attorneys' fees or costs in this litigation.

11 However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel apply for an award of attorneys' fees and

12 costs, this stipulation will not preclude them from asserting that some portion of the time

13 spent on the class claims asserted by Vick should be allocated to another claim on which

14 Plaintiffs prevailed (for example, the claims asserted by James Morgan, if Plaintiffs

15 prevail on those claims); and nothing in this stipulation will preclude Defendant from

16 asserting any legal arguments in opposition to such an allocation; and

17

18

5. Cintas waives its right to recover costs against Plaintiff Coretta Vick

19 after the dismissal of her individual and putative class claims as permitted by Federal Rule

20 of Civil Procedure 54(d).

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-6-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[PRQPOS~Q] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 7 of 9

1 DATED: October 30, 2007
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DATED: October 30,2007 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

Respectfully submitted,
By:_ _ _---'/-=s/:;:::;;R~o;:;:b;:;;e:_=rt~a~L;.:......:::S;,;:;te~e='le~;::;--_ __ ROBERTA L. STEELE
Morris J. Baller Roberta L. Steele Joseph E. Jaramillo GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417
Betty Eberle MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 255-5200 Facsimile: (608) 255-5380
Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, et al.
By:._..!...!/s~/...!...N~a~n~cY,-:-~L.A~~be~l.!.-l--:-;;:;=--;:--_ _ __
NANCY L. ABELL
Nancy L. Abell Elena R. Baca Heather A. Morgan PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705
Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-7-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[e.BOPQSEe] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 8 of 9

1

ORDER

2
BASED ON THE PARTIES' STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE 3
APPEARING THEREFORE, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff 4
Coretta Vick's individual claims that Cintas has discriminated against her in violation of 5
Section 1981 and Title VII. 6

7 This Court further finds that Plaintiff Coretta Vick is not an adequate class
8 representative and may not represent the alleged class of African American current and
9 former non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division who contend they have been
10 subjected to discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated
11 non-African American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, as described
12 in paragraphs 45-46, 48(e) and 83(e) of the FAC;
13

14 This Court further finds that Plaintiff Coretta Vick is the only remaining
15 named, representative plaintiff on behalf of the putative class of African American current
16 and former non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division who allegedly have been
17 subjected to discriminatory compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated
18 non-African American employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII, as described
19 in paragraphs 45-46, 48(e) and 83(e) of the FAC and that Plaintiff seeks dismissal without
20 prejudice of these putative class claims, but not the class claims filed by James Morgan on
21

22 behalf of African American SSR's. On this basis the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE all claims in the FAC alleging that African American current and former 23
non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division have been subjected to discriminatory 24
compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African American 25

employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII and all claims for relief for such
26

discrimination, but not the class claims filed by James Morgan on behalf of African 27

28 American SSR's.

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-8-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 236 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 9 of 9

1

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs' counsel is not entitled to recover any

2 amount in attorneys' fees and costs attributable to pursuing Vick's individual claims

3 herein or her class claims in the FAC alleging that African American current and former

4 non-exempt employees in Cintas' Rental Division have been subjected to discriminatory

5 compensation practices and paid less than similarly situated non-African American

6 employees in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII.

7

8

The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs' counsel will not include any

9 attorneys' fees or costs incurred as part of maintaining Vick's individual claims or the

10 class claims Vick has asserted, should they later apply for an award of attorneys' fees or

11 costs in this litigation. However, if Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel apply for an award of

12 attorneys' fees and costs, this stipulation and order will not preclude them from asserting

13 that some portion of the time spent on the class claims asserted by Vick should be

14 allocated to another claim on which Plaintiffs prevailed (for example, the class claims

15 filed by James Morgan on behalf of African American SSR's, if Plaintiffs prevail on those

16 claims); and nothing in this stipulation and order will preclude Defendant from asserting

17 any legal arguments in opposition to such an allocation.

18

19

Finally, the Court finds that Cintas may not recover costs against Plaintiff

20 Coretta Vick as it would be otherwise permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).

21

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

24 DATED D_ ece_ mb_ er 1_4 _, 2007
25
26

HITE

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW
10562-3

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

-9-

PLAINTIFF CORETTA VICK'S CLAIMS AND

[PROPQ~EQ] ORDER

 
 CCaassee 33::0044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt 113266 FFiilleedd 0089//3210//22000055 PPaaggee 11 ooff 85

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com
2 HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com
3 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street
4 Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
5 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
6 Attorneys for Defendant
7 CINTAS CORPORATION

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT HARRIS,

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

12 LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

13 THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), SANDRA EVANS,

ORDER TO HAVE CASES RELATED

14 BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN and ANTHONY JONES, on

15 behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

vs.

Place: Judge:

Courtroom 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004

Trial Date:

None Set

18 CINTAS CORPORATION,

19

Defendant.

20

LARRY HOUSTON and CLIFTON 21 COOPER, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

vs.

CINTAS CORPORATION,

24

Defendant.

25

[PROPOSED] RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145 CRB

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO HAVE CASES RELATED

CCaassee 33::0044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt 113266 FFiilleedd 0089//3210//22000055 PPaaggee 22 ooff 85

1

STIPULATION

2

3

The parties in the two above-referenced cases, by and through their counsel of

4 record, hereby stipulate as follows:

5

6

1. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in the action entitled Robert Ramirez, et al. v.

7 Cintas Corporation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Case No. C04-0281-JSW (the

8 “Ramirez Action”), filed their Fourth Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on

9 August 3, 2005;

10

11

2. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in the action entitled Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas

12 Corporation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Case No. C05-03145-CRB (the “Houston

13 Action”), filed their Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on August 3, 2005;

14

15

3. WHEREAS, the parties in the Houston Action are represented by the same

16 counsel as the parties in the Ramirez Action;

17

18

4. WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion for

19 Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, Pursuant to Northern 20 District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 (the “Motion to Relate Cases”);

21

22

5. WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed that the two actions should be

23 deemed “related” pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a), and as set forth in the Motion to Relate Cases,

24 because (a) the two actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transactions and

25 events; and (b) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and

26 expense, and a risk of conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges; and

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO HAVE CASES RELATED

CCaassee 33::0044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt 113266 FFiilleedd 0089//3210//22000055 PPaaggee 33 ooff 85

1

6. WHEREAS, the parties agree that once the Houston Action is deemed

2 related to the Ramirez Action, the Houston Action should be transferred and reassigned to the

3 Honorable Jeffrey S. White for all purposes;

4

5

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in both actions request that the Court order as

6 follows:

7

8

A. That the Houston Action be deemed related to the Ramirez Action.

9

10

B. That the Houston Action be transferred and reassigned to the Honorable

11 Jeffrey S. White for all purposes.

12

13

SO STIPULATED.

14

15 DATED: August 31, 2005 16

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN

17

By:

/s/ Roberta Steele

ROBERTA STEELE 18

19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in both the

Houston Action and Ramirez Action 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO HAVE CASES RELATED

CCaassee 33::0044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt 113266 FFiilleedd 0089//3210//22000055 PPaaggee 44 ooff 85

1 2
DATED: August 31, 2005 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By:

/s/ Elena Baca

ELENA R. BACA

Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS
CORPORATION in both the Houston Action and Ramirez Action

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO HAVE CASES RELATED

CCaassee 33::0044--ccvv--0000228811--JJSSWW DDooccuummeenntt 113266 FFiilleedd 0089//3210//22000055 PPaaggee 55 ooff 85

1

ORDER

2

3

The Court has considered the above Stipulation, and for good cause appearing

4 therefor, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

5

6

A. IT IS ORDERED that the action entitled Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas

7 Corporation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Case No. C-05-03145-CRB (the

8 “Houston Action”), is deemed related to the action entitled Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas

9 Corporation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Case No. C04-0281-JSW (the “Ramirez

10 Action”), pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a).

11

12

B. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Houston Action is transferred and

13 reassigned to the Honorable Jeffrey S. White for all purposes.

14

15

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(f), the Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the

16 parties once the Houston Action is formally transferred and reassigned to the Honorable Jeffrey S.

17 White. All dates previously set in the Houston Action are vacated.

18

19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21

September 19

Dated:

22

23

, 2005

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Court Judge

24
LA/1150208.2
25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-4-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO HAVE CASES RELATED

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 1 of 7

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com
2 JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
3 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
5 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 Attorneys for Defendant
6 CINTAS CORPORATION

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE
12 SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS
13 (formerly VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, JAMES
14 MORGAN and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others
15 similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, 16
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 17 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff/Intervenor. 18
vs.
19 CINTAS CORPORATION,

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

MOTION OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED, PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT CIVIL LOCAL RULES 3-12 AND 7-11
[DECLARATION OF JOSEPH W. DENG AND PROPOSED ORDER FILED CONCURRENTLY]

Place: Judge:

Courtroom 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004

Trial Date:

None Set

20

Defendant.

21

22

LARRY HOUSTON and CLIFTON COOPER, on behalf of themselves and all

23 others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

24

vs.

25 CINTAS CORPORATION,
Defendant. 26

SEEKING TO RELATE: CASE NO. C05-03145-CRB
[COURTESY COPY TO CHAMBERS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(b)]

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 2 of 7

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 I. LEGAL STANDARD......................................................................................................... 1

4 II.

THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS IN THE TWO ACTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR........................................................................................... 1

5

A. Three of the Plaintiffs in the Two Actions Worked at the Same Cintas

Facility at the Same Time ....................................................................................... 2

6

B. Three Plaintiffs Who Worked at the Same Location Have Similar Claims............ 2

7

C. Plaintiffs in Both Actions Allege the Same Causes of Actions .............................. 2

8

D. Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Overlapping Cases ......................................................... 3

III. DISCOVERY WILL INVOLVE OVERLAPPING WITNESSES, STATISTICAL

9

DATA AND EVIDENCE REGARDING EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES,

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ...................................................................................... 3

10

A. Cintas Has Produced a Large Number of Documents and Has Provided

11

Extensive Information Relevant to Both Actions ................................................... 3

B. It Would be Unfair to Allow Plaintiffs to Depose the Same Witnesses

12

Twice on the Same Issues ....................................................................................... 3

13

IV.

THERE IS A RISK OF INCONSISTENT RULINGS REGARDING ARBITRATION, DISCOVERY, CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PROPOSED

14

RELIEF ............................................................................................................................... 4

A. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on the Arbitration Agreements................. 4

15

B. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on Discovery ............................................ 4

16

C. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on Individualized Relief........................... 4

17

D. There Will be a Risk of Inconsistent Results Based on the Same Statistical Data and Testimony ................................................................................................ 4

18 V. DEFENDANT’S GOOD-FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE MATTER BY STIPULATION................................................................................................................... 5
19 VI. RELIEF REQUESTED....................................................................................................... 5

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-i-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 3 of 7

1

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

2

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendant Cintas

3 Corporation (“Cintas”) seeks to have the action entitled Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas

4 Corporation, Case No. C05-03145-CRB (“Houston”) related to the instant case entitled Robert

5 Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, Case No. C04-0281-JSW (“Ramirez”) because they both

6 seek certification, inter alia, of a class of persons allegedly denied selection to the same jobs

7 based on their protected group status.

8 I. LEGAL STANDARD

9

According to the Northern District Civil Local Rules, cases are “related” when:

10

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property,

transaction or event; and 11

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome

12

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases

are conducted before different Judges. 13

N.D. Civ. L. R. 3-12(a).

14

The parties need not be identical; it is sufficient that there be “similar allegations

15

and underlying facts with respect to [defendants’] conduct.” Fonovisa, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,

16

No. 3:01-CV-02-669, 2002 WL 398676 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2002) (setting forth procedure

17

for “[n]ew actions for copyright infringement [which] continue to be filed “against the

18

defendant”). Cases may also be deemed related if, among other things, the “documents and

19

witnesses in the two cases would be ‘largely the same in both [actions]’ and ‘[a]ny efforts to

20

resolve the parties’ dispute must necessarily address both actions together.” KLA-Tencor Corp. v.

21

The Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., No. C-02-05641 RMW, 2004 WL 1737297, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

22

Aug. 4, 2004) (noting that the parties later agreed that “all discovery in [the first action] could be

23

used in [the other action].”)

24

II. THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS IN THE TWO ACTIONS ARE

25

SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR

26

The plaintiffs in the Houston action are African American managers, employees

27

and applicants who claim to represent African Americans who allegedly were discriminated

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-1-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 4 of 7

1 against in terms of hiring, pay and promotion into management positions at Cintas. (Houston

2 Compl., ¶¶ 36-45.) The Houston plaintiffs challenge the same promotional practices as the

3 plaintiffs in Ramirez, who seek to represent a putative class of Hispanic supervisors who allege, 4 inter alia, denial of transfers and promotions to the same other management jobs at Cintas.1

5 (Ramirez Compl., ¶¶ 29-32.) The attorneys for plaintiffs in both actions are identical, as are the

6 attorneys for Cintas in both actions.

7

A. Three Plaintiffs in the Two Actions Worked at the Same Cintas Facility at the

8

Same Time.

9

One of the two Houston plaintiffs, and two of the Ramirez plaintiffs, all worked at

10 the same Cintas facility in San Leandro, California, during overlapping time periods. In the

11 Ramirez action, Morgan alleges that he worked at the San Leandro location from 1999 to 2004,

12 and Cardoza worked there in 2003. (Ramirez Compl., ¶ 6, 14.) In the Houston action, Houston

13 claims he worked at Cintas’ San Leandro facility in 2002 (during the same time as Morgan).

14 (Houston Compl., ¶¶ 17, 23.)

15

B. Three Plaintiffs Who Worked at the Same Location Have Similar Claims.

16

The three plaintiffs who worked at the San Leandro facility have similar

17 allegations of discrimination on the basis of race in terms of pay and promotion. Morgan alleges

18 he was not “given the duties or compensation” comparable to his position due to his race (African

19 American). (Ramirez Compl., ¶ 14.) Cardoza alleges that Cintas “refused to hire and then

20 promote” him due to his race and national origin (Hispanic, El Salvador). (Ramirez Compl., ¶ 6.)

21 Houston claims he was discriminated against in terms of “employment opportunities for

22 management positions,” based on his race (African American). (Houston Compl., ¶¶ 17, 23.)

23

C. Plaintiffs in Both Actions Allege the Same Causes of Actions.

24

In both cases, plaintiffs challenge Cintas’ employment practices in a putative

25 nationwide class action. In both cases, they allege causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

26 1 The plaintiffs in Ramirez additionally claim that Cintas discriminated against (a) women,
27 African Americans and Hispanics in terms of hiring into Service Sale Representative (“SSR”) positions, and (b) African Americans in terms of SSR route assignments, and non-exempt
28 compensation.

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-2-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 5 of 7

1 (“Section 1981”) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). The Ramirez plaintiffs challenge

2 Cintas’ employment practices under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”),

3 and California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“Section 17200”). Plaintiffs in

4 Houston have stated their intention to add the same state law claims as soon as they have

5 exhausted their administrative remedies. (Houston Compl., ¶ 6(b).)

6

D. Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Overlapping Classes.

7

Plaintiffs in both actions seek to certify overlapping classes to the extent that

8 African American SSRs who claim they were subjected to alleged discriminatory practices with

9 regard to “route assignments and compensation” (Ramirez Compl., ¶ 48(d), 49(c)), also claim

10 they were “denied hire into management positions” at Cintas. (Houston Compl., ¶¶ 44(b), 45(b).)

11 III. DISCOVERY WILL INVOLVE OVERLAPPING WITNESSES, STATISTICAL

12

DATA AND EVIDENCE REGARDING EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, POLICIES

13

AND PROCEDURES

14

A. Cintas Has Produced a Large Number of Documents and Has Provided

15

Extensive Information Relevant to Both Actions.

16

Cintas has already produced over 20,000 pages of documents in connection with

17 its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 disclosures (the “Initial Disclosures”), and in response to

18 Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Declaration of Joseph W. Deng (“Deng Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Cintas’

19 Initial Disclosures in Ramirez identify several hundred persons with knowledge of, among other

20 things, Cintas’ employment policies and practices, recruitment and job training programs, and

21 diversity initiatives and efforts. Cintas expects that a large number of documents produced, and

22 witnesses identified, in Ramirez will be relevant to the Houston action. (Id., ¶ 4.) Absent related

23 cases, Cintas would likely have to produce thousands of pages of documents that are relevant to

24 both actions. (Id.) This would be unnecessary and wasteful, and create an unnecessary burden on

25 the parties and the Court.

26

B. It Would be Unfair to Allow Plaintiffs to Depose the Same Witnesses Twice

27

on the Same Issues.

28

Cintas expects that the witnesses regarding Cintas’ policies and procedures, and

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-3-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 6 of 7

1 the statistical evidence regarding the promotion of Hispanic and African American supervisors

2 and managers to be substantially similar and emanate from the same databases. (Deng Decl.,

3 ¶ 5.) It would be unfair to allow plaintiffs in the two actions to have “two bites at the apple” for

4 the same witnesses on the same policies, practices, procedures, and statistical data.

5 IV. THERE IS RISK OF INCONSISTENT RULINGS REGARDING ARBITRATION,

6

DISCOVERY, CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PROPOSED RELIEF

7

A. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on the Arbitration Agreements.

8

This Court has already ruled on three Cintas arbitration agreements with respect to

9 plaintiffs Thompson, Salcedo, and Silvers. Cintas intends to move to compel the arbitrations of

10 plaintiff Morgan (in Ramirez) and plaintiffs Houston and Cooper (in Houston). (Deng Decl., ¶ 6.)

11 This Court is familiar with the Cintas employment agreements, so having the motions on the two

12 Houston plaintiffs heard before different judges would create unnecessary duplication of effort,

13 waste judicial resources, and could result in inconsistent rulings.

14

B. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on Discovery.

15

There would be a significant risk of inconsistent discovery rulings since there will

16 be overlapping discovery with respect to witnesses relating to Cintas’ employment practices,

17 statistical proof, and individual decision makers, including overlap with respect to the San

18 Leandro location where plaintiffs in both actions worked.

19

C. There is a Risk of Inconsistent Rulings on Individualized Relief.

20

It would be inappropriate for two triers of fact to determine who should have been

21 (or who should be) placed in a given position where an African American manager (in Houston)

22 and a Hispanic manager (in Ramirez) both claim they should have been (or should be) hired,

23 transferred or promoted into the same position. Such a conflicting result can only be avoided if

24 the cases are related.

25

D. There Will be a Risk of Inconsistent Results Based on the Same Statistical

26

Data and Testimony.

27

Since a standard approach that plaintiffs take in large, nationwide employment

28 discrimination class actions is to have expert testimony regarding statistical models, Cintas

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-4-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 122 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 7 of 7

1 expects many of the expert witnesses on both sides to be identical. (Deng Decl., ¶ 7.) For

2 example, both sides will likely have statistical experts testify regarding the promotional

3 opportunities available, and the persons who received the promotions. The racial/ethnic identity

4 of the available applicant pool, and the person who was promoted to the management positions at

5 issue, will be identical in both the Houston and Ramirez cases.

6

Another likely major issue on class certification in each of these multi-facility,

7 nationwide class actions will likely be the role of “excessive subjectivity” in promoting

8 Caucasians, Asians or others over African American and Hispanic supervisors and managers to

9 the same positions. (Ramirez Compl., ¶¶ 21, 31; Houston Compl., ¶¶ 15, 41.) In the absence of

10 related cases, there will be a significant risk of inconsistent results based on the same statistical

11 evidence and expert testimony.

12 V. DEFENDANT’S GOOD-FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE MATTER BY

13

STIPULATION

14

Cintas has attempted in good faith to resolve this matter pursuant to Local

15 Rule 7-11(a), and has requested that plaintiffs stipulate to having the Houston and Ramirez

16 actions related, but they declined. (Deng Decl., ¶ 8.)

17 VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

18

For the reasons stated above, Cintas respectfully requests that the Court enter an

19 Order relating the cases pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(f), and assign the Houston action to the

20 Honorable Judge Jeffrey S. White for all purposes.

21 DATED: August 26, 2005
22 23 24 25 26 27 LA/1148963.5

Respectfully submitted, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By:

/s/

ELENA R. BACA

Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-5-

DEF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING RELATED CASES

 
 NO.0853-P. 4/21 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeO,204o:f$619 r, L

1

2
:>
.~

~4

S

ARBITRAnON PROCEEDING BEFORE THE

()

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

7

8 JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE mOM:PSON, and CORETTA SILVERS,
9

10

Claimants,

11

VS.

12
ClNTAS CORPORATION,
13
Respondent.
14

No. 11160 01119 05

15
JAMES MORGAN, LARRY HOUSTON~ 16 and CLIFTON E, COOPER,

17

Claimtmts,

J8
vs.
19
CINTAS CORPORATION,
20

21

Respondent.

22
23 ROBERT RAMIREZ,

24

Claimant,

25

VS.

26
eMAS CORPORATION,
27
Respondent.
28

No, 11 1600001806
,
;
ARBITRATORtS OPINION AND DECISION RE ISSUES OF CLASS ACTION ARBITRATION
: j
I

l

..

-------

-00007-

I

-1

PAGE 4121 ~ RCVO AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM ~acific Daylight Timel t SVR:LAXRF114 t DNIS:999S t CSID: t DURATION (mm-ss}:06-46

- - - - - - - - - N O . 08~3-P. ~121----
Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo.30o4f3619 P. 3

2

INTRODUCTION

1

Claimants Jose Salcedo, Cotetta Silvers, A. ShappeUe Thompson, James

s Morgan, LanyHouston, Clifton Cooper and Robert Ramirez (Claimants), all 15 fonner employees of Cintas Corporation (Cintas), seek a "clause construction"
7
determination from the Arbitrator, pursuant to Rule 3 ofthe American Arbitration
g
9 Association (AAA) Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration.1

10

Specifically, Claimants request that the Arbitrator determine, as a threshold

11
issue,2 whether the arbitration provisions contained in their employment
12

13 agreements with eintas allow for arbitration ofclass-wide claims ofemploym.ent

14
discrimination, or only allow for arbitration of individual claims of such
IS
16 discrimination. Ifthey pennit arbitration of class-wide claims of employment

17 discrimination, a further threshold issue to be determined is the venue for any such
18
I!> action - Le. whether the arbitration must be held in the county in which the

20 employee works or last worked for Cintas.
21
II
22
23 /1
24

2S 1Rule 3 providos that "[U]pOll appointment, the arbilrattlr!ha.ll dttemrine as athreshold matter, in areasoned, partial 26 final award on the construction of the arbitra1ion clause. wbetb~ the applicable arbi1ntlOD clause permits the

1

arbitration to proceed ott behalfofor against a class (the "Clause C9nswctiQn Award")."

27 2 Claimanbi are requesting 9. partial final awar~ i. e., this is a threshold maner iI!volving the interpretation of a

28

eontra¢t. The Arbitrator need .oot address at this time the E:n~rit$ of whether the taots of this case would allow th~ cJ.as!li to be Ce:11ified (i.e., numerosity, commonality, etc.) .

_ -1-
PAGE 5121 t RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM [Pacific Daylight Timel t SVR:LAXRF114 t DNIS:9998 ~ CSIO: t DURATION (mm·ss):06-46

-00008-

--------NO.0853-P. 6/21--Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo4. 0o4f3619 P. 4

1

PROCEDURAL .HISTORY

On January 20,2004, Claimants Jose Sa1c~do, A. Shappelle Thompson, and
3
• 4 Caretta Silvers, along with other named plaintiffs, filed individual and class claims
~
oftmlawful employment discrimination in the Northern District ofCalifomia
6
7 (Ramirezl et aI. v. Cintas Corp.)3 On March 22~ 2005, the Court ordered Claimants

3 to arbitration under the laws ofNew York and North Carolina, and stayed their

claims pending completion of arbitration. On May 13, 2005, Claimants filed a
10

11 demand with the Amencan Arbitration Association (AAA) for arbitration and class

12
treatment oftheir claims.
13

14

Claimant James Morgan was a named plaintiff in the above mentioned

15 Ramirez action. On November 2, 2005~ the Court ordered Claimant Morgan to
16
17 arbitrate his claims, except to the extent he sought injunctive relief under the

18 California Unfair Competition Law (UeL), and stayed the action as to Claimant

19
Morgan pencting completion o~the arbitration.
20

21

Claimants Larry Houston and Clifton Cooper initially filed their individual

22 and class action claims of employment discrimination against Cintas in a separate

24 lawsuit in the Northern District ofCalifomia (Houston, et al. v. Cintas Corp.) On

25 September 19J 2005~ the Court ordered the Houston action related to the Ramirez

!

2.6

27

28 3 This case, along with the two $ubsequent related actions, were assigned to the Honorable Jeffi'ey White.

-2-
PAGE 6121 *RCVO AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM [Pacific Da~ight Timej ~ SVR:LAXRF114 ~ DNIS:999g t CSIO: 3DURATION (mm·ss):0646

-00009-

-~----NU. vO:)J-r. fl L 1 - - - -

AUG. 17. 2006 10: 52AM I\U g. 10. LVOOCa.IsI:elu3A:0M4-cv-J0A0M2S81-JSW Document208

Filed09/15/06 PagNoe.504o3f619 P. 5

1 case. On November 22, 2005 the Court stayed the Houston. action based on the
.2
parties' stipulation, pending arbitration of their claims, exoept to the extent they
3
4 sought injunctive relief under the UCL. On December 29,2005, Claimants s Morgan~ Bouston and Cooper also filed with the AAA a demand for arbitraqon
6
7 and class treatment of their employment discrimination claims.

8

On January 20, 2004, Claimant JoseR.amirez~ along with other named

plaintiffs, filed individual and class claims ofell1ployment discrim.ination in the
10
11 Northern District of Califomia (Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corp.) On May 11,2006
12
the Court entered an order~ based on the parties' stipulation, to transfer his claims.

14 to arbitration and be related to the arbitration pe.nding in the Salcedo action.

U Ramirez demanded arbitration ofhis employment discrimination claims against
16
17 Cintas on May 25,2006.4

13

Cintas responded by filing a motion in the Northern District of California to

19

dismiss Claimants Salcedo, Thompson and Silver's claims on the groUnds that they

20'
.

.'

.

.

21 had entered into an arbitration agreement with einUs, and therefore w~re bound to

22 arbitrate their disputes with Cintas. In the alternative Cintas moved to stay the

23

24 action and compel arbitration. The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration

I

25
26

I

" Because R.amire21s not subject to an arbitration agreement wJth Cinw, the parties have stipglated that the

27 arbitration provisions ofthe Employment AgreemcDt executed by Claimant Salcedo and Cinta.s win be deemed to

apply to the arbiumion of~'s claims. and that thls 1999 Agreement will be inhlrpreted p1l!SlWit to the Federal

28 Arbitration Act and the la.ws ofThe state in which lta.rnh'ez last workt:d, h., Nevada.

-3-
PAGE 7121 *RCVD AT 8117120061:55:45 AM ~acmc Daylight Time} *SVR:LAXRF114 *DNIS:999g ~ CSIO: *DURATION (mm·ss):0646

-00010-

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo6. 0o4f3619 P. 6

I and stayed the action.. It ordered the named Claimants to arbitrate their individual
2
claims in the Northern District of California.
3

4

Cintas filed a similar motion against Clrumant Morgan, and here too the

5
Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and ordered the
6
7 Claimant Morgan to arbitrate his individual claims in the Northem District of

8 California. Cintas then entered into a stipula.tion and order to this effect regarding

Claimants Houston and Cooper.;
]0
11
12
Claimants

FACTS

14

Claimants are all former employees of Cintas who allege claims of

m IS employment discrimination. Claimant Jose Salcedo last worked for Cintas
16
17 Central Islip (Suffolk County)~ New York as a production supervisor. Claimant A.

·18 Shappelle Thompson last worked for Cintas in Rochester (Monroe County), New
19
York as a driver. Claimant Coretta Silvers last worked for Cintas in Durham
20
21 (Durham County), North Carolina as an office clerical employee. Claimant Robert
22 Ramirez last worked for Cintas in Las Vegas (Clark County), Nevada as a driver
23
24 and production supervisor. Claimant Larry Houston last worked for Cintas in San

26 ~ Cintas acknowleda~s that pursuant to Section 4 ofthe FM the Judge had.no choicl.'; but to ordCf arbitration be held 21 in the Norther.n Pistrlct of Califot'l)la.. Section 4limlt.s a fedlnI ~tJwt's jurisdiction to order arbitration proceedWis
oru.r within the districtiJl which the petition to compel arbitration was filed (9 U.S.C. seer.iou4.) However Chl.w 8S$exts
28 the Judge -tnade it clear that he was otderln.g to arbitration the individual cla.ims.lea'Virlg the issue of r::JQSs proceedings up to the Arbitrator.

-4-
PAGE 8121 ~ RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM IPacific Daylight Time] ~ SVR:LAxRF114 ~ DNIS:9998 t CSID: t DURATION (mm-ss):06-46

-00011-

AM AU\:!, II, LVVOO I V: JLI'dVI '1-.=1 IV' I.V V f 1,"tJ

JAMS

IT V. V V J J
No. 0436

I.

J I L. I

p, 7

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 Page7 of 19

1 . Leandro (Alameda County), California as a. drIver. Claimant Clifton Cooper last
2
3 worked for Cintas at three facilities in Los Angeles County (Pico Rivera, El

4' Segundo and Long Beach), California as a service manager. Claimant James
:;
Morgan worked for Cintas in San Leandro (Alameda County)) California as a
6
7 driver. l{owever, he and Cintas have agreed that his agreement will be governed

8 by Ohio law.

9

10

Thompson, Houston, Silvers, Cooper and Morgan allege they were

11 discriminated against because they are African American. In addition, Salcedo

12
allegeS national origin (Dominican Republic) discrimination. Salcedo and Ramirez

14 allege they were discriminated against because they are Hispanic.

15

Arbitration Clause(s)

16

17

All the Claimants were allegedly required to sign, as a condition of

18 employment, employment agreements drafted by Cintas, which contained
19
arbitmtion clauses. At the time in question (1999-2003), Cintas modified the
20
2) clause a number of~es, but Claimants argue (and Cintas does not dispute) that

22 each version is essentially the same for the purpose ofthe arguments in this case.

23

24

Specifically, each agreement generally provides for arbitration of"any

2S dispute or difference" arising between the employee and the employer. None of
26
the versions specifically exclude class-wide remedies from the relief the Arbitrator
27
28 is authorized to award, The agreements also provide that ~{[i]n any arbitration

-5-
----PAGE 9121 *RCVO AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM ~acmc Daylight Time] ~ SVR:LAXRF114 t DNIS:9998 ~ CSID: tDURATION (mm·ss):0646

-00012-

I\UI.l. II. LVVOO I V; :JJtlIVIAM · ... 0· IVI LV IJ I I · j , .

JAMS

No. 0436 P. 8

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 Page8 of 19

1 proceeding, the arbitrator shall apply the tenns ofthis Agreement as writtellt the

Federal Arbitration Act and other relevant federal1aw and state laws." As to the
3
4 applicable state lawJo the agreements provide that c'the law ofthe state in which the s
employee currently is employed by employer or most recently was employed by

7 employer" governs.6, Finally, cera] legal action either to maintain the status quo

8 pending arbitration or to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitration award

10 may be rued and pursued in any court having jurisdiction."

11

ANALYSIS

12
The United States Supreme Court, in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle
13
14 (S,C, 2002) 539 U.S. 444 (Bazzle) held that when an arbitration agreement is silent

IS regarding class arbitration, it is for the arbitrator to decide whether the agreement
16
l7 permits or forbids class arbitration. In. other wordst the issue ofhow the arbitration

18 should proceed, either as individual claims or a class action~ is for the arbitrator,
1.9
and not a court, to decide. The issue then becomes one ofstate-law contract
20
21 interpretation (Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle. supra. atp. 451; see also

22 Supp. Rule 3.)

23

24

In California, for example, (other states are similar), the rules for

2) interpretmg the provisions of a contract are well settled. "The whole of a contract
. 26

27 28 6 This is true with the exception of Claimant Morgan. Al$O, beca\lSe th~ Cbimants were employed in varlous stat8$,
potentially different rules could apply to their claims.

-6-
PAGE 10121': RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM Waclfic Daylight Tlmel xSVR:LAXRF114 xONIS:9998 xCSID: xDORATION (mm·ss):0646

-00013-

00 . .

rI U\J. I I. LVV m /!,. ,V. L. V

I V

V

; I

:;
I

J
;

'IfiIqY.IAM

JAMS

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208

Filed09/15/06 PagNeo.90o43f 619 P. 9

1 is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if:reasonably practicable,
each clause helping to interpret the other.II "Courts must interpret contractual
3
4 language in a manner which gives force and effect to every provision, and not in a
~
way which renders some clauses nugatory, inoperative or meaningless." The
6
7 contract must also be "interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the
8 parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable
9
and la"yful." "Such intent IS to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written
10
11 provisions ofthe contract." In construing a contract which purports on its face to
12
be a complete expression of the entire agreement, courts will not add thereto
13
14 another term) about which the agreement is silent. "When determining the intent of
15 the parties, the court will consider a particular provision paramount over a general
15
17 provision" (The RatcliffArchitects v. Vanir Constr. Mgmt. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th
18 595, 601..602; citations omitted.)
l~
Claimants argue the Employment Agreements in question contain broad
20
21 language which requires arbitration of "any and all" disputes and legal claims of
22 Claimants. Claimants also point to the fact that nothing in the agreements
23
24 specifically forbids class arbitration. Therefore, they argue the Arbitrator should
25 construe the arbitration clause at issue to permit the class treatment of Claimants
26
employment discrimina.tion claims.
27
28

-7-
PAGE 11121 ;RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM IPacific Daylight Timel *SVR:LAXRF114' DNIS:9998 xCSID: : DURATION (mm-ss):0646.

-00014-

JAMS AU\.1. II. LVVO 0IV: :JJi'I'V'AM
n U 5·IU. I.V C0 as1e1:3't:'0t 4-cv-00281-JSW Document208

11V. VVJ.I

I. IS-I .&.,-------

Filed09/15/06 PagNeo1. 004o3f619 p, 10

Cintas does not argue that the agreements by their tenus bar all class

3 arbitration, and agrees that the agreements do not expressly address that issue.

4 Rather Cintas argues that Claimants have failed to show that the arbitration
;-
agreements actually penni! class arbitration, specifically under the applicable state
6
7 arbitration laws?

8

In addition, Cintas maintains that the agreements do not allow for a

9
10 nationwide class of employees, who worked or last worked for Cintas in different.

11 counties from one another~ from bringing a claim. In other words, Cintas is
12
arguing that the Arbitrator must determine the potential scope of any class pursuant
13
14 to what it terms a "place..of-arbitration" restriction placed in the arbitration clause,8

IS

Thus the Arbitrator must first detennine generally whether pursuant to the

16

17 language in the ~at·ties' Employment Agreements, Claimants may pursue a class

18 action. Ifthe Arbitrator detennines class action reliefis not available, the seven
19
Claimants may pursue their individual claims in the Northern District of
20
21 California. Howevert ifthe language in the Employment Agreements is conStrued
22 so as to allow Claimants to proceed wlth a class action, the Arbitrator must
23
24
7Cintas $.{illes that class arbitrations can take place only in states which have held class Irbittations may proceed 25 even under those citcumstan~es when the irbitratioD. oontract is .silent on the issue cfews arbitration. However, the
issue here is one ot" contract int~tion 1$ discussed in Bazzle, not StrAte law governing arbittatioIlS. Th= same 26 can be said ofCintas' Ill'gU01en1: that most fedml courts do not permit arbitration in the abseJ]ce ofan express
provision. 'l"be cases cited were decided prior to the Baz:.le d~~isioll and are not relevaJlt to !be Arbitrator'S roll!! 27 here, which is to interpret thO!J$ spel;ific Employment Ageements pUX'suant to state r;ontract law. 28

-8-
PAGE 12121 ~iRCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM [Pacific Da~ight Timel *SVR:LAXRF114 t DNIS:9998 xCSID: l: DURATION (mm·ssj:0646

-00015-

No, 0436 P. 11
Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 Page11 of 19

1 additionally determine whether the Claimants are required to pursue any class

action in the county they last worked for Cintas or whether a nation-wide class
~
4 action arbitration is pennissible.

Both parties agree that in construing the agreements, and specifically the
6
1 arbitration clause at issue, the Arbitrator must look to generally applicable rules of

g contract interpretation and construction, and interpret the contract when possible
9
according to its ''plain meaning.'~
10

11

The arbitration clause, entitled "Exclusive Method OfResolving Disputes

12
Or Differences") provides, in pertinent part:
B

14

"Should any dispute or difference arise between Employee and

Employer concerning whethet Employer or any agent ofEmployer

IS

ever at any time violated any duty to Employee, right ofEmployee,

16

law, regulation, or public policy or breached this Agreement~

17

Employee and Employer shall confer and attempt in good faith to

resolve promptly such dispute or difference. To have a fair, timely,

inexpensive and binding method of resolving any such dispute or

19

difference remainlng unresolved after Employee and Employer confer

in good faith, should Employee desire to pursue Employee's claim,

10

Employee shall, within One year of the date when the dispute or

21

difference first arose or within one year of when Employee's

employment ends, whichever oeettrs first, submit to Employe~ a

22

written request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved

23

through impartial arbitration conducted in accordance with the

24

American Arbitration Association's National Rules for the Resolution

ofEmployment Disputes and held in the county and state where

Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked/or

26

Employer.

27
or 28 I Cintas has waived the place arbitration 1erm with respect to the seven Claimants so tbeir individual arbitrations can \Ie heard in the NortbeJ;D, District of California,

-9-
PAGE 13J21 ~ RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM [Pacific Daylight Timel*SVR:LAXRF114 t ORlS:9998 xCSID: ;DURATION (mm·ss):06'46

-00016-

IIV.VV.I.J-1. I " T I { . I - - -
Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo1, 204o3f619 P. 12

2

In any arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator shall apply the terms of

3

this Agreement as written, the Federal Arbitration Act and other

relevant federal and state laws, including time limits on claims.
4

5

Except for Employee IS worker's compensation claim or

6

unemployment benefits claim, the impartial arbitration proceeding, as

7

provided in this Paragraph 5, shall be the exclusive, final and binding

method ofresolving any and all claims ofEtnployee against

8

Employer... A legal action either to maintain the status quo pending

arbitration or to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitration

award may be filed and pursued in any court having jurisdiction ...

10

"(Emphasis added.)9

11

12

First, the provision does not contain an express waiver. It is silent on the

.13 issue ofclass arbitration and contains no language specifically forbidding class
14
15 arbitration. The ordinary principles of contract interpretation cited above preclude

16 an arbitrator from adding to the plain language of an agreement. Ifthe Arbitrator
17
were to conclude that the agreements forbid class arbitration, this would appear to
1&
19 run afoul ofthe above stated rules of contractual intetpretation, because it would in
20 effect be adding a significant tenn to the parties' agreements.
21
In addition, it also appears significant that the clause excludes workers

23 compensation or unemployment benefits claims from arbitration., and then
24
emphasizes that "except for the above mentioned exceptions," arbitration "shall be
;2.$
26 the final and binding method ofresolving any and all claims" ofthe employee
27
28

-10-
PAGE 14121 ~ RCVD AT ~17120D6 7:55:45 AM ~aclfic Daylight Tlmw SVR:LAXRF114 ~ DNIS:999S ~ CSID: I DUWION {mm-s~:06'46

-00017-

-'1V.VVJ.J-I. IJILI--_
AnUIui.6.1/I.U.LUULbVOC0I Ua:Is~Ie4:A3'It:V~0IA4M-cv-0JA0M2S81-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo1. 304o36f 19 P'. J 3

1 against the employer. (Emphasis added.) Both this clause and the arbitration

clause Cinw has with its rental customers (see discussion below) indicate that had
3

4 Cintas wanted to bar all class arbitrations, it certainly knew how to do so and could

5
have included an express waiver.
6

7

Claimants point out that the arbitration clause found in the form rental

8 agreement Cintas USes with its rental customers contains language which does
9
10 appear to prohibit class actions. It provides that "[a]ny such dispute shall be

11 determined on an individual basis, shall be considered unique as to its factsj and
12
shall not he 'consolidated in arbitration or any other proceeding with any claim or
13
]4 controversy ofany otherparty." (Emphasis added.) (Exhibit 28.) In contrast~ in

15 Claimants' arbitration clauses, there is nothing limiting Claimants to bringing
16
17 individual claims.

18

Second, the clause is very broad, applying to "any dispute or difference'~

19
between the employer and employee. This also suggests an inteIpretation that the
20
21 clause was intended to encompass olass-wide relief. Ma.strobuono v. Shearson

22 Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, by analogy, also lends support to this
l3
24 intetpretation. In Mastrobuono, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding whether the

25 arbitrator was authorized to award punitive damages, found similar broad language
26
27
28 9This language is taken tOl1l the 1999 Employment Agreement Claimant Salcedo signed with Cintas, and is representative of tbe ellll,l5es contained in the other Claimants :E~pl9)1llent AgreetUents.

-11-
PAGE 15/21'! RCVD AT 8117/2006 7:55:45 AM ~acific Daylight Timel t SVR:LAXRF114 *DNIS:9998 t CSID: t DURATION (mm·ss):D646

-00018-

!lV. VVJJ

I'

IV! L 1 - - -

JAMS
Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208

Filed09/15/06 PagNeo,1404o36f 19 P.

14

persuasive. The Court explained: "Were we to confine our analysis to the plain
2
3- language ofthe arbitration clause, we would have little trouble concluding that a

4 contract clause which bound the parties to 'settle' 'all disputes' through arbitration s
conducted according to rules which allow any form of 'just and equitable' 'remedy

7 ofrellef' was sufficiently broad to encompass the award ofpunitive damages.

8 Inasmuch as agreements to arbitrate are 'generously construed,' [citation] it would
9
10 Seem sensible to interpret the 'all disputes' and 'any remedy or relief phrases to

II indicate, at a minimum, an intention to resolve through arbittation any dispute that
12
would otherwise be settled in a court, and to allow the chos~n dispute resolvers to
13
H award the same varieties and forms of damages or relief as a court would be

15 empowered to award.'~ (ld. at p.61, fu.7.)

]6

17

Also, although not binding on the Arbitrator, Claimants cite to other AAA

19 arbitrators that have concluded agreements which contain broad language requiring

19
arbitration ofc'all disputes .and/or claims" must be read to include class arbitrations.
20

21

Third, the agreements provide that the Arbitrator will apply relevant federal

22 and state laws in any arbitration, and have the authority to award "appropriate
23
24 relief' as available "under relevant laws," the same as ifthe matter were

~s proceeding in court. The agreements also contain language whicb incoIporates the

AM National Rules for the resolution of employment disputes, giving the
27
28 Arbitrator the power to grant any remedy or relief that would have been available

-12-
. PAGE 16121 ~ RCVD AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM ~acific Da~lght TIme] 1SVR:LAXRF114 sDNIS:999g SCSID: *DURATION (mmoss):Ot-46

-00019-

IIY' \lV"J

-,'

II' . ' - - -

AUl1. "'0

I
'

I

.'VL, VVO,"IvfvICUv:aJJ1si1e'.l"3I1V:')0~A4M-cv-0J0AM2S81-JSW

Document208

Filed09/15/06 PagNe~.1504o3f619 P. 15

I to the parties had the matter been heard in court. As Claimants assert, giving the

above phrases their plain. and ordinary meaning, does suggest that ifthe Arbitrator
3
4 has the authority to award aU appropria~e relief, class action relief would be thus
5
included. In fact if Claimants had proceeded in court, class action relief would be
6
7 available (FRCP 23; CA Code Civ. Proc. 382.)

8

Therefore, mindful ofthe application of the above cited rules of contl.'actual

9
interpretation, the Arbitrator concludes that the "plain meaning~' of the arbitration
10

11 clause in the context ofthe entire agreement generally permits class arbitration,

12
The Arbitrator turns next to Cintas' argument that the Arbitrator must

14 detennine the potential scope ofthe class pursuant to what it tenns a "place-of..

13 arbitration" clause. Cintas argues that the "plain meaning" of the language in the
16
11 employment agreements, i.e., specifically the sentence eAding Vlith "and held in

}8 the county and state where Employee currently works' for Employer or most
19
recently workedfor Employer," means exactly what it says. Thus Cintas argues
20
;u that even assuming some type of class arbitration js permissible pursuant to the
22 Claimants' employment agreements~ the above language prohibits class arbitration
23
24 broader in geographic scope than the county in which an employee works or last

25 worked for Cintas.
26
Cintas further argues that allowing a class~w.ide arbitration which would
27
:Z8 include Claimants from a variety of states would nullify other material provisions

-13-
PAGE 17121 i RCVO AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM ~acific Daylight Time} ~ SVR:LAXRF114 *DNIS:9

-00020-

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 PagNeo1, 604o3f619 P. 16

1 ofthe agreements, including that the arbitrations be co~ducted by a local arbitrator
2
in a local place in accordance with local law. Cintas urges the Arbittator not to
3
4 rewrite the terms the parties agreed upon between themselves..
. 5
Claimants assert that this sentence was not intended to limit the venue for an
6
7 arbitration, but was intended to set forth the venue for initiating an arbitration

8 proceeding.)O Claimants urge the Arbitrator to interpret this language as an
9
"arbitration initiation·' provision and not a "forum selection" provision.
10

11

Again, the Arbitrator is guided by the familiar rules of contractual

12
interpretation stated above. Thus ifpossible the language should be construed
13
14 according to its plain meaning and the intent ofthe parties, and in a manner which

15 gives force and effect to every provision, and not jn a way which renders some
16
17 clauses nugatory, inoperative or meaningless.1I

18

First, the Arbitrator finds the choice oflanguage to militate against fmeting

19
this provision to be a venue restriction. Notably the phrase at issue does not
20

21 explicitly provide that the county where the employee works or last worked is the

22 only place the axbitration may be initiated or held. In fact the agreements contain a
23
24 provision providing that "arbitration could be compelled in any court having

lS jurisdiction", which is inconsistent with Cintas' interpretation and militates against
26
27 -~----------------
28 10 ClaimWlts also assert that this term is irrelevant here because amitration was initiated by order of'the Court after Cintas moved to compel and then stipulated to arbitre.tion in the Northern Dis:trict of Califomia.

-14-
PAGE 18121 *RCVO AT 811712006 7:55:45 AM ~acific Da~ight Timel ~ SVR:LAXRF114 t DNIS:9998 ~ C

-00021-

AU\:l. II. LVUO\lIV::/OI'IIV\M

JAMS

""'0' I v" i.VVV I I ,"tJr'.

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208

11 VI V V J ~

I I

I ~I L I

No. 0436 p, 17

Filed09/15/06 Page17 of 19

1 Cintas' interpretation ofthis phrase. Thus as Claimants assert, when read in

context, i. e., in light of the sentence surrounding the phrase -- it appears that the
3

4 provision only concerns the process ofinitiating arbitration, not the location ofthe

s proceeding thereby initiated.
6

7

Second, the Arbitrator fmds the location ofthls phrase within the arbitration

8 clause to also militate against interpreting it to place any restriction on the venue
9
for a class arbitration. Assuming this was the intent ofthe parties and an important
10
11 po.iot, it at least could have been set forth in a separate sentence. Instead, it was
12
placed at the end ofa very lengthy and convoluted sentence dealing with initiation
13
14 ofthe arbitration process, Nothing more is said concerning the location of the

15 arbitration. Certainly ifin fact Cintas wa.s bargaining to have all arbitrations held
16
17 where an employee works or last worked it could have separately, clearly, and

1S unambiguously set out that all arbitrations must be held where an employee works

19
or last worked.
20

21

It appears, therefore, that giving this language its plain and ordinary

22 meaning, it simply directs the employee to request an arbitration that is held in the
23

24
:zs

26

27

28

-15-
PAGE 19121'~ RCVO AT ~1m006 7:55:45 AM IPacific Da~lghtTimw SVR:WRF114 3DNIS:9998 ~ CSID: :DURATION (mm·ss):0646

-00022-

:;un'Y'AM I"IUIJ. II. LVVUO I V. ... o' I V, .. V v I

I

• 't J

JAMS

No. 0436 P. 18

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 Page18 of 19

. 1 county and state where he or she works or last worked but does not mandate that
2
the arbitration, including a class arbitration, actually be held there. 11
3

4

In addition, to the extent this clause is ambiguous, all ofthe relevant state's

s
contract laws (Ohio, California, New York; and North Carolina) have adopted the
6

7 principle that ambiguities in contract language are to be construed against the

8 drafter, i. e., Cintas.
9
10

CONCLUSION

11

'The Arbitrator therefore finds that a straightforward application ofthe rules

II
of contract interpretation results in the conclusion that the Cintas Employment
13
14 Agreements permit class-wide arbitrationJ and there is no limitation to where the

IS class action may be heard by virtue of a claimed c~place of arbitration~' clause.

16

17

The proceedings shall be stayed following the issuance at the Clause

18 Construction Award for 30 days to pelmit any party to move a court of competent
]9
jurisdiction to confinn or vacate the Clause Construction Award. Once all parties
20

21 inform the undersigned in writing during the period of the stay that they do not

22 intend to seek judicial review of the Clause Construction Award, or once the
23
24 requisite time period expires without any party having informed the arbitrator that

25
26
II Cintas raises anumber ofargum.ems regarding the suitability of these a:.bitrations for class treatment, i.e.,
27 convenience ofwittlesses, location ofevidence, etc., that do not bear on. the inteJPretation oftbe arbitration elause
but to the-later detel'nlinatio.o ot cl2$$ certification.
28

-16-
PAGE 20/21 t RCVO AT 8111120067:55:45 AM ~aclfic Daylight Tlmel t SVR:LAXRF1~ *DNlS:999r1S1D: t DURATION (mm"S~:06>46

-00023-

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document208 Filed09/15/06 Page19 of 19

1 it'~a$ done so, this matter sball proceed to a determination of clast ccrt.ification. If

any party informs the arbitrator within the perlod provided that it has sought
;
~ judicial revi~w7 rb" arbitrator may my futther proceedings until 'the arbitrator is

,5 informed of the ruling ofthe court.

1

1 Eugene F. Lynch do hereby affinn upon tny oath as Arbitrator that I am the

, individual de.scnDed in and who executed 1his instrument which is IllY partial final

10 award.

11

lZ \l

DATED this f¥I tL" clay ofAugust, 2006,

11

23
•
t t

.17-

=

PAGE11121"

RCVD

ml17l2Qot1:5_~;4~

~~ay. !)~,~

..
Tillie}

~

vRtmf1Jtr-etiIS'9998

S .

•

*es\O:

t

D1M:T~140

-00024-

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 1 of 10

1 PAUL GROSSMAN (SB# 35959) paulgrossman@paulhastings.com NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com
2 ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
3 Twenty-Fifth Floor 515 South Flower Street
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
5 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

6 Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10

11 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN BEASLEY, SANDRA EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS,
12 LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON,
13 CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, and AMY
14 SEVERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
15
Plaintiffs, 16
vs. 17

18 CINTAS CORPORATION,

19

Defendant.

20 LARRY HOUSTON and CLIFTON COOPER, on behalf of themselves and all
21 others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

vs.

24 CINTAS CORPORATION,

25

Defendant.

26

27

28
Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CASE NO. C04-00281-JSW

[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]

DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge:
Complaint Filed:

December 1, 2006 9:00 a.m. 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White
January 20, 2004

CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW

[RELATED TO CASE NO. C04-00281-JSW]

DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge:

December 1, 2006 9:00 a.m. 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Complaint Filed: August 3, 2005
CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 2 of 10

1

This Court should vacate the Arbitrator’s award, which arrogated to the Arbitrator

2 jurisdiction that the agreements did not confer.

3

A. An Arbitral Award Asserting Jurisdiction That Does Not Exist Must Be Set

4

Aside.

5

Respondents first would hide behind a deferential standard of review. But

6 Respondents overstate the standard, and the standard is not dispositive in any event. Some of

7 Cintas’ authorities set aside awards in excess of jurisdiction because, however deferential may be

8 the standard, an award cannot survive if it asserts jurisdiction not conferred by the operative

9 agreement. In other cases Cintas has submitted, the court interpreted the jurisdictional limits of

10 the arbitration agreements de novo without any deference. E.g., Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v.

11 Dist. 2 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, 889 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[W]here the

12 arbitrator exceeds the express limitations of his contractual mandate, judicial deference is at an

13 end.”). Cintas believes the latter line of cases is the better reasoned, but the standard of review

14 makes no difference. An arbitral award asserting jurisdiction that does not exist must be set

15 aside; an arbitration cannot bootstrap his way to jurisdiction. (See Cintas’ Notice of Motion and

16 Motion to Vacate 4:25-5:13.)

17

B. Under Bazzle, This Court Determines The Applicability Of The Place-Of-

18

Arbitration Term To Disputes Between Cintas And Absent Class Members.

19

Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), dictates that this

20 Court determine the “applicability” of the arbitration agreements of the named Respondents to

21 absent members of the putative class.

22

Respondents concede that, under Bazzle, gatekeeping issues — such as the

23 applicability of an arbitration agreement to the parties’ underlying dispute — are for the Court to

24 decide. Respondents argue, however, that the Arbitrator can decide the location of the arbitration.

25 The three cases they cite are irrelevant. First, none of the three was a class action; thus, none

26 involved absent class members who themselves were each individually bound to arbitrate

27 elsewhere. Second, none of the three was a review of an arbitral decision. Those courts were

28 improperly asked in the first instance to declare the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-2-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 3 of 10

1 Finally, each of the three presented a situation different from that here. Here, the parties by

2 contract provided that the arbitration hearing would be held in the county where the employee

3 works or last worked. Each of the three cases cited by Respondents, by contrast, involved an

4 agreement requiring the individual to arbitrate far from the location of the dispute. E.g.,

5 Richard C. Young & Co. v. Leventhal, 389 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[T]he object of the

6 litigation was to avoid the additional costs [the investment advisor organization] would incur if

7 the arbitration were held in California [where the client resided] instead of Boston.”); Ciago v.

8 Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 295 F. Supp. 2d 324, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (the arbitration agreement

9 signed by a New York employee specified arbitration “at the Company’s headquarters in Orange,

10 California”); Gill v. World Inspection Network Int’l, Inc., No. 06-CV-3187 (JFB) (MLO), 2006

11 WL 2166821, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006) (franchisee in New York sought to bar arbitration

12 in Seattle, Washington, claiming unconscionability).

13

Thus, in each of the three cases cited by Respondents, arbitral jurisdiction plainly

14 existed over the claims of the individual. The only question was where the individual’s claim

15 should be heard. Here, by contrast, the question is whether the Arbitrator usurped his jurisdiction

16 by ruling that Cintas employees from all over the country, each with a separate agreement to

17 arbitrate in the county where he or she works or worked, can be made to arbitrate their claims in

18 Alameda County. Nothing in Bazzle requires this Court to be bound by, or even to defer to, an

19 arrogation of jurisdiction that the arbitration contract denies.

20

C. The Arbitrator Did Not Misinterpret The Unambiguous Place-Of-Arbitration

21

Term; He Ignored The Term And Rendered It Meaningless.

22

Every usurpation-of-jurisdiction case is argued to be merely a “misinterpretation”

23 of the arbitration agreement. But styling the issue that way does not change its substance. The

24 Arbitrator here did not, as Respondents assert, misinterpret the “held in the county” language in

25 the arbitration agreements. The Arbitrator stated:

26

[The “held in the county” language] simply directs the employee to

request an arbitration that is held in the county and state where he

27

or she works or last worked but does not mandate that the

arbitration, including a class arbitration, actually be held there.

28

Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-3-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 4 of 10

1 (Arbitrator’s Opinion and Decision Re Issues of Class Action Arbitration (“Arbitrator’s Award”)

2 15:21-16:2, attached as Exhibit V to the Declaration of Paul Grossman (“Grossman Decl.”) (some

3 emphasis in original).)

4

The Arbitrator thus did not “interpret” the agreement; he wrote a key term out of

5 it. In doing so, he exceeded his powers and found that the agreements give him jurisdiction he

6 does not have: to resolve, in a hearing held in Alameda County, the claims of Cintas employees

7 who contracted to arbitrate their claims elsewhere. “When the arbitrator ignores the unambiguous

8 language chosen by the parties, the arbitrator simply fails to do his job.” U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am.

9 Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 204 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Mountaineer Gas Co.

10 v. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union, 76 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 1996)).

11

Despite their protestations about the “ambiguous” and “convoluted” wording of

12 the place-of-arbitration term, Respondents themselves repeatedly and correctly identify the key

13 elements of the provision at issue:

14

The operative portion of the sentence reads: “Employee shall . . .

submit . . . a written request to have such claim . . . resolved

15

through impartial arbitration [1] conducted in accordance with

[AAA rules] . . . and [2] held in the county and state where

16

Employee currently works for Employer. . . .”

17 (Plaintiffs’ Opposition (“Opp.”) 3:12-16.) Similarly:

18

[An employee’s request to initiate arbitration] must contain two

requests: (1) arbitration under the AAA Employment Rules, and

19

(2) that the arbitration be held in the county where the employee

last worked.

20

21 (Id. 10:19-21.)

22

Significantly, Respondents have never challenged the language requiring

23 arbitrations to be conducted in accordance with the AAA rules. Indeed, they have affirmatively

24 asserted that under the agreements, AAA rules control. (Id. 2:8-10 (“Pursuant to . . . Rule 3 of the

25 American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’) Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration (‘Class

26 Arbitration Rules’), Judge Lynch was tasked with ‘Clause Construction’. . .”).) Respondents

27 cannot have it both ways. If the agreements conclusively required arbitrations to be conducted

28
Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-4-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 5 of 10

1 under AAA rules, they equally conclusively required arbitrations to be “held in the county” where

2 the employee works or last worked.

3

D. In Ruling That “Held In The County” Does Not Mean “Held In The County,”

4

The Arbitrator Relied On Contractual Language That Does Not Exist.

5

The Arbitrator stated:

6

Notably the phrase at issue does not explicitly provide that the

county where the employee works or last worked is the only place

7

the arbitration may be initiated or held. In fact the agreements

contain a provision providing that “arbitration could be compelled

8

in any court having jurisdiction”, which is inconsistent with Cintas’

interpretation and militates against Cintas’ interpretation of this

9

phrase.

10 (Arbitrator’s Award 14:19-15:1.) As Cintas pointed out in its opening brief, the language quoted

11 by the Arbitrator does not appear in any of the parties’ agreements. The actual language, set forth

12 in the award, states: “A legal action either to maintain the status quo pending arbitration or to

13 enforce the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitration award may be filed and pursued in any court

14 having jurisdiction.” (Id. 10:8-10.) This actual language merely specifies the limited types of

15 proceedings that parties may bring in court. It does not contradict the parties’ agreement that

16 arbitration is to be held in the county where the employee works or last worked.

17

E. Respondents Rely On Their Own Contract Breach To Justify The

18

Arbitrator’s Rationale.

19

Respondents contend: “Plaintiff Salcedo is arbitrating his claims in San Francisco

20 because Cintas filed a motion to compel in the Northern District of California, a ‘court having

21 jurisdiction.’” (Opp. 9:6-8.)

22

What Respondents omit is that Salcedo had — and breached — a contractual

23 obligation to request an arbitration to be held in Suffolk County, New York. Other Respondents

24 similarly breached the place-of-arbitration terms in their agreements. With respect to the specific

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-5-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 6 of 10

1 named Respondents only, Cintas waived the place-of-arbitration term and enforced the arbitration 2 agreements in the Northern District of California.1

3

Having chosen to violate their arbitration agreements and sue in the Ninth Circuit,

4 presumably seeking tactical advantage, Respondents now disingenuously claim they can drag

5 absent class members into the Northern District as well, and force Cintas to arbitrate, as to them,

6 in a different forum from that designated by contract. This writes out of the contract the

7 limitation that the Alameda County arbitration be limited to employees who work or last worked

8 in that county.

9

No employee has satisfied what even the Arbitrator acknowledges is a prerequisite

10 to arbitration: requesting an arbitration in the county and state where he or she works or last

11 worked for Cintas.

12

F. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Achieved, Where It Does Not Exist, By Construing

13

Language Against Either Party.

14

Respondents argue that the Arbitrator’s award should not be vacated because he

15 applied the rule of contra proferentem. But there is no ambiguity here, and therefore no cause to

16 elevate hoary construction principles over plain contractual language. An arbitration “held in the

17 county” of work is what Cintas and each of its employees contracted, in separate arbitration

18 agreements, to occur. The Arbitrator lacks authority to resolve, in an arbitration in Alameda

19 County, the claims of persons who do not work there and never have worked there. The

20 Arbitrator cannot create jurisdiction by “construing” unambiguous language.

21

22

23

24 1 Most courts hold that “where the parties agreed to arbitrate in a particular forum only a district court in that forum has authority to compel arbitration under § 4.” Ansari v. Qwest Commc’ns
25 Corp., 414 F.3d 1214, 1219-20 (10th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit, however, has not followed the majority view and has held that Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act limits this Court to
26 compelling arbitration in this judicial district, despite the parties’ agreement regarding the place of arbitration. Cont’l Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir. 1941).
27 Mindful of that Ninth Circuit precedent, in this particular case Cintas chose to move to compel arbitration of these particular individuals’ claims in the district in which suit was filed.
28

Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-6-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 7 of 10

1

G. The Arbitrator In The Veliz Matter Found That “Held In The County”

2

Means “Held In The County.”

3

As Cintas discussed in its opening brief, in Veliz v. Cintas Corp., AAA Case No.

4 11 160 01323 04, an opt-in action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Arbitrator Bruce

5 E. Meyerson found that “the place-of-arbitration provision [in the Cintas arbitration agreements]

6 constitutes an explicit understanding between Cintas and its SSR’s that arbitration is to occur in

7 the state and county where the employee works.” (Clause Construction Award and Ruling on

8 Scope of Arbitration (“Veliz Award”) 5:1-3, attached as Exhibit W to the Grossman Declaration.)

9 The Veliz Award unequivocally held that only those relatively few claimants specifically

10 compelled to arbitration by the federal district court in the Northern District of California could

11 participate in an arbitration proceeding in Northern California. (Id. 5:1-4.) The approximately

12 1900 other opt-in claimants were barred from joining a Northern California arbitration because of

13 each of his or her agreements to arbitrate in the county where he or she works or last worked for

14 Cintas. Arbitrator Meyerson stated:

15

Because I have concluded that the Cintas arbitration agreement

requires arbitration in the location where SSR’s worked, the 1900

16

opt-in claimants, to the extent they have not been compelled to

17

arbitrate by the District Court in the Northern District of California, may not become parties to this proceeding. . . . [T]he

18

place-of-arbitration provision contained in an enforceable

arbitration agreement must be given effect.

19

20 (Id. 7:20-8:2.)

21

After filing their Opposition, Respondents filed a motion to submit for this Court’s

22 review Arbitrator Meyerson’s Order Clarifying Clause Construction Award, dated October 13,

23 2006 (“Clarifying Order”), in the Veliz matter. Respondents contend that this Clarifying Order

24 somehow reinforces Arbitrator Lynch’s rationale in ignoring the place-of-arbitration term. In no

25 way did the Clarifying Order, however, change the Veliz Award. Indeed, Arbitrator Meyerson

26 explicitly rejected the claimants’ request to modify his Award. (Clarifying Order 1:22-23

27 (“Although Claimants have requested that I reconsider my Award, I believe that a clarification is

28 necessary, not a reconsideration.”), attached as Exhibit A to Respondents’ Motion to File

Case No. C04-00281-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

Case No. C05-03145-JSW

-7-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 8 of 10

1 Additional Authority in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration

2 Award.)

3

In dicta, Arbitrator Meyerson suggested that in a non-FLSA class arbitration, he

4 might have ruled differently because of the absence of the FLSA and/or because federal rules

5 would govern. (Id. 2:5-9 (“I did not fully explain in the Award that because a class arbitration, in

6 contrast to a collective arbitration under the Fair Labor Standards Act . . ., does not require class

7 members to become a party to another proceeding, there was nothing inconsistent between the

8 place-of-arbitration provision and participation in a class arbitration held in a locale other than the

9 county where an SSR worked.”).) This “clarification” is clearly erroneous for at least two

10 reasons. First, there is no such thing as a “collective arbitration under the Fair Labor Standards

11 Act.” The FLSA only creates a collective “action” which “may be maintained” “in any Federal

12 or State court of competent jurisdiction.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (emphasis added). Second, the

13 federal rules do not govern AAA arbitrations. Pike v. Freeman, 266 F.3d 78, 92 n.17 (2d Cir.

14 2001) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in arbitrations before the American

15 Arbitration Association.”); Glencore, Ltd. v. Schnitzer Steel Prods. Co., 189 F.3d 264, 268 (2d

16 Cir. 1999) (“‘The federal rules do not govern the procedure in the hearings before the

17 arbitrators.’”).

18

In short, the Clarifying Order does not change the Award in Veliz, and does not

19 change the reasons why the Court should vacate the Arbitrator’s award in this case.2

20

21

22

23 2 In the Veliz action, and prior to Cintas making this motion to vacate Arbtrator Lynch’s Award in this matter, Cintas moved to confirm Arbitrator Meyerson’s Award as subsequently quoted in this
24 motion by Cintas (both in Cintas’ opening brief and in this reply). Cintas moved in the Veliz action to vacate Arbitrator Meyerson’s interpretation of the arbitration agreements of a relatively
25 few persons which allowed a putative class arbitration to proceed to the next stage beyond the clause construction stage, albeit limited to those relatively few persons who had been compelled
26 to arbitration by the District Court for the Northern District of California. Cintas originally noticed its motion in Veliz for hearing on October 31, 2006 before U.S. District Court Judge
27 Saundra Brown Armstrong. The hearing on Cintas’ motion in the Veliz action was subsequently rescheduled by the Court for hearing on December 12, 2006.
28

Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-8-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 9 of 10

1

H. Respondents Err In Contending That The Venue Rules Do Not Apply To

2

Class Actions.

3

Finally, Respondents argue that “a nationwide class arbitration can proceed on the

4 independent ground that venue restrictions do not apply to absent class members.” (Opp. 13:14-

5 17.) In support of their argument, Respondents cite several cases dealing with class actions under

6 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not class arbitrations pursuant to arbitration agreements

7 containing different place-of-arbitration provisions. None of Respondents’ authorities is 8 applicable because, in lawsuits under the federal rules, venue is not jurisdictional.3 Arbitration,

9 by contrast, is a creature of contract, not rule, and the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is only as broad as

10 the contract that conferred it. In arbitration, then, each place-of-arbitration provision in each

11 contract has jurisdictional force.

12

The issue is jurisdiction — namely, whether the Arbitrator exceeded his

13 jurisdiction under the parties’ agreements to the extent he (i) decided each of the absent class

14 members may disregard his or her contractual promise, and (ii) thereby discarded Cintas’

15 substantive contractual right and Cintas’ substantive statutory right under the Federal Arbitration

16 Act for each such person to arbitrate claims in the county where he or she works or last worked.

17

I. Conclusion

18

Respondents concede that Cintas could file in the appropriate jurisdictions

19 petitions to compel arbitration with respect to every putative class member who either opts in or

20 chooses not to opt out of an Alameda County arbitration (i.e., if an employee who works in Dade

21 County, Florida seeks to participate in the Alameda County arbitration, Cintas could file a

22 petition to compel arbitration in Florida). Respondents are correct that Cintas could do so. The

23 jurisdictional issue in the specific circumstances of this case, however — whether the Arbitrator

24 in these specific circumstances has jurisdiction under the arbitration agreements of the named

25 3 E.g., U.S. v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 98, 100 (D.D.C. 1976) (“The central function
26 of venue generally is to regulate the forum in which a party may appear or may force another party to appear personally, in a suit in which the court would otherwise have jurisdiction.”);
27 Bywaters v. U.S., 196 F.R.D. 458, 464 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (“Venue does not relate to the power to adjudicate, but to the place where that power is to be exercised . . . .”).
28

Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-9-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 220 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 10 of 10

1 Respondents to resolve disputes of Cintas employees who did not work in Alameda County —

2 should be resolved by this Court. The proper resolution is to give full effect to the contract

3 language which requires that the arbitration be “conducted in accordance with American

4 Arbitration Association’s National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes” (a

5 provision Respondents’ counsel like, and indeed assert) and be “held in the county and state

6 where Employee . . . most recently worked . . . .” (a provision of equal dignity, located in the

7 same place in the employment agreement, which Respondents’ counsel do not like, and struggle

8 to ignore). Accordingly, Cintas respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion.

9

10 DATED: October 27, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

11

PAUL GROSSMAN

NANCY L. ABELL

12

ELENA R. BACA

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

13

14

By:

/s/ Paul Grossman

15

Paul Grossman

16

Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case No. C04-00281-JSW Case No. C05-03145-JSW

CINTAS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

-10-

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION

AWARD; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 19

1 Morris J. Bailer (SB #048928)

Roberta L. Steele (SB #188 198) 2 Joseph E. Jaramillo (SB #178566)

James Kan (SB #240749)
3
GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

4

BORGEN & DARDARL&N

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

5 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763-9800 (Telephone) 6 (510) 835-1417 (Fax)

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

Betty Eberle (SB #1969 14) MINER, BARNIHILL & GALLAND 44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803 (608) 255-5200 (Telephone) (608) 255-5380 (Fax)
Paul Strauss (SB #153937)
MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 (Telephone)
(312) 751-0438 (Fax)

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN BEASLEY,

12 SANDRA EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO,

13

A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), BLANCA NELLY

14

AVALOS, and AMY SEVERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly

15 situated,

16

Plaintiffs,

17 vs.

CASE NO. C04-00281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
Date: December 1, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 2,l7thFloor
Hon. Jeffrey S. White

18 CINTAS CORPORATION,

19

Defendant.

20 LARRY HOUSTON and CLIFTON COOPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
21 situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

vs.

24 CINTAS CORPORATION,

25

Defendant.

Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004
CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C04-00281-JSW]
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
Date: December 1, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

26

Complaint Filed: August 3, 2005

27

28

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 19

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Page(s)
1

4 BACKGROUND

2

5 ARGUMENT

4

6 I. GIVEN THE EXTREMELY DEFERENTIAL REVIEW, VACATUR IS NOT

WARRANTED EVEN BY ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT OR

7

MISINTERPRETATIONS OF LAW OR CONTRACT

4

8

A. Cintas' Motion Is Simply an Improper Request to Reinterpret an Ambiguous

Provision of the Employment Agreement

5

9

B. Reinterpretation Under the Guise of De Novo Review Is Not Permitted

6

10

C. Reinterpretation Under the Guise of a Bazzle "Gate-Keeping Issue" Is Not

11

Permitted

7

12 II. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPER FOR THIS COURT TO REViEW THE MERITS OF

THE ARBITRATOR'S CONTRACT INTERPRETATION, IT WOULD FIND NO

13

ERROR

8

14

A. The Fact that the Contract Provides that Arbitration Can Be Compelled in the

District of "Any Court Having Jurisdiction" Contradicts Cintas' Interpretation

8

15

B. The Location of the Phrase Within a Sentence Dealing with the Initiation

16

Process Is Signific ant with Regard to Interpretation

10

17

C. Arguments Regarding Convenience of Witnesses and Location of Evidence Do

Not Bear on the Interpretation of the Arbitration Clause

11

18

D. The Arbitrator's Interpretation Does Not Render Contract Language

19

Meaningless

11

20

E. The Arbitrator Correctly Found That, To the Extent the "Arbitration Initiation"

Term is Ambiguous, It Must Be Construed Against Cintas

12

21

III. THE VELIZ V. CINTAS CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION DETERMINATION IS

22

CONSISTENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S CONTRACT INTERPRETATION

12

23 IV. CINTAS' REQUEST FOR PARTIAL VACATUR SHOULD BE DENIED AS MOOT

BECAUSE A NATIONWIDE CLASS ARBITRATION CAN PROCEED ON THE

24

INDEPENDENT GROUND THAT VENUE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO

ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS

13

25

CONCLUSION

14

26

27

28

PLAiNTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 19

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

FEDERAL CASES

3
4 Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
5
Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 6 343 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2003)

7 Bywaters v. United States, 196 F.R.D. 458 (E.D. Tex. 2000)
8
Ciago v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 9 295 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
10 Continental Grain Co. v. Danta & Russell, 118 F.2d967 (9thCir. 1941)
11
Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Association, 12 AFL-CIO, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1989)

13 G.C. &KB. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2003)
14 Gill v. World Inspection Network International, Inc.,
15 2006 WL2166821 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)
16 Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003)
17 Haw. Teamsters and Allied Workers Union,
18 Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, 241 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2001)
19
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
20 537U.S.79(2002)
21 In re Gap Sec. Litigation, 79 F.R.D. 283 (N.D. Cal. 1978)
22 International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers v.
23 W. Industrial Maintenance, Inc., 707 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1983)
24 Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.,
25 341 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2003)

26 Madden v. Protection One Monitoring, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (N.D. Ga. 2004)
27

28

11
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Page(s) 14
13 14
8 9
7
5
8,11
7
1,5,6, 13
7
14
4 1, 4, 6
11

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 19

1 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
2 Pac. Motor Trucking Co. v. Automobile Machinists Union,
3 702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983)
4 Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. v. Leventhal, 389 F.3d 1(1st Cir. 2004)
5 San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild v. Tribune Publ'g Co.,
6 407 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1969)
7 Stead Motors of Walnut Creek v. Automobile Machinists, 886 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1999)
8 U.S. Postal Serv. v. America Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
9 204 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2000)
10 United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 98 (D.D.C. 1976)
11
United Steelworkers ofAmerica v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 12 363 U.S. 593 (1960)
13 W. Employers Insurance Co. v. Jeffries & Co., 958 F.2d258 (9thCir. 1992)
14 STATE CASES
15
Chavis v. S. Lfe Insurance Co., 16 347 S.E.2d425(N.C. 1986)
17 Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Anders, 789 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio 2003)
18
Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. US. Balloon Mfg. Co., Inc., 19 1OA.D.3d 699 (N.Y. App. 2004)
20 Graffv. Billet, 477 N.E.2d 212 (N.Y. 1985)
21
Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 22 553 S.E.2d 84 (N.C. App. 2001)
23 Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032 (Nev. 2004)
24 The RatclffArchitects v. Vanir Construction Management,
25 88Ca1.App.4th595(2001)
26 Weil v. Federal Kemper Lfe Assurance Co., 7 Cal. 4th 125 (1994)
27 Westfield Insurance Co. v. Galatis,
28 797 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio 2003)
111
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Page(s)
12 7 6 6 6 14
4,5,6
12
12 8 8 12 8 8, 12 8 12 12

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 19

1 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES (continued)

2 DOCKETED CASES
3 Veliz v. Cintas Corp.,
AAACaseNo. 111600132304 (July27, 2006)
4 Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.,
5 Case No. 4:03-cv-01180-SBA (N. D. Cal.)

6

FEDERAL STATUTES

7 Federal Arbitration Act,
9 U.S.C. § 1, etseq
8

STATE STATUTES

9 California Civil Code

10

§ 1638

§ 1654

11

AAA RULES

12
Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration, Rule 3

13
MISCELLANEOUS

14 Restatement (Second) of Contracts

15 1 7A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iv
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Page(s)
13 13
4,5,9,10
8 12
2 8, 12
8

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 19

1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

2

Defendant Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") raises no legitimate ground on which this Court may

3 vacate any portion of the Arbitrator's Opinion and Decision Re: Issues of Class Action Arbitration

4 (Aug. 16, 2006) ("Award").1 Cintas does not challenge the conclusion of the Arbitrator, Judge Eugene

5 F. Lynch (Ret.), that class-wide arbitrations are allowed under the Cintas Employment Agreements, 6 but seeks to vacate only the portion of the Award ruling that the Agreements do not limit the

7 geographic scope of the putative class arbitration. This Court's review of the present matter is

8 extremely limited: the Court may only vacate the challenged portion of the Award if the Arbitrator's

9 decision was completely irrational or in manifest disregard of the law. See Kyocera Corp. v.

10 Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Significantly, the

11 misinterpretation of a contract provision by an arbitrator does not support vacatur of the arbitration

12 award. See Haw. Teamsters andAllied Workers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, 241 F.3d

13 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Cintas' contention is entirely dependent on its allegation that

14 Judge Lynch misinterpreted an (at best ambiguous) term in the Employment Agreements, this Court

15 may not vacate the Award.

16

Moreover, even assuming that misinterpretation of a contract could support vacatur, Judge

17 Lynch's interpretation in this case was not erroneous. Judge Lynch applied well-settled principles of

18 contract law to construe the language at issue according to its plain and ordinary meaning, giving force

19 to every provision of the contract. He also held that, to the extent the language is ambiguous, it must

20 be construed against the drafter, Cintas. Judge Lynch thus reasonably concluded that what Cintas

21 argues is a venue restriction merely requires an employee initiating arbitration to request that it be held

22 in the county of last employment. Because Cintas compelled arbitration in this judicial district, that

23 provision does not apply here. In any case, it cannot apply to absent class members, who have not

24 requested an arbitration, and who are entitled to benefit from class-wide relief should a class be

25 certified. Accordingly, this Court should deny Cintas' motion to partially vacate the Award.

26 __________________________

27

The Award is attached as Exhibit V to the Declaration of Paul Grossman in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award ("Grossman DecI.") filed on September 15,

28 2006 by Cintas (Dkt. 2 10-1).

1 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 19

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs in these two related actions worked for Cintas in various states. They were either

3 compelled, or stipulated, to arbitration in the Northern District of California. Following this Court's

4 grant of Cintas' motion to compel arbitration, in which this Court held that the question of whether

5 plaintiffs' claims could be arbitrated on a class basis was for the arbitrator to decide (see Order (Mar. 6 22, 2005), Dkt. #81, at 14), the parties selected former United States District Court Judge Eugene F.

7 Lynch (Ret.) to arbitrate their claims in San Francisco.

8

Pursuant to this Court's orders and Rule 3 of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")

9 Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration ("Class Arbitration Rules"),2 Judge Lynch was tasked with 10 "Clause Construction": deciding whether, based on the plain language of the Cintas Employment

11 Agreements, plaintiffs' claims could be arbitrated on a class basis. Cintas argued (based on the

12 language of the agreement) that the arbitration clause did not permit class arbitrations and,

13 alternatively, that it required that any class arbitration be limited in geographic scope to the county in

14 which the employee works or last worked. Plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that the language of the

15 employment agreements permitted class-wide arbitration with no geographic boundaries.

16

On August 16, 2006, after full briefing by both parties and oral argument,3 Judge Lynch

17 concluded that "the Cintas Employment Agreements permit class-wide arbitration, and there is no

18 limitation to where the class action may be heard by virtue of a claimed 'place of arbitration' clause."

19 Awardatl6.

20

Cintas does not contend that Judge Lynch exceeded his power when he held that the

21 Agreements permit class-wide arbitration. Instead, Cintas' entire challenge to the Award, although

22 couched in the guise of lack ofjurisdiction, simply consists of its disagreement with Judge Lynch's

23 interpretation of one (very long and convoluted) sentence in the multi-page arbitration clause in the

24 Agreements, which reads:

25

To have a fair, timely, inexpensive and binding method of resolving any such dispute or

difference remaining unresolved after Employee and Employer confer in good faith, 26

27 2The AAA Class Arbitration Rules are included in Exhibit X to the Grossman Declaration. 28 3me July 7, 2006 Clause Construction hearing lasted approximately three hours.

2
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 19

1

should Employee desire to pursue Employee's claim, Employee shall, within one year

of the date when the dispute or difference first arose or within one year of .vhen

2

Employee's employment ends, whichever occurs first, submit to Employer a written

3

request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved through impartial arbitration conducted in accordance with the American Arbitration Association's National Rules

for the Resolution of Employment Disputes and held in the county and state where

Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for Employer.

5
See Award at 9:17-26 (quoting arbitration clause). 6
Cintas urged Judge Lynch to parse and interpret the phrase "held in the county and state where 7
Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for Employer" - the last phrase of the
8
sentence - in isolation from the rest of the sentence. Cintas argued that the subject phrase, standing 9
alone, meant that any arbitration under the agreement must be held in the county where the Employee
10
had last worked for Cintas - i.e., that the phrase constituted a venue clause.
11
Plaintiffs argued that the phrase must be interpreted in the context of the entire sentence and
12
cannot be read in isolation. The operative portion of the sentence reads: "Employee shall.. .submit...
13
a written request to have such claim. . . resolved through impartial arbitration [1] conducted in
14
accordance with [AAA rules] . . . and [2] held in the county and state where Employee currently works
15
for Employer. .. ." Id. (emphasis added). Read in the context of the entire sentence, the phrase could
16
only be interpreted to mean that if an employee requests arbitration, the employee must request that it
17
be held in the county where the employee last worked for Cintas. Moreover, in this case, Plaintiffs did
18
not submit a request for arbitration. Rather, Cintas moved this Court compel arbitration, and the Court
19
ordered that arbitration must take place in this judicial district. 20
Judge Lynch rejected Cintas' arguments and agreed with plaintiffs. He concluded that the
21
sentence "simply directs the employee to request an arbitration that is held in the county and state 22
where he or she works or last worked but does not mandate that the arbitration, including a class
23
arbitration, actually be held there." Award at 14-15. Thus, since the instant arbitration has already 24
been initiated (via a motion to compel, not an employee's request for arbitration) and since the
25
question before Judge Lynch concerned whether class members could benefit from an arbitration that 26
had already been initiated, the phrase is not applicable to the present arbitration. 27

28

3
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 19

1

Judge Lynch devoted over four pages of the Award to the explanation of his interpretation of

2 this phrase. See Award at 13-17. In those pages, Judge Lynch explained that his interpretation was

3 based on Cintas' "choice of language," including the existence of another provision that contradicted 4 Cintas' interpretation.4 Id. at 14-15. Judge Lynch also stated that the interpretation was based on the

5 "location" of the phrase within the arbitration clause, including the fact that the provision "was placed

6 at the end of a very lengthy and convoluted sentence dealing with initiation of the arbitration process."

7 Id. at 15. Judge Lynch determined, finally, to give the provision its "plain and ordinary meaning," and

8 to the extent it was ambiguous, to construe it against Cintas as the drafter of the language. Id. at 15-16.

9

ARGUMENT

10

I. GIVEN THE EXTREMELY DEFERENTIAL REVIEW, VACATUR IS

NOT WARRANTED EVEN BY ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT OR

11

MISINTERPRETATIONS OF LAW OR CONTRACT.

12

"An arbitrator's award must be upheld as long as it 'draws its essence' from the agreement."

13 Int'l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers v. W. Indus. Maintenance, Inc., 707 F.2d 425, 429 (9th

14 Cir. 1983) (citing United Steelworkers ofAm. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596-97

15 (1960)). The Ninth Circuit, in Kyocera Corp., recently reiterated the "extremely limited review

16 authority" applicable to an arbitration award, explaining that vacatur of the award is not warranted

17 even by "erroneous findings of fact or misinterpretations of law." Id. at 998. Rather, Section 10 of the

18 Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") permits vacatur only:

19

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;

20

(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or

either of them;

21

(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone

22

the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other

23

misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed

24

them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter

submitted was not made.

25

26 __________________________

27

Lynch found that the phrase allowing party to move to enforce the Agreement in any court having jurisdiction contradicted Cintas' position that all arbitrations must be held in the county of last

28 employment. See Award at 14-15.

4
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 19

1 Id. at 997 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)) (emphasis in original).

2

Cintas argues that vacatur of a portion of Judge Lynch's award is warranted on the fourth

3 basis — that he exceeded his power. Def. Br. at 6-7. However, the Ninth circuit has held that

4 "arbitrators 'exceed their powers'... not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law

5 incorrectly, but when the award is 'completely irrational,' or exhibits a 'manifest disregard of law."

6 Id. (emphasis added) (quotations omitted). See also G.C. & KB. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096,

7 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the standard). Cintas does not argue that Judge Lynch's award is

8 completely irrational or in manifest disregard of the law, but merely disagrees with his interpretation of

9 the arbitration clause. As mere disagreement with an arbitrator's contract interpretation does not

10 support a motion to vacate an arbitration award (see Haw. Teamsters, 241 F.3d at 1183), Cintas'

11 objection to Judge Lynch's award does not fall within the clear standard of error necessary for vacatur.

12 A. Cintas' Motion Is Simply an Improper Request to Reinterpret an Ambiguous Provision of

the Employment Agreement.
13

Cintas contends that Judge Lynch exceeded his jurisdiction under the Cintas Employment
14

Agreements when he ruled that he could decide out-of-state class members' claims in a California
15

arbitration. Cintas' objection is based entirely on its contention that the agreements "expressly"
16

provide that "any arbitration between Cintas Corporation [Jand an employee is to be 'held in the
17

county. . . where Employee. . . worked." Def. Br. at 1 (emphasis added). Cintas is wrong, as there is
18

no such express provision in the Agreements.5 19

Thus, despite the window dressing, Cintas' motion to vacate is nothing more than a request that 20

this Court reject Judge Lynch's interpretation of an at best ambiguous provision and substitute Cintas'
21

interpretation. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected Cintas' strategy of attempting to "open a back 22

door to judicial review of the merits of an arbitral award":
23

[Petitioner's] position would result in the exception swallowing the rule; any time an

24

arbitrator arrived at a result that a party believes to be the result of faulty contract

25

interpretation, it could obtain judicial review of the merits by phrasing its disagreement

26 The relevant language of the agreements reads: "Employee shall. . . submit.. . a written request to

27

have such claim. . . resolved through impartial arbitration conducted in accordance with [AAA rules]. and held in the county and state where Employee.. . most recently worked for Employer." Award

28 at 9:20-26 (quoting the Cintas Employment Agreement of Plaintiff Salcedo) (emphasis added).

5
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 11 of 19

1

with the arbitrator's award as a complaint that he disregarded the contract and

"dispensed his own brand of industrial justice." But the iEact that an arbitrator arguably

2

misinterpreted a contract does not mean that he did not engage in the act of interpreting

it. As bears repeating, "so far as the arbitrator's decision concerns construction of the

contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the

4

contract is different from his." Enterprise Wheel, 363 U.S. at 599 (emphasis added).

5 Haw. Teamsters, 241 F.3d at 1183. It is well established law that a court cannot substitute its

6 interpretation of a contract for that of an arbitrator:

7

[E]ven if we were to disagree with the arbitrator's approach, it is not our task to intrude

into the arbitration process and substitute our judgment for his. See Enterprise Wheel,

8

363 U.S. at 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358; Stead Motors [of Walnut Creek v. Automobile

Machinists Lodge No. 1773], 886 F.2d [1201,] 1204 [(9th Cir. 1969)]; San Francisco-

9

Oakland Newspaper Guild v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 407 F.2d 1327, 1327 (9th Cir. 1969).

10 Id. at 1182. See also Enter. Wheel, 363 U.S. at 599 ("courts have no business overruling [the

arbitrator] because their interpretation of the contract is different from his."). Cintas' motion to vacate
12 should thus be denied because it is based solely on its disagreement with Judge Lynch's interpretation
13 of the arbitration clause. The Court cannot vacate it based on Cintas' disagreement.
14 B. Reinterpretation Under the Guise of De Novo Review Is Not Permitted.
15
Cintas improperly makes another backdoor attempt to having this Court reinterpret the 16
arbitration provision at issue by asserting that the proper standard for this Court to apply is de novo 17
review. This is incorrect. It is well established that district courts have "extremely limited review
18
authority" over an arbitration award, Kyocera Corp., 341 F.3d at 998, and the Ninth Circuit has stated 19
that de novo review of an arbitral award is not proper: "Our role [in reviewing an arbitral award] is 20
severely limited compared to our routine de novo review of a district court's interpretation of contract 21
language." Haw. Teamsters, 241 F.3d at 1182 (citing Stead Motors, 886 F.2d at 1205 (noting "the 22
unique character of an arbitrator's function and the nearly unparalleled degree of deference we afford 23
his decisions.")). 24
The case law Cintas relies on does not hold that de novo review is appropriate. On the 25
contrary, Cintas' case law states that an arbitration award is entitled to judicial deference, and under 26
that deferential standard, an award that exceeds the express terms of the agreements should be 27
vacated. See, e.g., US. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 204 F.3d 523, 527 (4th 28

6
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 12 of 19

1 Cir. 2000) ("Underlying judicial deference to arbitral awards is the principle that the terms of the 2 parties' agreement are controlling. This same principle requires courts to vacate awards when an 3 arbitrator exceeds his authority under.. . [an] agreement."); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 4 Marine Eng'rs BenejIcialAss'n, AFL-CIO, 889 F.2d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 1989) ("arbitral action contrary 5 to express contractual provisions will not be respected.") (emphasis added). This does not constitute 6 de novo review. Moreover, Judge Lynch's award is entitled to judicial deference and Cintas has not 7 met its burden of showing that the Award exceeds the express terms of the contract under the 8 circumstances here.
9 C. Reinterpretation Under the Guise of a Bazzle "Gate-Keeping Issue" Is Not Permitted.

10

Cintas' final attempt to persuade this Court to reinterpret the arbitration clause is to assert that

11 the location of an arbitration is a "gate-keeping issue," and thus under Green Tree Financial Corp. v.

12 Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), is "for [the] court to decide." Def. Br. at 9. Cintas misrepresents the law.

13 In Bazzle, the Supreme Court stated that in "certain limited circumstances, courts assume that the

14 parties intended courts, not arbitrators, to decide a particular arbitration-related matter." Bazzle, 539

15 U.S. at 452. Those limited issues consist of the "validity of the arbitration clause" and "its

16 applicability to the underlying dispute between the parties." Id. Neither of these limited issues applies

17 here.

18

Moreover, the Supreme Court has also held that certain issues are "presumptively not for the

19 judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide." Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84

20 (2002). These include "procedural" gateway questions, such as defenses to arbitrability and whether

21 time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate are

22 met. Id.

23

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bazzle held that the issue regarding whether a contract

24 forbids class arbitration should be decided by the arbitrator because it "concerns neither the validity of

25 the arbitration clause nor its applicability to the underlying dispute between the parties." 539 U.S. at

26 452. The same is true for the location of arbitration. See Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. v. Leventhal,

27 389 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004) ("Since the dispute between the parties is concededly arbitrable,

28

7
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 13 of 19

1 determining the place of the arbitration is simply a procedural matter and hence for the arbitrator.");

2 Gill v. World Inspection Network Int'l, Inc. 2006 WL 2166821, *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that

3 validity of a forum selection provision was a procedural matter for an arbitrator, not a court, to decide);

4 Ciago v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 295 F. Supp. 2d 324, 329-31 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (noting that the 5 interpretation of the forum selection clause was for the arbitrator to decide). Thus, under Supreme

6 Court jurisprudence, the issue of the location of an arbitration is for the arbitrator to decide.

7

II. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPER FOR THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE

MERITS OF THE ARBITRATOR'S CONTRACT INTERPRETATION, IT

8

WOULD FIND NO ERROR.

Even if Cintas' disagreement with Judge Lynch's interpretation of the contract could form the 10 basis for vacating a portion of the Award (which, as explained above, it does not), Judge Lynch's

11 determination that the contract does not require that all arbitrations be held in the county where the

12 employee last worked is not erroneous. Judge Lynch applied well-settled principles of state contract

13 law to construe the arbitration clause according to its plain meaning and to give force to every

14 provision. See Award at 6-7 (citing The Ratcl?ffArchitects v. Vanir Constr. Mgmt., 88 Cal. App. 4th

15
595, 601-602 (2001) (applying contract interpretation principles to the arbitration clause).6 Thus, 16 Judge Lynch's award cannot be found to be completely irrational or in manifest disregard of the law

17 and may not be vacated.

18 A.
19

The Fact that the Contract Provides that Arbitration Can Be Compelled in the District of "Any Court Having Jurisdiction" Contradicts Cintas' Interpretation.

20

Cintas' disagreement with Judge Lynch's first finding regarding his interpretation of the

21 provision at issue has no merit. Judge Lynch noted that "the phrase at issue does not explicitly provide

22 that the county where the employee. . . last worked is the only place the arbitration may be initiated or

23

24 6The Award correctly notes, and Cintas does not dispute, that the rules for interpreting contracts are

25

similar in all of the states at issue. See Award at 6. See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 202(3)(a) (contract should be construed as written in a manner that gives the terms their plain,

26

natural, and ordinary meaning in the context of the entire agreement); 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 356; Cal. Civ. Code § 1638; Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. US. Balloon Mfg. Go,, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 699

27

(N.Y. App. 2004); Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 553 S.E.2d 84, 87 (N.C. App. 2001); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Anders, 789 N.E.2d 1094, 1098 (Ohio 2003); Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d

28 1032, 1039 (Nev. 2004).

8
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 14 of 19

1 held." In fact, he noted, another provision of the Cintas Employment Agreements stating that a motion

2 to compel arbitration could be brought in "any court having jurisdiction" suggests the contrary. Award

3 at 14 (emphasis added).7 As this Court has already recognized, a district court may compel arbitration 4 to take place only where the motion was brought,8 which may or may not be the home county of the

5 employee.

6

Indeed, the facts of the present case illustrate this point. Plaintiff Salcedo is arbitrating his

7 claims in San Francisco9 because Cintas filed a motion to compel in the Northern District of 8 California, a "court having jurisdiction." Under Cintas' interpretation of the arbitration clause, Salcedo

9 would have to arbitrate his claims in Suffolk County, New York. This is clearly not the case. Thus,

10 construing the arbitration clause according to its plain and ordinary meaning and giving force to the

11 provision permitting arbitration to be compelled in "any court having jurisdiction," Judge Lynch 12 reasonably concluded that the disputed term "only concerns the process of initiating arbitration, not the

13 location of the proceeding thereby initiated." Id. at 15.

14

Cintas' attack on Judge Lynch's reasoning is nonsensical. Cintas writes:

15

[The motion to compel] provision in no way contradicts the place-of-arbitration term.

First, suits under the FAA cannot be brought in every county. Most counties host no

16

federal courts.

17 Def. Br. at 12. There is no significance to the fact that most counties host no federal court; the fact

18 remains that the judicial district in which arbitration may be compelled can be different from the

19 county in which the employee last worked for Cintas. Cintas continues:

20

Second, if the employee sues in an inappropriate court, as here, a proceeding to enforce

21

the arbitration agreement might have to be filed in that court. There is no inconsistency

whatsoever between the quoted clause and the specification elsewhere of where the

22

arbitration must be held.

23 __________________________

24

This provision reads: "A legal action. . . to enforce the agreement to arbitrate.. . may be filed and pursued in any court having jurisdiction. . . ." Award at 9.

25 8 This Court ruled: "The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this provision of 9 U.S.C. § 4 to require that a court compelling arbitration under the FAA, order the arbitration to proceed within the district in
26 which the petition to compel has been filed. Continental Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967,

968-69 (9th Cir. 1941)." Order (Mar. 22, 2005), Dkt. #81, at 16. 27 Curiously, Cintas refers to the arbitrations as taking place in Alameda County. However, the clause 28 construction hearing took place in the City and County of San Francisco.

9
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 15 of 19

1 Id. This is simply wrong. The FAApermits a party to "petition any United States district court which
2 . . . would have jurisdiction . . . ofthe subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between

3 the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such

4 agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). Cintas could have sought to, but did not, compel the

5 arbitrations of plaintiffs' claims in the counties in which they last worked. In fact, in Veliz v. Cintas

6 Corp., in which the underlying wage and hour suit was filed in the Northern District of California,

7 Cintas moved to compel arbitration in districts across the United States where the home counties of the

8 plaintiff-employees in question were located. See Grossman DecI., Exh. Q (Suppi. Jaramillo Deci. in 9 Support of claimants' Brief in Support of clause Construction Determination, at Exhs. 1 & 2). Thus,

10 cintas knows well that "a proceeding to enforce the arbitration agreement" may be filed in any district

11 court with jurisdiction, regardless of where the plaintiff has sued.

12 B.
13

The Location of the Phrase Within a Sentence Dealing with the Initiation Process Is Significant with Regard to Interpretation.

14

Cintas' disagreement with Judge Lynch's second finding regarding his interpretation of the

15 phrase at issue also has no merit. Judge Lynch found that the location of the alleged "place-of-

16 arbitration" phrase within a sentence dealing with initiation of the arbitration process militates against

17 interpreting it as a venue restriction for class arbitration, giving the language of the contract its plain

18 and ordinary meaning. See Award at 15. The manifest purpose of the sentence at issue, he reasoned,

19 is to require the employee to "submit a request" to Cintas in order to initiate an arbitration. That

20 submission must contain two requests: (1) arbitration under the AAA Employment Rules, and (2) that

21 the arbitration be held in the county where the employee last worked. Thus, the sentence does not 22 require that all arbitrations, including class arbitrations, regardless of how initiated, be held in the

23 county where the employee last worked; it merely provides that an employee who initiates arbitration

24 must request that it be held there. Had Cintas intended to require that all arbitrations be held only in

25 the county of last employment, and that the geographic scope of a class arbitration be limited to such a

26 county, it could have said so by including a venue restriction setting forth this requirement "separately,

27 clearly, and unambiguously," as Judge Lynch explained. Award at 15.

28

10
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 16 of 19

1

Cintas cites two inapposite cases that deal with venue clauses embedded in larger paragraphs.

2 See Def. Br. at 13 (citing Gill, 2006 WL 2166821, and Madden v. Protection One Monitoring, Inc.,

3 358 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (N.D. Ga. 2004)). In neither of these cases, however, was the interpretation of

4 the venue provisions at issue. The issue was, rather, whether the arbitration agreements were

5 procedurally unconscionable. Madden is also inapplicable here because it did not even involve a

6 venue restriction, but rather the enforceability of the arbitration clause's requirement that plaintiff pay

7 one-half of the arbitration costs and expenses. See id. at 1221.
8 C. Arguments Regarding Convenience of Witnesses and Location of Evidence Do Not Bear on the Interpretation of the Arbitration Clause.

Cintas claims that Judge Lynch erred by ignoring the "inherent reasonableness of and logic
10
behind the [arbitration initiation] term" — that of facilitating witness convenience and access to

evidence. See Def. Br. at 10. However, contract interpretation is governed by the plain language of
12

the contract, and nothing in the Cintas arbitration clause addresses witness convenience or access to
13

14 evidence. Thus, Judge Lynch reasonably and properly found that Cintas' arguments regarding

convenience of witnesses and location of evidence "do not bear on the interpretation of the arbitration
15
clause but to the later determination of class certification." Award at 16, n. 11. Indeed, the importance
16
Cintas places on this matter is undercut by the fact that Cintas itself chose the Northern District of
17
California as the forum for plaintiffs from New York, North Carolina, and Nevada.
18
D. The Arbitrator's Interpretation Does Not Render Contract Language Meaningless.
19

20

Cintas argues that Judge Lynch failed to give any meaning to the arbitration initiation term at

21 issue. See Def. Br. at 14. Yet, Judge Lynch specifically found that "giving this language its plain and

22 ordinary meaning, it simply directs the employee to request an arbitration that is held in the county and

23 state where he or she works or last worked. . . ." Award at 15-16. Judge Lynch's interpretation thus

24 does not render the term meaningless, but accords it a specific meaning based on the applicable

25 principles of contract interpretation. The fact that the present situation does not involve an employee

26 requesting arbitration simply means that the phrase is not applicable to the situation, not that the phrase

27 has no meaning.

28

11
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 17 of 19

1

The caselaw cited by Cintas is inapposite. See Def. Br. at 14 (citing W. Employers Ins. Co. v.

2 Jeffries & Co., 958 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1992) and Pac. Motor Trucking Co. v. Auto. Machinists Union,

3 702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983)). Tn Jeffries & Co., the arbitration agreement required that the arbitrator

4 make findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the arbitrator failed to do so. See 958 F.2d at 262.

5 Similarly, in PacfIc Motor Trucking Co., the collective bargaining agreement gave the company

6 discretion over the foreman position without regard to seniority, but the arbitrator held that demotion

7 of a foreman was unjust precisely because of the foreman's seniority. See 702 F.2d at 177. By

8 contrast, Judge Lynch did not disregard any term of the contract here, but rather, construed the

9 contract's terms applying well-settled rules of contract interpretation.

10 E.
11

The Arbitrator Correctly Found That, To the Extent the "Arbitration Initiation" Term is Ambiguous, It Must Be Construed Against Cintas.

Cintas fails to address Judge Lynch's final rationale for interpreting the location provision to
12

provide for arbitration initiation, rather than venue restriction. Judge Lynch specifically held: "to the
13

extent the clause is ambiguous, all of the relevant state's contract laws (Ohio, California, New York,
14

and North Carolina) have adopted the principle that ambiguities in contract language are to be
15

16 construed against the drafter, i.e. Cintas."10 Award at 16 (emphasis in original). At most, Cintas' proffered interpretation of the term as providing for an inflexible venue restriction is just one
17

interpretation of ambiguous contract language. Judge Lynch reasonably and correctly construed that
18

19 ambiguity against Cintas.

III. THE VELIZ V. CINTAS CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION DETERMINATION

20

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S CONTRACT

21

INTERPRETATION.

22

Cintas argues that the Award should be vacated because another arbitrator interpreted the

23 arbitration initiation clause differently in a wage and hour arbitration, also against Cintas. See Def. Br.

24 at 14-15. Differing contract interpretations between arbitrators, however, is not a ground to vacate an

25

26 10 See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 206; WestfIeld Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 797 N.E.2d 1256,

27

1277 (Ohio 2003); Weilv. Fed. KemperLfe Assurance Co., 7 Cal.4th 125, 161 (1994) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1654); Graff V. Billet, 477 N.E.2d 212, 213-14 (N.Y. 1985); Chavis v. S. Life Ins. Co., 347

28 S.E.2d 425, 427 (N.C. 1986); Ringle, 86 P.3d at 1039.

12
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 18 of 19

1 award. As set forth above, the Court could not vacate the Award even if the Court itself let alone

2 another arbitrator, disagreed with Judge Lynch's contract interpretation. See Haw. Teamsters, 241

3 F.3dat 1183.

4

Regardless, the Veliz arbitrator's interpretation of the location provision is, in fact, in line with

5 Judge Lynch's interpretation, not Cintas', as the Veliz arbitrator recognized that the location provision

6 is directly tied to an employee's request for arbitration:

7

[T]he clear and unequivocal language of the provision {] stipulates that should an

employee "request" to have a dispute heard in arbitration, the arbitration must be

8

"held" in the state and county where the employee works, or has worked, for Cintas.

Clause Construction Award and Ruling on Scope of Arbitration, Veliz v. Cintas Corp., AAA Case No.

10 11160 01323 04 (July 27, 2006)11 at 4 (emphasis added).'2

11

CINTAS' REQUEST FOR PARTIAL VACATUR SHOULD BE DENIED

12

AS MOOT BECAUSE A NATIONWIDE CLASS ARBITRATION CAN

PROCEED ON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND THAT VENUE

13

RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS.

14

Although no grounds exist to partially vacate Judge Lynch's ruling, Cintas' request should also

15 be denied as moot because the location of this arbitration has already been determined by the Court,

16 and a nationwide class arbitration can proceed on the independent ground that venue restrictions do not

17 apply to absent class members. Thus, assuming arguendo that the provision were a venue clause, that

18 term still could not limit the right of absent class members to benefit from class-wide relief. See

19 Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 343 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2003) ("Because class actions do not

20 necessarily require the presence of a class member before the court for an adjudication of his/her rights

21

22

23 Grossman Deci., Exh. W.

24

12 While not directly relevant here, Cintas misrepresents the Veliz arbitrator's conclusion. The Veliz arbitrator stated that the provision was not applicable to those employees compelled to arbitrate" (Veliz

25

at 5), and whether those employees' arbitration could proceed as a class action would await the class certification stage. Id. at 8. Further, with respect to the other claimants, the arbitrator expressed no

26

opinion on whether the employees may be bound by any class determinations in the arbitration. Veliz, at 7-8, n.3. In fact, Cintas has moved to vacate the portion of the Veliz arbitration award that permits

27

some claimants to proceed in a putative class action. See Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-01 1 80-SBA (N.D. Cal.), Defendant Cintas' Motion to Confirm in Part and Vacate in Part

28 (Sept. 5, 2006), Dkt. #53 1, at 3, 15-16.

13
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 218 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 19 of 19

1 and liabilities, venue restrictions are not determinative of the ability of the court to hear the action with

2 respect to all members of the class.").'3

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Cintas' motion to partially vacate the Award.

5
Dated: October 13, 2006
6
7
8
9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

Respectfully submitted,
Is! Joseph B. Jaramillo Joseph E. Jaramillo (SB #178566) Morris J. Baller (SB #048928) Roberta L. Steele (SB #188198) James Kan (SB #240749) GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN &
DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 (Telephone) (510) 835-1417 (Fax)
Betty Eberle (SB #196914) MINER, BARN}IILL & GALLAND 44 E. Mifulin Street, Suite 803
(608) 255-5200 (Telephone) (608) 255-5380 (Fax)
Paul Strauss (SB #153937) MiNER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 (Telephone) (312) 751-0438 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

21

22

23

24

25 __________________________

26

13 See also In re Gap Sec. Litig., 79 F.R.D. 283, 292 n. 6 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (and cases cited); Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 n. 5 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ("venue need not be proper as

27

to the unnamed members of the class, so long as it is proper as to all named plaintiffs") (emphasis in original); Bywaters v. United States, 196 F.R.D. 458, 463-64 (E.D. Tex. 2000); United States v.

28 Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 98, 100 (D.D.C. 1976).

14
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

 
 1 Morris J. Baller (CA SB #048928)

Roberta L. Steele (CA SB #188198)

2 Joseph E. Jaramillo (CA SB #178566)

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

3

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

4 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763-9800 (telephone)

5 (510) 835-1417 (facsimile)

6 Paul Strauss (CA SB #153937) Sharon Legenza, Pro Hac Vice (IL SB #6207311)
7 MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street
8 Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 (telephone)
9 (312) 751-0438 (facsimile)

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 Robert D. Unitas (MA) Erica D. White-Dunston (MD)
12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street N.W.
13 Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4768 (telephone)
14 (202) 663-4196 (facsimile)

15 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
19 Plaintiffs,
20 and
21 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
22 COMMISSION,

23

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

24 vs.

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS JONES’AND AVALOS’ TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 CLAIMS AND EEOC INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF AVALOS’ STATE LAW CLAIMS, AND STAY OF PLAINTIFF RAMIREZ’CLAIMS PENDING ARBITRATION

25 CINTAS CORPORATION,

26

Defendants.

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

WHEREAS, there are two pending class action cases alleging discrimination in the hiring

2 and recruitment of service sales representatives (“SSRs”) at Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”): the

3 above-captioned matter pending before this Court (“Ramirez”) involving claims made, pursuant

4 to Title VII and Section 1981, based on sex, race, and national origin; and Serrano v. Cintas 5 Corp., File No. 04-cv-40132 (“Serrano”), pending in the United States District Court for the

6 Eastern District of Michigan before the Honorable Paul V. Gadola, involving claims made,

7 pursuant to Title VII, based on sex;

8

WHEREAS, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has intervened

9 and filed complaints in intervention in both the Serrano and Ramirez actions on behalf of women

10 who were denied hire and recruitment for SSR positions because of their gender;

11

WHEREAS, both this case and the Serrano case involve class allegations that Cintas

12 discriminated against women in hiring and recruitment for SSR jobs;

13

WHEREAS, all parties have conferred and agree that the transfer and consolidation of the

14 SSR hiring and recruitment claims in one court, from Ramirez to Serrano, is in the interests of all

15 parties and advances judicial economy and the efficient use of resources by all parties because:

16 (i) the transfer and consolidation of the claims from Ramirez eliminates a situation in which there

17 are two overlapping cases pending in two different federal courts, both alleging discrimination in

18 hiring and recruitment of SSRs and both brought as class actions; (ii) the transfer and

19 consolidation of the claims from Ramirez will end the current situation in which Cintas is subject

20 to discovery in two cases that is often overlapping and/or covers the same facts; (iii) the transfer

21 and consolidation of the claims from Ramirez will eliminate the possibility of inconsistent rulings

22 and verdicts, in that all claims involving alleged gender discrimination in hiring and recruitment

23 at Cintas for SSR positions will be litigated together, and Plaintiffs will submit one motion for

24 class certification on behalf of female applicants in one court, rather than two overlapping class 25 certification motions at two separate times in two separate courts; (iv) pursuant to the parties’

26 stipulations, all state law claims will be dismissed with prejudice and will not be asserted in the 27 consolidated actions in Serrano; and (v) pursuant to the parties’stipulation, the only remaining

28 claims in Ramirez will be referred to arbitration;

-1-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

WHEREAS, the parties agree and respectfully submit that it is lawful, appropriate, and

2 efficient for the claims made, pursuant to Title VII and Section 1981, by Plaintiffs Anthony Jones 3 and Blanca Nelly Avalos in Ramirez to be transferred from the United States District Court for

4 the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of Michigan and consolidated with the

5 Serrano case, because: (i) no questions of jurisdiction are implicated by this transfer; (ii) Cintas 6 waives any venue arguments it might otherwise have to the Eastern District of Michigan’s taking

7 venue under such doctrines as the pendent venue doctrine; (iii) the transfer and consolidation 8 creates no prejudice to Cintas (which is subject to jurisdiction in both fora), the EEOC (which is

9 already litigating in both fora), or the private plaintiffs or the classes they seek to represent; and

10 (iv) the parties stipulate that conditions for consolidation, in these circumstances, are satisfied;

11

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AND STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

12

1. The parties stipulate and jointly move this Court to transfer the individual

13 and class claims in Ramirez made by Plaintiffs Jones and Avalos, pursuant to Title VII and

14 Section 1981, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and stipulate 15 that those claims and Serrano should be designated as related cases and that Jones’and Avalos’

16 Title VII and Section 1981 claims should be consolidated with the Serrano action. Jones and

17 Avalos may assert their claims in a separate complaint. The relevant limitations period for 18 Plaintiff Jones’and Avalos’gender, race and national origin class hiring claims will be governed

19 by applicable law in the jurisdiction where originally filed. With respect to the gender claims of

20 Plaintiff Avalos and any class of individuals denied hire into SSR positions in the Rental Division

21 which she may solely represent, the limitations period for such claims will not be affected by the

22 transfer or consolidation of the cases. It is agreed that Plaintiffs Jones and Avalos will not seek to

23 use Mirna Serrano’s EEOC charge as a basis for establishing the limitations period for claims of

24 race or national origin hiring discrimination for SSR positions at Cintas’Rental Division.

25

2. The parties stipulate and jointly move this Court to transfer the EEOC’s

26 complaint in intervention, presently pending in the Ramirez case, to the United States District 27 Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and stipulate that the EEOC’s complaint in Ramirez

28 should be designated as a related case and consolidated with the Serrano action.

-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

3. As a result of the transfer and anticipated consolidation of the Ramirez and

2 Serrano hiring and recruitment claims, the following claims will be asserted before the Serrano 3 Court: claims on behalf of African Americans and Hispanics for disparate treatment and 4 disparate impact under Title VII in hiring for SSR positions at Cintas’Rental Division, claims on

5 behalf of African Americans and Hispanics for disparate treatment under Section 1981 in hiring 6 for SSR positions at Cintas’Rental Division, and claims on behalf of women for disparate

7 treatment and disparate impact under Title VII in hiring and recruitment for SSR positions at 8 Cintas as a whole. The following individuals would be Plaintiffs in the consolidated action:

9 Mirna Serrano, Linda Allen, and Stefanie McVay (three named plaintiffs in the Serrano action),

10 and Anthony Jones and Blanca Nelly Avalos (two named plaintiffs in the Ramirez action). With

11 respect to Plaintiffs Jones and Avalos and any class they seek to represent, nothing in this 12 Stipulation modifies the Ramirez parties’stipulation and the Court’s Order entered on June 10, 13 2005, at page 20, which remains in full force and effect and states in pertinent part: “Pursuant to 14 the parties’stipulation, Plaintiffs may request class certification in this case for the following

15 people only, unless Cintas agrees to revise that stipulation: 1. Women who were allegedly 16 denied hiring to Sales Service Representative (“SSR”or “driver”) positions in Cintas’s Rental

17 Division during the limitations period; 2. African Americans who were allegedly denied hiring to 18 SSR positions in Cintas’s Rental Division during the limitations period; and 3. Hispanics who

19 were allegedly denied hiring to SSR positions in Cintas's Rental Division during the limitations 20 period . . . .”Nor does anything in this Stipulation preclude Plaintiffs from taking discovery with 21 regard to Cintas’recruitment practices for SSR positions, from claiming that recruitment practices

22 resulted in hiring discrimination for SSR positions, or from seeking injunctive relief with respect 23 to Cintas’recruitment practices for SSR positions.

24

4. This agreement does not prevent Ramirez counsel from seeking to

25 intervene as additional plaintiffs Colleen Grindle, Ruthie Richardson and Dawn Stevenson in the

26 consolidated matter to assert Title VII claims alleging gender discrimination in filling SSR

27 positions at Cintas. Cintas reserves all rights to oppose such an intervention. The parties agree,

28 however, that Plaintiffs will not seek to add or assert any state law claims or other claims in the

-3-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1 consolidated matter and will not seek to intervene with respect to any additional claim or issue.

2 Consistent with the Stipulation and Order entered on October 29, 2004 in Ramirez:

3

a. This Stipulation shall not limit the Plaintiffs’right to pursue the

4 individual federal claims that are alleged for them in their last-filed amended complaints. This 5 Stipulation also shall not limit the named Plaintiffs’rights to file a motion to amend their 6 individual allegations and federal claims. Cintas’s right to oppose Plaintiffs’individual claims

7 and oppose a motion to amend also shall not be limited by this Stipulation.

8

b. Nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude Plaintiffs from moving to

9 add herein as a named plaintiff in the future any claimant who has a claim of discrimination that

10 is within one of the categories listed above in paragraph 3. Nothing in this Stipulation will limit 11 Cintas’right to oppose a motion to add an additional named plaintiff or a claim asserted by a new

12 named plaintiff. 13

c. Nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude counsel for Plaintiffs

14 from filing a different lawsuit in the future with different parties and claims.

15

d. The limits described in this Stipulation on the claims that may be

16 pursued on a class or representative basis shall not apply to claims asserted in a different lawsuit,

17 if that case is consolidated with this one pursuant to a motion by Cintas or pursuant to an order of

18 the Court that was not requested by any of the parties.

19

5. Plaintiff Avalos’California state law claims currently pending in the

20 Ramirez action will be dismissed with prejudice concurrent with the transfer of her Title VII and

21 Section 1981 claims to the Eastern District of Michigan.

22

6. The parties stipulate and jointly move that all claims of Plaintiff Robert

23 Ramirez, including, but not limited to, his pay, promotion, and termination claims, be stayed in

24 this Court and referred to arbitration. The parties agree that (i) Plaintiff Ramirez will make a

25 demand for arbitration in the Northern District of California for all of his claims arising out of or 26 related to his allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint; (ii) Plaintiff Ramirez’claims will be

27 related to the arbitration pending before the American Arbitration Association, In re: Jose

28 Salcedo, et al. v. Cintas, AAA No.: 11 160 01119 05, Honorable Eugene Lynch presiding; and

-4-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1 (iii) Plaintiff Ramirez’claims are stayed in this Court pending completion of the arbitration

2 proceeding. The parties further stipulate that the arbitration terms (paragraphs 4 and 5) of the

3 Employment Agreement executed by Plaintiff Jose Salcedo and Cintas Corporation in November

4 1999 will be deemed to apply to the arbitration of Plaintiff Ramirez’claims.

5

7. To facilitate the transfer and anticipated consolidation of Plaintiffs Jones’

6 and Avalos’claims with Serrano, the parties will immediately move this Court to amend the

7 terms of the previously executed protective order in the above-captioned matter to allow all 8 Plaintiffs’counsel (along with their associate attorneys and paralegal and clerical staff, whether

9 counsel for private plaintiffs or the EEOC, and whether in the Ramirez or Serrano matter) to

10 share, use, and discuss all discovery, whether originally produced in the Ramirez or Serrano

11 matter. Further, the parties stipulate that they have filed or will file concurrent with this 12 stipulation, for the Serrano Court’s approval, a revised agreed protective order that has amended 13 terms to allow all Plaintiffs’counsel (along with their associate attorneys and paralegal and

14 clerical staff, whether counsel for private plaintiffs or the EEOC, and whether in the Ramirez or

15 Serrano matter) to share, use, and discuss all discovery, whether originally produced in the 16 Ramirez or Serrano matter. However, the Ramirez plaintiffs’counsel and the EEOC agree to use 17 best efforts to segregate from and not provide to the Serrano plaintiffs’counsel those applicant

18 flow logs that contain only information about positions other than SSR or SSR-in-Training that

19 have been produced in Ramirez, unless and until (i) the parties agree otherwise, or (ii) the Court

20 determines, upon motion for good cause, that such discovery may be shared between and amongst 21 the plaintiffs’counsel and the EEOC.

22

8. It is also hereby understood by and agreed to among all parties that, during

23 the pendency of the Court’s consideration of this stipulation, discovery in the Ramirez and

24 Serrano actions shall proceed according to the existing case management schedules entered in

25 each of the actions.

26

9. The parties represent that they are submitting a courtesy copy of this

27 Stipulation and Proposed Order to Judge Gadola. In addition, the parties are providing this

28 Honorable Court with courtesy copies of the Stipulated Proposed Order of Consolidation and

-5-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1 Stipulated Proposed Consolidated Discovery and Scheduling Order that they intend to file with

2 the Serrano Court relating to the transfer and proposed consolidation, which are attached hereto as 3 Exhibit A and B, respectively.

4

5 Dated: May 5, 2006 6 7 8 9 10

/s/ Paul Strauss Paul Strauss (CA SB# 153937) pstrauss@lawmbg.com Sharon Legenza, Pro Hac Vice (IL SB #6207311) slegenza@lawmbg.com MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 (telephone) (312) 751-0438 (facsimile)

11

12 Dated: May 5, 2006 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

/s/ Morris J. Baller Morris J. Baller (CA SB# 048928) mjb@gdblegal.com Roberta L. Steele (CA SB# 188198) rls@gdblegal.com Joseph E. Jaramillo (CA SB# 178566) jej@gdblegal.com GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,
BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 (telephone) (510) 835-1417 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

2 Dated: May 5, 2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

/s/ Robert D. Unitas Robert D. Unitas (MA) robert.unitas@eeoc.gov Senior Trial Attorney, Systemic Litigation Services Erica D. White-Dunston (DC, MD) erica.white-dunston@eeoc.gov Trial Attorney, Systemic Litigation Services EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1801 L. Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4768 (telephone) (202) 663-4196 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR

11 Dated: May 5, 2006
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

/s/ Nancy L. Abell Nancy L. Abell (CA SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com Elena Baca (CA SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com Stephen P. Sonnenberg (CA SB# 164881) stephensonnenberg@paulhastings.com Heather A. Morgan (CA SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com Joseph W. Deng (CA SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP Twenty-Fifth Floor 515 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 (213) 683-6000 (telephone) (213) 627-0705 (facsimile)

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

ORDER

2

The Court has considered the above Stipulation, and finds that it is in the interests of all

3 parties and in the service of judicial economy that the claims presently asserted by Plaintiffs Jones

4 and Avalos of discrimination against African Americans, Hispanics and women in hiring and

5 recruitment of SSR’s in Cintas’Rental Division, made pursuant to Title VII and Section 1981 in

6 this matter, be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

7

It is therefore ORDERED that:

8

1. All of the individual claims of Plaintiffs Jones and Avalos and their class claims of

9 discrimination against African Americans, Hispanics and women in hiring for SSR positions at

10 Cintas’Rental Division, made pursuant to Title VII and Section 1981, are hereby transferred to

11 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and, by agreement of the

12 parties, will be submitted to Judge Gadola for proposed consolidation with the Serrano action.

13

2. The EEOC’s complaint in intervention presently pending in this Court is hereby

14 transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and, by

15 agreement of the parties, will be submitted to Judge Gadola for proposed consolidation with the

16 Serrano action.

17

3. The California state law claims of Plaintiff Avalos are hereby dismissed with

18 prejudice.

19

4. The claims of Plaintiff Ramirez, including, but not limited to, his pay, promotion,

20 and termination claims alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint, are stayed pending arbitration

21 and referred to arbitration in the Northern District of California to be related, by agreement of the

22 parties, to the arbitration pending before the American Arbitration Association, In re: Jose

23 Salcedo, et al. v. Cintas, AAA No.: 11 160 01119 05, Honorable Eugene Lynch presiding.

24 The claims of Plaintiffs Ramirez, Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers (formerly Vick), and Morgan all

25 have been ordered to arbitration and are stayed in this Court pending the completion of arbitration

26 (as are the claims of Plaintiffs Houston and Cooper in the related case of Houston, et al. v. Cintas

27 Corp., Case No. C05-03145-JSW). Except as expressly provided by this Order, all other claims

28 asserted in this action have been or are hereby dismissed.

-8-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

1

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS _1_1_t_h day of May, 2006.

2

3

____________________________________

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

4

United States District Judge

5

6

7 8

9

10

11
LEGAL_US_W # 53565220.2
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-9-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER AND STAY OF CLAIMS –CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document248 Filed04/02/09 Page1 of 4

1 Morris J. Baller (SB #048928) mballer@ gdblegal.com

Roberta L. Steele (SB #188198) rsteeele@gdblegal.com

2 Joseph E. Jaramillo (SB #178566) jjaramillo@gdblegal.com

Heather M. Mills (SB #215293) hmills@gdblegal.com

3 GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

4 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 94612

5 (510) 763-9800 (Telephone)

(510) 835-1417 (Fax)

6 Sarah Siskind (WI SB #1004902) ssiskind@lawmbg.com

7

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803

8

Madison, WI 53703 (608) 255-5200 (Telephone)

9 (608) 255-5380 (Fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13

ROBERT RAM1REZ, et al., on behalf of 14 themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case Nos. C04-0281-JSW, C05-03145-JSW

15

Plaintiffs,

16

vs.

17 CINTAS CORPORATION,

18

Defendant.

19

20

21

22

LARRY HOUSTON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

23

Plaintiffs,

24
VS.

25 CINTAS CORPORATION,

PLAINTIFFS'·SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, LARRY HOUSTON, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON
Date: April 24, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

26

Defendant.

27

28 62035·3
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SuPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS
ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, LARRY HOUSTON, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE TI:lOMPSON - CASE NOS. C04-0281-JSW, C05-03145-JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document248 Filed04/02/09 Page2 of 4

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

The Court has asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing to explain why putative class

3 members would not be prejudiced by dismissal of Plaintiff James Morgan's ("Morgan") putative class

4 claims, given the differences in remedies available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

5 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ("Title VIT') and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section

6 1981"). Plaintiff Morgan alleges that all African American Service Sales Representatives ("SSRs")

7 were subjected to a systematic assignment and compensation scheme in Cintas' Rental Division that

8 placed them in lower paying SSR jobs than their white counterparts in violation of Title VII and

9 Section 1981. He seeks approval of the dismissal of his putative class claims without prejudice, and a

10 determination that notice to putative class members is not required because the proposed classes have

11 not been certified and no class members will be bound by or prejudiced by the dismissal of his putative

12 class claims.

13

If the Court were to dismiss Morgan's putative class claims, putative class members still

14 interested in pursuing similar claims would be more likely to pursue their claims under Section 1981

15 than Title VII because at least 31 months would remain on the running of the statute of limitations

16 under Morgan's Section 1981 claim, in contrast to 10 days remaining under Morgan's Title VII claim.

17 The Court has asked the parties how the differences in available remedies under the two statutes bear

18 on whether these putative class members will be prejudiced by this choice. Because Section 1981 19 provides superior remedies to those provided by Title VII, putative class members will not be

20 prejudiced by proceeding under Section 1981.

21

D.

SECTION 1981 PROVIDES SUPERIOR REMEDIES TO TITLE vn

22

Both Section 1981 and Title VII prohibit racial discrimination in employment. Specifically,

23 section 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the "mak[ing] and enforc[ing]" of contracts, which covers

24 the same substantive aspects of work (including the compensation and assignment claims asserted by

25 Morgan) that are addressed by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000); Patterson v. McLean Credit

26 Union, 491 U.S. 164, 176-78 (1989).

27

There are procedural and remedial differences between Title VII and Section 1981, with

28 62035-3

1

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPlEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO APPROVE DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PRERJDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS

ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, LARRY HOUSTON, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE

THOMPSON - CASE NOS. C04-02S1-JSW, C05-03145-JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document248 Filed04/02/09 Page3 of 4

1 Section 1981 providing procedural and remedial advantages over Title VII, including a longer statute
2 of limitations, the absence of any administrative exhaustion requirement, and more generous remedies.

3 Specifically, Title VII provides for caps on compensatory and punitive damages, combined, at

4 $300,000 (42 USC § 1981a(b)(3)(A)-(D)), while compensatory and punitive damages under Section 5 1981 are not capped. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988(b),(c); see also Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency,

6 Inc., 421 US 454, 459-460 (1975).1

7

In short, in response to the Court's question, the Section 1981 remedies available to a potential

8 plaintiff who pursued his claim after Morgan's dismissal are more generous than those available under

9 Title VII. 10

m. CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court dismiss, without

12 prejudice and without notice to putative class members, the putative class claims of Plaintiffs James 13

14 1 There is one limitation under Section 1981 regarding the availability of the disparate impact theory of

15 proof. Unlike under Title VII, a plaintiff asserting a violation of Section 1981 may not bring a disparate impact claim. He or she may only assert a disparate treatment claim for intentional or

16 purposeful discrimination. See Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391
(1982). With respect to remedies, however, the potential Section 1981 plaintiff does not lose anything 17 as a result because remedies in Title VII disparate impact cases are limited to back pay and front pay.

Whereas, a successful plaintiff in a Section 1981 disparate treatment case may recover back and front 18 pay as well as uncapped compensatory and punitive damages. See Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527

19 U.S. 526, 547-48 (1999). Thus, even if potential plaintiffs were not be able to assert disparate impact claims under Title VII after the dismissal of Morgan's putative class claim, they could proceed with

20 disparate treatment claims under Section 1981, which offers more generous remedies. Additionally,

Cintas has taken the position that the alleged decentralized character of the assignment and 21 compensation decisions made across hundreds of facilities nationwide precludes reliance on the

22

disparate impact theory by any plaintiff (including Morgan). While Plaintiffs' counsel disagree, they recognize that Cintas' strenuous resistance to any nationwide impact theory will impose high risks and

23 costs on its pursuit. Moreover, potential individual plaintiffs at issue have evidenced no interest over the past five years in identifying themselves as potential claimants, much less participating in the

24 lawsuit under any theory. See Declaration of Heather M. Mills in Support of Unopposed Motion To

Approve Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, of Putative Class Claims of Plaintiffs 25 Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, and A. Shappelle

26

Thompson 'I[ 8. It is highly unlikely that any such individuals will seek to litigate a nationwide disparate impact. In addition, a disparate impact claim covering the single Cintas facility where the

27 plaintiff was employed would entail virtually identical allegations and proof as would be required for a Section 1981 disparate treatment claim, and the Title VII remedies would be far less favorable.

28 ~~

2

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE DISMISSAL, wrrnOUT PREJUDICE AND wrrnOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS . ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, LARRY HOUSTON, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE
THOMPSON - CASE NOS. C04-0281-JSW, C05-03145-JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document248 Filed04/02/09 Page4 of 4

1 Morgan, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, Jose Salcedo, Robert Ramirez, and A. Shappelle

2 Thompson.

3 Dated: April 2, 2009
4
5

Respectfully submitted,
GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN

6

lSI Heather Mills

7

Morris J. Baller (SB #048928)

mballer@gdblegal.com

8

Roberta L. Steele (SB #188198)

rsteele@gdblegal.com

9

Joseph E. Jaramillo (SB #178566)

jjaramillo@gdblegal.com

10

Heather Mills, CA BarNo. 215293

hmills@gdblegal.com

11

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN

12

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 94612

13

(510) 763-9800 (Telephone)

(510) 835-1417 (Fax)

14 Sarah Siskind (WI SB #1004902)

15

ssiskind@lawmbg.com

MINER, BARNHILL & GLLAND

16

44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803

Madison, WI 53703

17

(608) 255-5200 (Telephone)

(608) 255-5380 (Fax)

18

ATTORNEYSFORPL~S

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 62035-3

3

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POlNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO APPROVE DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS

ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, LARRY HOUSTON, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE

.

THOMPSON - CASE NOS. C04-0281-JSW, C05-03145-JSW

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document253 Filed09/25/09 Page1 of 1

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 RAMIREZ ET AL,

10

Plaintiff,

No. C 04-00281 JSW

11 v. 12 CINTAS CORPORATION,

ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

13

Defendant.

/

14

15

The Clerk of the Court is directed administratively to close the case for statistical

16 purposes. The parties shall notify the Court within ten days of the resolution of the arbitration,

17 and, if necessary, this entire matter shall thereafter be reopened.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

20 Dated: September 25, 2009 21

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document250 Filed04/03/09 Page1 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

NOT FOR CITATION

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.,

No. C 04-00281 JSW

11

Plaintiffs,

12 v.

13 CINTAS CORPORATION,

14

Defendant.

15

16

17

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON
/

18

INTRODUCTION

19

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of an unopposed motion to grant

20 a motion to dismiss the putative class claims of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez (“Ramirez”), Jose

21 Salcedo (“Salcedo”), Clifton E. Cooper (“Cooper”), James Morgan (“Morgan”), and A.

22 Shappelle Thompson (“Thompson”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and to approve a stipulation of

23 Thompson’s Individual claims with Prejudice and his putative class claims without prejudice.

24 Having considered the parties’ papers, including supplemental briefing ordered by the Court,

25 relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for

26 disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court HEREBY GRANTS

27 the motion and shall enter the stipulation by separate Order, and the hearing date set for April

28 24, 2009 is VACATED.

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document250 Filed04/03/09 Page2 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging employment discrimination against

3 Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) on January 20, 2004. Ramirez and Salcedo allege that Cintas

4 discriminated against Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers at

5 Cintas’ Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) in

6 promotion out of these positions, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”) and 42

7 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”). Houston alleges that Cintas discriminated against

8 African Americans in promotion to Service Manager positions in Cintas’ Rental Division, in

9 violation of Section 1981 and California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (“Section

10 17200”). Cooper, alleges that Cintas discriminated against African American managers in

11 compensation in Cintas’ Rental Division, in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, and

12 California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et seq. (“FEHA”),

13 and Section 17200. Morgan alleges that Cintas discriminated against African American Service

14 Sales Representatives (“SSR”) through a compensation and assignment scheme that placed

15 them in lower paying SSR jobs than their white counterparts, in violation of Section 1981, Title

16 VII, FEHA and Section 17200. Thompson raises the same claim under Section 1981.

17

Pursuant to Court Order or stipulation, the Plaintiffs instituted an arbitration, on behalf

18 of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, which currently is pending. Neither this

19 Court nor the Arbitrator have certified a class, although the Arbitrator has ruled that the

20 Plaintiffs may seek class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek to dismiss the putative class

21 claims and proceed with their individual claims in the arbitration proceedings.1 Cintas does not

22 oppose the motion.

23

ANALYSIS

24

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a

25 certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismiss, or compromised only with the court’s

26 approval.” Although Rule 23(e) expressly refers to certified classes, before Rule 23(e) was

27

1

Five other current or former Cintas SSRs have expressed an interest in

28 proceeding with individual claims in arbitration. (See Declaration of Heather M. Mills

(“Mills Decl.”), ¶ 8.)

2

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document250 Filed04/03/09 Page3 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 amended in 2003, the Ninth Circuit had held that the rule applied to pre-certification dismissals

2 and compromises. Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir.

3 1989). In that case, the court stated that pre-certification approval was required “to ensure that

4 [a settlement] is not collusive or prejudicial.” Id. In making that determination, the Ninth

5 Circuit stated that “the district court should inquire into possible prejudice from (1) class

6 members possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either

7 because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file

8 other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations, and (3) any settlement or

9 concession for class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to further

10 their own interests.” Id.

11

Plaintiffs state that they have filed their motion “as a cautionary step,” in light of several

12 decisions arising out of this district, which have approved pre-certification dismissals relying on

13 factors outlined in Diaz. See, e.g., Castro v. Zenith Acquisition Corp., 2007 WL 81905 (N.D.

14 Cal. Jan. 9, 2007); Singer v. Am. Airlines Fed. Credit Union, 2006 WL 3093759 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

15 30, 2006).

16

Assuming without deciding that Rule 23 applies in this instance, the Court concludes

17 that, based on the factors outlined in Diaz, it is appropriate to grant the motion and permit

18 Plaintiffs to dismiss their class claims without notice and to permit Thompson to dismiss his

19 individual claims. First, although there has been some publicity regarding this case and articles

20 in which some of the Plaintiffs were mentioned by name, it has been minimal. (Mills Decl., ¶¶

21 4-6, Exs. A-I.) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that they have spoken to seven individuals

22 with claims similar to those of the Plaintiff’s putative class claims, and that five of those

23 individuals have expressed interest in pursuing claims through arbitration. Two other

24 individuals have filed their own individual claims against Cintas. (Id. ¶ 8.)

25

Second, the parties do not seek to dismiss the class claims with prejudice and, therefore,

26 they are not impacting the rights of potential class members.

27

Third, the statute of limitations has been tolled since the suit was filed. See American

28 Pine and Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Potential class members who may have

3

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document250 Filed04/03/09 Page4 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 relied on the Plaintiffs’ claims still have time to file suit if they so choose. The one exception

2 pertains to Morgan’s Title VII claims. However, based on the supplemental briefing provided

3 by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that potential plaintiffs with claims similar to Morgan will be

4 adequately protected by their ability to file a claim under Section 1981.

5

Thus, the Court finds that each of the Diaz factors weighs in favor of approving the

6 settlement and dismissal without notice to the class. The motion is, therefore, GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: April 3, 2009 10

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document2545 Filed01/28/10 Page1 of 5

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heatnennorgan@paulhastings.com
2 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street
3 Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
4 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsllnile: (213) 627-0705
5 Attorneys for Defendant
6 CINTAS CORPORATION

7 Plaintiffs' Counsel Listed on Next Page

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11

12 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15 CINTAS CORPORATION,

16

Defendanf

17

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
Hon. Jeffrey S. White
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

18 LARRY HOUSTON, et al.

CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW

19

Plaintiffs,

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

20

vs.

21 CINTAS CORPORATION,

22

Defendant.

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING
CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PltOPO~ED] ORDER

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case Nos. C04-0281-JSW & COS-314S-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS AND
fPRQPOSED. ORDER]

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document2545 Filed01/28/10 Page2 of 5

1 ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198)

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER,

2

BORGEN & DARDARIAN

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000

3 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-9800

4 FacsImile: (510) 835-1417

5 SARAH E. SISKIND MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND
6 44 E. Mifflin Street Suite 803
7 Madjson, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255-5200
8 FacsImile: (608) 255-5380

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO,
10 JAMES MORGAN, LARRY HOUSTON AND CLIFTON COOPER
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case Nos. C04-0281-JSW & COS-314S-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS AND
[pR.QPQSED ORDER]

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document2545 Filed01/28/10 Page3 of 5

1

STIPULATION

2

3

Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, James Morgan, Larry Houston and

4 Clifton Cooper ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Cintas Corporation, by and through their

5 respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

6

7

(1) All claims remaining in Case Nos. C04-0281 JSW and C05-03145

8 JSW, previously ordered to arbitration, are hereby dismissed with prejudice;

9

(2) .All claims pending before The Honorable Eugene Lynch (Ret.) in

10 arbitration in AAA Case Nos. 11 1600111905 (Salcedo, et al. v. Cintas Corporation), 11

11 160 00018 06 (Morgan, et al. v. Cintas Corporation), and 11 160 01211 06 (Ramirez v.

12 Cintas Corporation) have been dismissed with prejudice; and

13

(3) All parties shall bear their own costs.

14
Y 15 DATED: January\ ,2010
16 17 18 19 20 21

Respectfully submitted, \
~TZD~~~ ~h~L-t ROBERTA L. STEELE
Roberta L. Steele GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417

22

Sarah Siskind

.

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND

23

44 E. MIFFLIN ST.

. Suite 803

24

Madison, WI 53703

Telephone: (608) 255-5200

25

Facsimile: (608) 255-5380

26

Counsel/or Plaintiffs

.

Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, James Morgan, Larry

27

Houston and Clifton Cooper

28
-1-
Case No. C04-0281-JSW & C05-3145-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS AND
[MtOPO£Ii:DJ ORDER

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document2545 Filed01/28/10 Page4 of 5

XL 1 DATED: January 2010
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

By: 1UW\i 'f. .. flkt) Nfj\NCY L. ABELL Nancy L. Abell Heather A. Morgan PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705 Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-2-
Case No. C04-0281-JSW & C05-3145-JSW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF
PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS AND I'PJtOt'OSED~ ORDER

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document2545 Filed01/28/10 Page5 of 5

1

ORDER

2
BASED ON THE PARTIES' STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE 3
APPEARING THEREFOR: 4

5 (1) All claims remaining in Case Nos. C04-0281 JSW and C05-03145
6
JSW are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and 7

8 (2) All parties shall bear their own costs.
9

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

12 January 28, 2010
13 DATED: _ _ _ _ _,2G99

14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26

27 28

-3-
Case No. C04-0281-JSW & COS-314S-JSW

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 1 of 19

1 NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) nancyabell@paulhastings.com MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472) markatkinson@paulhastings.com
2 ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) elenabaca@paulhastings.com HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) heathermorgan@paulhastings.com
3 JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) josephdeng@paulhastings.com PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
4 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
6 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

7 Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION
8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE
14 CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON,
15 CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), SANDRA EVANS, BLANCA
16 NELLY AVALOS, JAMES MORGAN and ANTHONY JONES, on behalf of
17 themselves and all others similarly situated,
18 Plaintiffs,
19 vs.
20 CINTAS CORPORATION,
21 Defendant.
22 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
23 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No. C04-0281-JSW
[RELATED TO CASE NO. C05-03145-JSW]
DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-ININTERVENTION
Judge: Honorable Jeffrey S. White Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004

24

Plaintiff/Intervenor.

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 2 of 19

1

Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Defendant”) hereby answers, pleads, and

2 otherwise responds to Plaintiff-Intervenor EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3 COMMISSION’S (“Plaintiff-Intervenor”) Amended Complaint-in-Intervention

4 (“Complaint-in-Intervention”), as follows:

5

6

Answering the preamble entitled “Nature of the Action,” Defendant admits

7 that Plaintiff-Intervenor purports to bring an action pursuant to the provisions of Title I of

8 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

9 §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Defendant admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor purports to

10 bring an action regarding allegedly unlawful employment practices, and to provide the

11 requested relief to Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos (“AVALOS”) and other women who

12 allegedly have been adversely affected by the allegedly unlawful practices. Defendant

13 further admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor’s intervention is limited to the issue of Defendant’s

14 alleged refusal to recruit and hire women as Service Sales Representatives (“SSR”).

15 Except as herein expressly admitted, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each

16 and every remaining allegation in this paragraph.

17

18

1. Answering Paragraph 1, Defendant admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor

19 purports to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

20 1343, and 1345, and admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor purports to institute this action

21 pursuant to sections 708(g)(6) and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

22 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2004e-4 and -5(f)(1) and (3). Except as herein expressly

23 admitted, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every remaining

24 allegation in this paragraph.

25

26

2. Answering Paragraph 2, Defendant denies, generally and specifically,

27 each and every allegation in this paragraph.

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-1-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 3 of 19

1

3. Answering Paragraph 3, Defendant admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor

2 purports to describe AVALOS by reference to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

3 Defendant further admits that AVALOS seeks to represent a class with respect to her

4 alleged Title VII claims as purportedly described in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.

5 Except as herein expressly admitted, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each

6 and every remaining allegation in this paragraph.

7

8

4. Answering Paragraph 4, Defendant admits that Plaintiff-Intervenor is

9 an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation

10 and enforcement of Title VII. Except as herein expressly admitted, Defendant denies,

11 generally and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in this paragraph.

12

13

5. Answering Paragraph 5, Defendant admits and alleges that it is a

14 corporation with at least 15 employees, and that Defendant has been doing business

15 continuously in the State of California for a number of years through the present.

16 Defendant alleges that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

17 the truth of any averment premised upon the ambiguous phrase “at all relevant times” and,

18 on such basis, Defendant denies all such averments. Except as herein expressly admitted

19 and alleged, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every remaining

20 allegation in this paragraph.

21

22

6. Answering Paragraph 6, Defendant admits and alleges that Defendant

23 has been an “employer” engaged in an “industry affecting commerce” within the meaning

24 of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII for a number of years through the

25 present. Defendant alleges that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a

26 belief as to the truth of any averment premised upon the ambiguous phrase “at all relevant

27 times” and, on such basis, Defendant denies all such averments. Except as herein

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-2-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 4 of 19

1 expressly admitted and alleged, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and

2 every remaining allegation in this paragraph.

3

4

7. Answering Paragraph 7, Defendant denies, generally and specifically,

5 each and every allegation in this paragraph.

6

7

8. Answering Paragraph 8, Defendant admits that Defendant has not

8 employed AVALOS as an SSR. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies,

9 generally and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in this paragraph.

10

11

9. Answering Paragraph 9, Defendant denies, generally and specifically,

12 each and every allegation in this paragraph.

13

14

10. Answering Paragraph 10, Defendant denies, generally and

15 specifically, each and every allegation in this paragraph.

16

17

11. Answering Paragraph 11, Defendant denies, generally and

18 specifically, each and every allegation in this paragraph.

19

20

12. Responding to the Prayer for Relief and Subparagraphs A through I

21 thereof, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that AVALOS, or the purported

22 class of women that she seeks to represent, or any of them, have been or will be damaged

23 by reason of any act or omission of Defendant or any officer, agent, or employee of

24 Defendant.

25

26

(a) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that any act or

27 omission of Defendant or any officer, agent, or employee of Defendant, violated any

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-3-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 5 of 19

1 rights, statutory or otherwise, of AVALOS or the purported class of women that she seeks

2 to represent, or any of them.

3

4

(b) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that the elements

5 of relief sought are available to AVALOS or the purported class of women that she seeks

6 to represent, or any of them, on the claims alleged.

7

8

(c) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that a permanent

9 injunction is necessary or appropriate in this case.

10

11

(d) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that an order to

12 institute and carry out new policies, practices or programs is necessary or appropriate in

13 this case.

14

15

(e) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that AVALOS,

16 or the purported class of women that she seeks to represent, or any of them, are entitled to

17 an award of backpay with prejudgment interest or any other compensation for any alleged

18 past or future pecuniary losses.

19

20

(f) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that AVALOS,

21 or the purported class of women that she seeks to represent, or any of them, are entitled to

22 any affirmative relief.

23

24

(g) Defendant denies, generally and specifically that AVALOS, or

25 the purported class of women that she seeks to represent, or any of them, are entitled to

26 any compensation for alleged past or future nonpecuniary losses.

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-4-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 6 of 19

1

(h) Defendant denies that AVALOS or the purported class of

2 women that she seeks to represent, or any of them, are entitled to punitive damages.

3

4

(i) Defendant denies, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff-

5 Intervenor is entitled to an award of its costs in this action.

6

7

(j) Defendant further denies, generally and specifically, each and

8 every remaining allegation in the referenced Subparagraphs A through I.

9

10

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

11

12

GENERAL DEFENSES

13

14

FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15 (Failure to State Facts Sufficient to State a Claim)
16

17 13. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained
18 therein, fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
19

20 SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21

22

(Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted)

23

24

14. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained

25 therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-5-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 7 of 19

1

THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Defendant’s Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Decisions)
3

4

15. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained

5 therein, is barred in whole or in part because all decisions with respect to AVALOS’ and

6 other women applicants’ purported applications for employment for SSR positions were

7 made by Defendant for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons.

8

9

FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10 (Mixed Motive)
11

12

16. Defendant did not commit the acts or omissions as alleged in the

13 Complaint-in-Intervention for discriminatory motives, but assuming that it did, such acts

14 or omissions would have been taken in any event for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-

15 pretextual reasons.

16

17

FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18 (Estoppel)
19

20 17. AVALOS and other women applicants are estopped from pursuing
21 the claims in the Complaint-in-Intervention by reason of AVALOS’ and other women
22 applicants’ own actions and course of conduct.
23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-6-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 8 of 19

1

SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Waiver)
3

4 18. AVALOS and other women applicants have waived their right, if
5 any, to pursue the claims in the Complaint-in-Intervention by reason of their own actions
6 and course of conduct.
7

8 SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9

10

(Doctrine of Laches)

11

12

19. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained

13 therein, is barred by the doctrine of laches.

14

15

EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16 (Doctrine of Unclean Hands)
17

18 20. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained
19 therein, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
20

21 NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22

23

(Defendant’s Reasonable Care)

24

25

21. The Complaint-in-Intervention is barred, in whole or in part, because

26 Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any alleged

27 discriminatory behavior.

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-7-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 9 of 19

1

TENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Failure to Take Advantage of Corrective Opportunities)
3

4 22. The Complaint-in-Intervention is barred, in whole or in part, because
5 AVALOS and other women applicants failed to take advantage of any preventive or
6 corrective opportunities provided by Defendant to avoid harm or otherwise.
7

8 ELEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9

10

(Predecessor Liability)

11

12

23. To the extent that any of the alleged wrongs were committed by

13 Defendant’s predecessor entity or entities, any and all such claims are barred as against

14 Defendant in their entirety.

15

16

TWELFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17 (Third Party Liability)
18

19 24. To the extent that any of the alleged wrongs were committed by
20 others, any and all such claims are barred as against Defendant in their entirety.
21

22 THIRTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23

24

(Advice of Counsel)

25

26

25. To the extent that any of the alleged wrongs were committed after

27 Defendant reasonably relied in good faith on the advice of counsel, any and all claims are

28 barred as against Defendant in their entirety.

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-8-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 10 of 19

1

FOURTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Subsequent Remedial Measures)
3

4 26. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained
5 therein, is barred to the extent it would impermissibly require for proof the admission into
6 evidence of subsequent remedial measures not admissible to prove culpable conduct in
7 connection with the event under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
8

9 FIFTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10

11

(Prior Settlement and Release Bars Bringing Suit)

12

13

27. To the extent that AVALOS or any other woman applicant has

14 executed a settlement and release with Defendant and received consideration therefor, any

15 and all claims she purports to bring against Defendant, including, without limitation, the

16 claims alleged herein, are barred in their entirety.

17

18

SIXTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19 (Arbitration Agreements Bar Bringing Suit)
20

21 28. To the extent that AVALOS or any other woman applicant has
22 agreed to arbitrate any or all of the purported claims asserted in the Complaint-in-
23 Intervention, the Complaint-in-Intervention violates such agreements to arbitrate and the
24 Complaint-in-Intervention should be dismissed and/or stayed and AVALOS and/or such
25 woman applicant should be compelled to arbitrate.
26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-9-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 11 of 19

1

SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Collective Bargaining Agreements Bar Bringing Suit)
3

4 29. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained
5 therein, is barred in whole or in part because decisions with respect to AVALOS and other
6 women applicants were made in compliance with the non-discriminatory terms of
7 applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements.
8

9 TITLE VII
10

11 EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12

13

(Failure to Exhaust Federal Administrative Remedies)

14

15

30. AVALOS’ and/or other women applicants’ Title VII claims are

16 barred because AVALOS and other women applicants failed, in whole or in part, to

17 exhaust all available administrative remedies, and/or otherwise failed to comply with the

18 statutory prerequisites to the bringing of this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

19 Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

20

21

NINETEENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22 (Untimely EEOC Charges)
23

24 31. To the extent that AVALOS and/or other women applicants make
25 allegations or claims under Title VII with respect to a time period more than 300 days
26 before AVALOS and/or other women applicants allegedly filed a charge with the Equal
27 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or which were not made the subject of
28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-10-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 12 of 19

1 a timely EEOC charge, such allegations or claims are barred. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(c)-

2 (e).

3

4

TWENTIETH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 (Failure to File Timely Civil Action on Title VII Claims)
6

7 32. To the extent that AVALOS and/or other women applicants make
8 allegations or claims under Title VII, and failed to file a civil action within ninety (90)
9 days after receiving notice of a right to sue from the EEOC, such allegations or claims are
10 barred. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f).
11

12 TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13

14

(Title VII Claims Outside the Scope of Administrative Charges)

15

16

33. AVALOS’ and/or other women applicants’ Title VII claims are

17 barred to the extent that the allegations contained therein do not reasonably fall within the

18 scope of claims made in any administrative charge timely filed by AVALOS or other

19 women applicants, or each or any of them, with the EEOC.

20

21

TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22 (Failure to Attempt to Resolve Title VII Claims)
23

24 34. Some or all of AVALOS’ and/or other women applicants’ Title VII
25 claims are barred due to the EEOC’s failure to endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful
26 employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation or persuasion, as
27 required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).
28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-11-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 13 of 19

1

TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Lack of Venue – Special Venue Provisions of Title VII)
3

4 35. AVALOS and other women applicants who did not apply for work
5 with Defendant in the Northern District of California are barred from pursuing their Title
6 VII claims in the Northern District of California because they cannot satisfy the special
7 venue requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
8

9 TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10

11

(Defendant’s Practices Consistent with Business Necessity)

12

13

36. Insofar as any of Defendant’s hiring practices and/or policies have

14 had a statistically adverse impact on females, such policies or practices nevertheless are

15 lawful because they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C.

16 §§ 2000e et seq.

17

18

TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19 (Differential Treatment Based on Bona Fide Factors)
20

21 37. AVALOS’ and other women applicants’ Title VII claims are barred
22 because any alleged differential treatment of AVALOS and other women applicants by
23 Defendant was undertaken pursuant to a bona fide merit system, bona fide seniority
24 system, and/or bona fide factors other than gender. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(h).
25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-12-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 14 of 19

1

TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Class Allegations)
3

4 38. To the extent that the Complaint-in-Intervention makes reference to
5 an alleged “class of women applicants” or a “class of women” whom AVALOS
6 purportedly “seeks to represent,” neither AVALOS nor other women applicants can
7 satisfy the prerequisites for class or subclass certification under Federal Rule of Civil
8 Procedure 23 or any similar state law provisions.
9

10 RELIEF AND DAMAGES
11

12 TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13

14

(Failure to Mitigate)

15

16

39. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained

17 therein, is barred because AVALOS and each woman applicant has failed to mitigate or

18 reasonably attempt to mitigate her damages, if any, as required by law.

19

20

TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21 (Unjust Enrichment)
22

23 40. The Complaint-in-Intervention, and each purported claim contained
24 therein, is barred because any recovery from Defendant would result in AVALOS’ or a
25 woman applicant’s unjust enrichment.
26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-13-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 15 of 19

1

TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Legal Remedy Precludes Injunctive and Equitable Relief)
3

4 41. Injunctive and other equitable relief are not appropriate and are
5 barred because AVALOS and other women applicants have an adequate and complete
6 remedy at law.
7

8 THIRTIETH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9

10

(After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine)

11

12

42. Recovery of damages as alleged and prayed for in the Complaint-in-

13 Intervention by AVALOS and other women applicants may be barred, in whole or in part,

14 by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.

15

16

THIRTY-FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17 (Absence of Intentional Discrimination Precludes Punitive Damages)
18

19 43. Defendant alleges that it has not engaged in intentional
20 discrimination with respect to AVALOS or any other woman applicant, and Defendant
21 therefore cannot be liable for punitive damages.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-14-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 16 of 19

1

THIRTY-SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Absence of Malice, Reckless Indifference or Fraud Precludes Punitive Damages)
3

4 44. Defendant alleges that it has not acted with malice, reckless
5 indifference or fraud toward AVALOS and other women applicants and, therefore,
6 Defendant cannot be liable for punitive damages.
7

8 THIRTY-THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9

10

(Punitive Damages Would Constitute Denial of Due Process)

11

12

45. AVALOS and other women applicants are not entitled to recover any

13 punitive or exemplary damages as prayed for in the Complaint-in-Intervention, and any

14 allegations with respect thereto should be stricken, because California’s laws regarding

15 the alleged conduct in question in this action are too vague to permit the imposition of

16 punitive damages, and because any award of punitive or exemplary damages under

17 California law in general, and/or any such award under California law as applied to the

18 facts in this case, would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under provisions of the

19 United States and California Constitutions, including, but not limited to, the due process

20 clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the

21 excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Eighth Amendment to the

22 United States Constitution.

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-15-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 17 of 19

1

THIRTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Failure to Plead Facts Sufficient to Support Punitive Damages)
3

4 46. AVALOS and other women applicants are not entitled to receive
5 punitive damages because Plaintiff-Intervenor has not pled facts sufficient to support such
6 an award.
7

8 THIRTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9

10

(Defendant’s Good Faith Efforts Preclude Punitive Damages)

11

12

47. AVALOS and other women applicants are not entitled to receive

13 punitive damages because Defendant has made good faith efforts to prevent

14 discrimination in its hiring practices.

15

16

THIRTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17 (Defendant’s Policies Preclude Punitive Damages)
18

19 48. AVALOS and other women applicants are barred from recovering
20 punitive damages because Defendant had in place a policy to prevent discrimination in its
21 hiring practices and made good faith efforts to implement and enforce that policy.
22

23 THIRTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24

25

(Punitive Damages Precluded – Individual Decisionmakers)

26

27

49. AVALOS and other women applicants are not entitled to receive

28 punitive damages because, even if they were able to establish that any individual manager

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-16-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 18 of 19

1 allowed unlawful bias to affect any hiring decision, which Defendant expressly denies,

2 Defendant, in light of its good faith efforts to prevent bias, is not liable for punitive

3 damages based on any such individual decision.

4

5

THIRTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6 (Workers’ Compensation Offset)
7

8 50. AVALOS and other women applicants are barred, in whole or in part,
9 from recovery of damages as alleged and prayed for in the Complaint-in-Intervention to
10 the extent that they received any workers’ compensation benefits relating to their claims
11 in the Complaint-in-Intervention or, alternatively, any such workers’ compensation
12 benefits received by AVALOS and/or other women applicants should be an offset to any
13 recovery in this action.
14

15 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
16

17 1. That AVALOS and other women applicants take nothing by reason
18 of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Complaint-in-Intervention, that the Complaint-in-Intervention be
19 dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and that judgment be entered for Defendant;
20

21 22
and 23

2. That Defendant be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees;

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-17-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 174 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 19 of 19

1

3. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court

2 deems just and proper.

3 DATED: November 7, 2005
4
5
6
7

NANCY L. ABELL MARK W. ATKINSON ELENA R. BACA HEATHER A. MORGAN JOSEPH W. DENG PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

8

By:

/s/

9

MARK W. ATKINSON

10

Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION

11

12
LEGAL_US_W # 52848515.1
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW

-18-

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page1 of 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

12 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN BEASLEY, SANDRA EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS,
13 LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE
14 THOMPSON, CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK), BLANCA NELLY
15 AVALOS, and AMY SEVERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
16 similarly situated,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO (1) NARROW THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S VENUE MOTION; (3) REVISE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARBITRATION MOTION; (4) CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATES; AND (5) PERMIT FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

19 CINTAS CORPORATION,

Judge:

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

20

Defendant.

Hearing Date: November 12, 2004

21

Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004

Trial Date:

None Set

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page2 of 14

1 Introduction Re Status

2 1. Defendant Cintas Corporation has two motions which are set to be argued on
3 November 12, 2004: (1) Motion of Defendant Cintas Corporation to (A) Transfer Venue to the
4 Southern District of Ohio or, in the alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans,
5 Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson for Lack of Venue (the “Motion to Transfer
6 Venue/Dismiss”); and the (2) Motion of Defendant Cintas Corporation to (A) Dismiss Claims of
7 Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or, in the alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims
8 and Compel Arbitration (the “Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration”).
9

10

2. The parties enter into this Stipulation to address issues raised by Defendant’s

11 motions, limit the scope of the sub-classes that Plaintiffs seek to represent, adjust the briefing

12 schedule for Defendant’s motions and the Case Management Conference, and permit the filing of

13 the Third Amended Complaint attached hereto.

14 3. The parties previously stipulated and the Court ordered on September 1, 2004 that
15 the date for the Case Management Conference and related dates would be vacated and reset after
16 the Court rules on Defendant’s motions. In addition, the parties previously stipulated to, and the
17 Court ordered on May 13, 2004 and August 5, 2004, respectively, a Stipulated Request for an
18 Order Changing Time, and a Stipulation and Order regarding the briefing schedule for
19 Defendant’s motions.
20

21

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 6-1 and Judge

22 White’s Standing Order 3, the parties hereby stipulate by and through their respective counsel of

23 record:

24 Scope of the Action
25

26

4. Throughout the duration of this case, the named Plaintiffs will seek to represent

27 other people and will move for class certification, if at all, only with respect to the following

28 claims:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 2 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page3 of 14

1

(a) Women, African Americans and Hispanics allegedly have been

2 discriminated against in hiring to Service Sales Representative (“SSR”) positions in Defendant’s

3 Rental Division during the limitations period;

4 (b) African Americans who have held an SSR position in Defendant’s Rental
5 Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in route
6 assignments;
7

8

(c) African Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Defendant’s

9 Rental Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in

10 compensation;

11 (d) Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers
12 below a General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent position) in Defendant’s Rental
13 Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in promotion out
14 of those positions or in the scope of their job assignments. As used in this Stipulation,
15 “promotion” includes transfer to another position that would provide additional wages, benefits,
16 better working conditions, or an opportunity for career development, additional training, or
17 experience that might reasonably lead to future advancement; and
18

19

(e) All damages and other relief permitted under law should liability be found

20 for claims (a) through (d) above.

21 5. This Stipulation shall not limit the named Plaintiffs’ right to pursue the individual
22 claims that are alleged for them, respectively, in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. This
23 Stipulation also shall not limit the named Plaintiffs’ right to file a motion to amend their
24 individual allegations and claims. Cintas’s right to oppose Plaintiffs’ individual claims and
25 oppose a motion to amend also shall not limited by this Stipulation.
26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 3 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page4 of 14

1

6. This Stipulation shall constitute a motion by Plaintiffs for leave to file a Third

2 Amended Complaint, which motion Defendant does not oppose, in the form attached hereto as

3 Exhibit A.

4 7. Nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude Plaintiffs from moving to add herein as a
5 named plaintiff in the future any claimant who has a claim of discrimination that is within one of
6 the categories listed above, in paragraph numbers 4(a)-(d). This Stipulation also will not limit the
7 right of a person added as an additional named plaintiff to assert other claims he may have, for
8 himself alone. Nothing in this Stipulation will limit Cintas’s right to oppose a motion to add an
9 additional named plaintiff or a claim asserted by a new named plaintiff.
10

11

8. Cintas will not renew its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss on venue grounds, or

12 make a new motion to transfer or dismiss on venue grounds, based on the addition of a new

13 named plaintiff to this case if the new named plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of paragraph

14 numbers 4 and 7.

15 9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude counsel for Plaintiffs from filing a
16 different lawsuit with different parties and claims in the future.
17

18

10. The limits described in this Stipulation on the claims that may be pursued on a

19 class or representative basis shall not apply to claims asserted in a different lawsuit, if that case is

20 consolidated with this one pursuant to a motion by Cintas or pursuant to an order of the Court that

21 was not requested by any of the parties.

22 Individual Claims of Plaintiffs Beasley and Severson
23

24

11. The claims of Plaintiffs Beasley and Severson will be pursued only as individual

25 claims, not as class or collective claims. Cintas will defer its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss

26 the claims of Plaintiffs Robin Beasley and Amy Severson, and its Motion to Dismiss or Stay and

27 Compel Arbitration of the claims of Plaintiff Severson, for not less than ninety (90) days after

28 November 12, 2004. During that time, the parties will attempt in good faith to settle those claims.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 4 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page5 of 14

1 The parties may agree to mediation, but the parties are not required to do so. If the Beasley case

2 is not settled by February 10, 2005, the parties will jointly move the Court to have it transferred to

3 Beasley’s home state of Michigan. The parties may agree to resolve Beasley’s case by

4 arbitration, and to ask the Court to refer the case to arbitration rather than transfer it, but the

5 parties are not required to do so. If the Severson case is not settled by February 10, 2005, Cintas

6 may place back on this Court’s motion calendar its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss the claims

7 of Plaintiff Amy Severson, and/or its Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration of the

8 claims of Plaintiff Severson. If Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration

9 of Plaintiff Severson’s claims is withdrawn or denied, the parties will jointly move the Court to

10 transfer the Severson case to Severson’s home state of Missouri. Defendant may move the Court

11 in Missouri to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration of Severson’s case if (and only if) the issue

12 has not been decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

13 Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue
14

15

12. Defendant will withdraw and will not renew its motion to transfer or dismiss the

16 claims of Plaintiffs Ramirez, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, and Silvers on venue grounds.

17 Defendant will not in the future move to transfer or dismiss on venue grounds the claims of

18 Plaintiffs Avalos and Pocasangre.

19 Discovery Related to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration
20

21

13. Because Plaintiffs have asserted that they need some limited discovery from Cintas

22 to properly respond to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and in consideration for the

23 other agreements described in this Stipulation, the parties agree that:

24 (a) No later than November 4, 2004, or three business days after the Court
25 enters this Stipulation and Order, whichever is later, Plaintiffs will serve Cintas with a first set of
26 interrogatories, consisting of no more than eight interrogatories that relate solely to the Plaintiffs
27 against whom Defendant has moved to dismiss or stay their claims on the basis of their arbitration
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 5 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page6 of 14

1 agreements (Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson), on the following topics: (1) Cintas’s

2 position on whether the arbitration agreements with those Plaintiffs prohibit class treatment of

3 their claims in arbitration; (2) Cintas’s position on whether the maximum amount that those

4 Plaintiffs and any class members would have to pay in fees, costs, expenses, and other arbitrators’

5 charges for an arbitration of classwide claims is limited to the amount that those Plaintiffs would

6 have to pay for arbitration of their individual claims; and (3) whether Cintas would ask for one

7 arbitrator or three if those Plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration on a class basis;

8 (b) Defendant shall serve its responses and/or objections to Plaintiffs’ first set
9 of written interrogatories by no later than three (3) weeks after service of the interrogatories.
10 Defendant may object to any of the interrogatories, but it will not refuse to answer an
11 interrogatory based on a relevance objection, an objection that the interrogatory calls for a legal
12 conclusion, or an objection that Defendant does not know what position it will take in the future.
13 Defendant may object and answer subject to preserving its objections.
14

15 Revision of Briefing Schedule and Argument Date for Defendant’s Arbitration Motion

16 14. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration
17 shall be continued from November 12, 2004 to February 4, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
18 thereafter as it can be scheduled with the Court, and the following, revised briefing schedule shall
19 apply:
20

21

(a) Plaintiffs shall file and serve any opposition papers no later than

22 December 10, 2004, or six (6) weeks prior to hearing on the motion, whichever is later; and

23 (b) Defendant shall file and serve any reply papers by no later than January 7,
24 2005, or two (2) weeks prior to hearing on the motion, whichever is later.
25

26

15. The Case Management Conference and related dates will be reset after the Court

27 rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration (the “Court’s Arbitration

28 Order”), according to the following schedule:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 6 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page7 of 14

1

(a) The first Friday three (3) weeks after the date of service of the notice of

2 entry of the Court’s Arbitration Order shall be the last day for the parties to meet and confer

3 regarding Initial Disclosures, early settlement, ADR process and discovery plans; and to file Joint

4 ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone

5 Conference (the “Meet and Confer/Joint ADR Certification Date”);

6 (b) Four (4) weeks after the date of the Meet and Confer Date shall be the last
7 day for the parties to complete Initial Disclosures or state objection to Rule 26(f) report, file/serve
8 Case Management Statement, and file/serve Rule 26(f) report (the “Initial Disclosures/Case
9 Management Statement Date”); and
10

11

(c) The Case Management Conference shall take place one (1) week after the

12 Initial Disclosures/Case Management Statement Date (or on the first Friday following that one

13 week period that the Court is in session), at 1:30 p.m.

14 16. Plaintiffs will provide notice of the re-set Case Management Conference and
15 related dates by no later than five (5) court days after notice of entry of the Court’s Arbitration
16 Order.
17

18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19 DATED: October 28, 2004
20 21 22 23 24

/s/ Paul Strauss Paul Strauss Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 751-1170 Fax: (312) 751-0438
Counsel for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 7 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page8 of 14

1 2 DATED: October 28, 2004 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

/s/ Nancy L. Abell Nancy L. Abell Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705
Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

- 8 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page9 of 14

1

O R D E R

2 The Court, having reviewed the record and Stipulation herein, finds that good cause exists
3 and hereby orders as follows:
4

5 Scope of the Action

6 1. Throughout the duration of this case, the named Plaintiffs shall seek to represent
7 other people and will move for class certification, if at all, only with respect to the following
8 claims:
9

10

(a) Women, African Americans and Hispanics allegedly have been

11 discriminated against in hiring to Service Sales Representative (“SSR”) positions in Defendant’s

12 Rental Division during the limitations period;

13 (b) African Americans who have held an SSR position in Defendant’s Rental
14 Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in route
15 assignments;
16

17

(c) African Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Defendant’s

18 Rental Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in

19 compensation;

20 (d) Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers
21 below a General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent position) in Defendant’s Rental
22 Division during the limitations period allegedly have been discriminated against in promotion out
23 of those positions or in the scope of their job assignments. As used in this Stipulation,
24 “promotion” includes transfer to another position that would provide additional wages, benefits,
25 better working conditions, or an opportunity for career development, additional training, or
26 experience that might reasonably lead to future advancement; and
27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 9 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page10 of 14

1

(e) All damages and other relief permitted under law should liability be found

2 for claims (a) through (d) above.

3 2. This Order shall not limit the named Plaintiffs’ right to pursue the individual
4 claims that are alleged for them, respectively, in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. This
5 Order also shall not limit the named Plaintiffs’ right to file a motion to amend their individual
6 allegations and claims. Cintas’s right to oppose Plaintiffs’ individual claims and oppose a motion
7 to amend also shall not be limited by this Stipulation.
8

9

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is hereby granted.

10 Plaintiffs shall file a Third Amended Complaint in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A within

11 ten (10) days of entry of this Order. Defendant shall serve and file its response to Plaintiffs’

12 Third Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of notice of entry of the Court’s Order on

13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration.

14 4. Nothing in this Order shall preclude Plaintiffs from moving to add herein as a
15 named plaintiff in the future any claimant who has a claim of discrimination that is within one of
16 the categories listed above, in paragraph numbers 1(a)-(d). This Order also will not limit the right
17 of a person added as an additional named plaintiff to assert other claims he may have, for himself
18 alone. Nothing in this Order will limit Cintas’s right to oppose a motion to add an additional
19 named plaintiff or a claim asserted by a new named plaintiff.
20

21

5. Cintas will not renew its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss on venue grounds, or

22 make a new motion to transfer or dismiss on venue grounds, based on the addition of a new

23 named plaintiff to this case if the new named plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of paragraph

24 numbers 1 and 4.

25 6. Nothing in this Order shall preclude counsel for Plaintiffs from filing a different
26 lawsuit with different parties and claims in the future.
27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 10 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page11 of 14

1

7. The limits described in this Order on the claims that may be pursued on a class or

2 representative basis shall not apply to claims asserted in a different lawsuit, if that case is

3 consolidated with this one pursuant to a motion by Cintas or pursuant to an order of the Court that

4 was not requested by any of the parties.

5 Individual Claims of Plaintiffs Beasley and Severson
6

7

8. The claims of Plaintiffs Beasley and Severson will be pursued only as individual

8 claims, not as class or collective claims. Cintas will defer its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss

9 the claims of Plaintiffs Robin Beasley and Amy Severson, and its Motion to Dismiss or Stay and

10 Compel Arbitration of the claims of Plaintiff Severson, for not less than ninety (90) days after

11 November 12, 2004. During that time, the parties will attempt in good faith to settle those claims.

12 The parties may agree to mediation, but the parties are not required to do so. If the Beasley case

13 is not settled by February 10, 2005, the parties will jointly move the Court to have it transferred to

14 Beasley’s home state of Michigan. The parties may agree to resolve Beasley’s case by

15 arbitration, and to ask the Court to refer the case to arbitration rather than transfer it, but the

16 parties are not required to do so. If the Severson case is not settled by February 10, 2005, Cintas

17 may place back on this Court’s motion calendar its Motion to Transfer Venue/Dismiss the claims

18 of Plaintiff Amy Severson, and/or its Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration of the

19 claims of Plaintiff Severson. If Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration

20 of Plaintiff Severson’s claims is withdrawn or denied, the parties will jointly move the Court to

21 transfer the Severson case to Severson’s home state of Missouri. Defendant may move the Court

22 in Missouri to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration of Severson’s case if (and only if) the issue

23 has not been decided by this Court.

24 Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue
25

26

9. Defendant will withdraw and will not renew its motion to transfer or dismiss the

27 claims of Plaintiffs Ramirez, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, and Silvers on venue grounds.

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 11 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page12 of 14

1 Defendant will not in the future move to transfer or dismiss on venue grounds the claims of

2 Plaintiffs Avalos and Pocasangre.

3 Discovery Related to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration
4

5

10. Because Plaintiffs have asserted that they need some limited discovery from Cintas

6 to properly respond to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and in consideration for the

7 other agreements described in this Stipulation, the parties agree that:

8 (a) No later than November 4, 2004, or three business days after the Court
9 enters this Stipulation and Order, whichever is later, Plaintiffs will serve Cintas with a first set of
10 interrogatories, consisting of no more than eight interrogatories that relate solely to the Plaintiffs
11 against whom Defendant has moved to dismiss or stay their claims on the basis of their arbitration
12 agreements (Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson), on the following topics: (1) Cintas’s
13 position on whether the arbitration agreements with those Plaintiffs prohibit class treatment of
14 their claims in arbitration; (2) Cintas’s position on whether the maximum amount that those
15 Plaintiffs and any class members would have to pay in fees, costs, expenses, and other arbitrators’
16 charges for an arbitration of classwide claims is limited to the amount that those Plaintiffs would
17 have to pay for arbitration of their individual claims; and (3) whether Cintas would ask for one
18 arbitrator or three if those Plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration on a class basis;
19

20

(b) Defendant shall serve its responses and/or objections to Plaintiffs’ first set

21 of written interrogatories by no later than three (3) weeks after service of the interrogatories.

22 Defendant may object to any of the interrogatories, but it will not refuse to answer an

23 interrogatory based on a relevance objection, an objection that the interrogatory calls for a legal

24 conclusion, or an objection that Defendant does not know what position it will take in the future.

25 Defendant may object and answer subject to preserving its objections.

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 12 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page13 of 14

1 Revision of Briefing Schedule and Argument Date for Defendant’s Arbitration Motion

2

11. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration

3

shall be continued from November 12, 2004 to February 4, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., and the following,

4 revised briefing schedule shall apply:

9:00 a.m.

5

6

(a) Plaintiffs shall file and serve any opposition papers no later than

7 December 10, 2004, or six (6) weeks prior to hearing on the motion, whichever is later; and

8 (b) Defendant shall file and serve any reply papers by no later than January 7,
9 2005, or two (2) weeks prior to hearing on the motion, whichever is later.
10

11

12. The Case Management Conference and related dates will be reset after the Court

12 rules on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration (the “Court Arbitration

13 Order”), according to the following schedule:

14 (a) The first Friday three (3) weeks after the date of service of the notice of
15 entry of the Court Arbitration Order shall be the last day for the parties to meet and confer
16 regarding Initial Disclosures, early settlement, ADR process and discovery plans; and to file Joint
17 ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone
18 Conference (the “Meet and Confer/Joint ADR Certification Date”);
19

20

(b) Four (4) weeks after the date of the Meet and Confer Date shall be the last

21 day for the parties to complete Initial Disclosures or state objection to Rule 26(f) report, file/serve

22 Case Management Statement, and file/serve Rule 26(f) report (the “Initial Disclosures/Case

23 Management Statement Date”); and

24 (c) The Case Management Conference shall take place one (1) week after the
25 Initial Disclosures/Case Management Statement Date (or on the first Friday following that one
26 week period that the Court is in session), at 1:30 p.m. The case management conference
27 currently set for November 12, 2004 is VACATED.
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 13 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document34 Filed10/29/04 Page14 of 14

1

13. Plaintiffs will provide notice of the re-set Case Management Conference and

2 related dates by no later than five (5) court days after notice of entry of the Court’s Arbitration

3 Order.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

6

October 29, 2004 DATED:

7

8

__/s_/_J_e__ff_re_y__S_._W__h_i_te______________________ THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
LA/1052539.4
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO NARROW COMPLAINT, ETC.

- 14 -

No. C 04-00281 JSW

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document88 Filed04/26/05 Page1 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBIN BEASLEY,

SANDRA EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS

10 POCASANGRE CARDOZA, JOSE

SALCEDO, A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, 11 CORETTA SILVERS (formerly VICK),

BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, and AMY

12 SEVERSON, on behalf of themselves and all

other persons similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

CINTAS CORPORATION, 16

Defendant.

17

/

No. C 3:04-CV-00281 JSW
ORDER GRANTING EEOC’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

18 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Equal Employment Opportunity
19 Commission’s (“EEOC”) Motion for Leave to Intervene with respect to Plaintiffs’ cause of action
20 relating to claims of gender discrimination against women “by failing to recruit and hire them into sales
21
driver positions” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (the “sales driver sex discrimination hiring 22
claim”). (EEOC Mot. at 4:10-11.) Plaintiffs do not oppose the EEOC’s request to intervene on this 23
claim. Defendant Cintas also has filed a statement of non-opposition but has indicated its intent to later 24
move to dismiss the EEOC from this action. 25
Having considered the parties’ pleadings and relevant legal authority and good cause 26
appearing, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and GRANTS the 27
EEOC’s motion. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 28

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document88 Filed04/26/05 Page2 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

DISCUSSION

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) “[w]hen a party to an action relies for

3 ground of claim ... upon any statute ... administered by a federal or state governmental officer or

4 agency ... the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action.”

5 In determining whether to exercise its discretion and permit intervention, the Court may consider

6 “whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

7 parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).

8

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4(g)(6), the EEOC is authorized to seek intervention in a civil

9 action brought by a party against non-governmental entities. See also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

10 (permitting intervention by EEOC in actions against governmental entities); Van Hoomissen v. Xerox

11 Corp., 497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir. 1974). In determining whether to exercise its discretion and

12 permit intervention, the Court looks to whether the EEOC has certified that the action is one of general

13 public importance and whether the request is timely. EEOC v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 10 F.3d 1286,

14 1292-1923 (7th Cir. 1993); Mills v. Bartenders Int’l Union, 1975 WL 3623 at *2 (N.D. Cal.

15 1975).

16

The EEOC has certified that this matter is one of general public importance. (EEOC Mot.,

17 Ex. A; Declaration of Phillip B. Sklover.) Thus, the Court must consider whether the request is timely.

18 In making that determination, the Court may consider the following factors: (1) the stage of the

19 proceedings at which the EEOC seeks to intervene; (2) possible prejudice to other parties; and (3) the

20 reason for and length of any delay in seeking intervention. See, e.g. California Dept. of Toxic

21 Substances Control v. Commercial Realty, 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002).

22

Although Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in January 2004, because of stipulations

23 between the parties and motions on unrelated issues, the instant litigation still is at its early stages.

24 Initial disclosures are not due until May 27, 2005, and the initial case management conference is set for

25 June 10, 2005. As such, the Court concludes that to permit the EEOC to intervene for the limited

26 purpose set forth in its motion would not unduly delay or prolong discovery or trial of this matter. In

27 addition, no party has objected to the EEOC’s intervention for this limited purpose, and neither

28 Plaintiffs nor Cintas has articulated any prejudice that would result from the intervention. Finally, the

2

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document88 Filed04/26/05 Page3 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Court concludes that the EEOC has adequately explained the reason for any delay that has occurred

2 in moving to intervene. For these reasons the Court concludes that the EEOC’s request is timely.

3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing date set for May 6, 2005, and

4 GRANTS the EEOC’s motion for the limited purposes of intervening on the sales driver sex

5 discrimination hiring claim. The EEOC shall file its Complaint in Intervention within seven (7) days of

6 the date of this Order, and Cintas shall answer or otherwise respond within twenty (20) days

7 thereafter.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: April 26, 2005 11

/s/ Jeffrey S. White
JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 
 Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page1 of 23

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

3

ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al., on behalf

) No. C 04-00281 JSW

4 of themselves and others similarly situated,

)

)

5

Plaintiffs,

) STIPULATED [PROPOSED]

) CONSOLIDATED

6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

) CONFIDENTIALITY

COMMISSION,

) AGREEMENT AND AGREED

7

) PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

8

)

v.

) The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

9

)

CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, ) Complaint filed: January 20, 2004

10

)

Defendant.

) Trial date: none set

11

12

The parties in this case have moved, and this Court has ordered, that certain claims in this

13 matter to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, that

14 other claims be referred to arbitration, and that plaintiff Avalos' California state-law claims be

15 dismissed. The parties have also agreed to submit to the Court overseeing a related case, entitled

16 Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp. ("Serrano"), that the transferred claims be consolidated with that

17 case. See stipulation and order regarding transfer of plaintiffs Jones' and Avalos' Title VII and

18 Section 1981 claims and EEOC intervention complaint to the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissal

19 of plaintiff Avalos' state-law claims, and stay of plaintiff Ramirez' claims pending arbitration. To

20 facilitate the transfer and anticipated consolidation with Serrano, the parties seek to amend the

21 stipulated confidentiality agreement and agreed protective order previously entered here. An

22 amended protective order essentially the same as the one below will be filed for the Serrano court's

23 approval if the transfer and anticipated consolidation are approved. If this occurs, the parties will

24 apply to the Serrano court for enforcement of and/or relief from any amended protective order

25 related to the transferred claims.

26

The discovery procedures in this case may require disclosure of information, either

27 documentary or testimonial or both, regarded by the producing party as confidential and private

28 information incorporating proprietary data, know-how, trade secrets, other valuable commercial

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page2 of 23

1 information, and confidential and private information concerning parties, witnesses, and persons not

2 party to this action. Accordingly, the parties to the above-captioned action, Ramirez, et al. v.

3 Cintas Corp. ("Ramirez"), by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate and agree to the

4 following terms and conditions in order to safeguard confidential information that may be disclosed in

5 the course of this action.

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall follow the procedures set forth below with

7 respect to information, documents or things produced or otherwise disclosed in this litigation:

8 1. Definitions.

9

(a) Confidential information: As used herein, "confidential information" shall mean any

10 information, documents, testimony or other things furnished in the course of this litigation containing

11 proprietary and/or personnel information that any party, in good faith, deems confidential and

12 designates as "CONFIDENTIAL" pursuant to the procedures set forth below. The term shall

13 include information, documents, testimony or other things obtained by any party from a third party via

14 subpoena, deposition, or other discovery. The term "documents" shall be broadly construed to

15 include information that is recorded in any form, including but not limited to hard copy, electronic

16 copy and video. CONFIDENTIAL information does not include information that lawfully has been

17 publicly disclosed. Where a party lawfully has or receives information or documents from a person

18 or entity not a party to this case, and where the information is not provided pursuant to a subpoena,

19 deposition, or other discovery proceeding in this litigation, that information will not be treated as

20 CONFIDENTIAL, except that: (1) any party may retroactively designate as "CONFIDENTIAL"

21 any information obtained or received by another party from a person or entity not a party to this case

22 if the designating party believes the information was unlawfully obtained or received by the person or

23 entity not a party to this case. (In such circumstances, the party who or which obtained the

24 information from the third person may seek relief from the "CONFIDENTIAL" designation pursuant

25 to ¶10 of this protective order); and (2) information maintained or received by a party's present or

26 prior vendors may be designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" if it is produced by a party or vendor in this

27 litigation.

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

2

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page3 of 23

1

(b) Attorneys' eyes only information. Any confidential document or testimonial information

2 produced by any party which contains trade secrets or private, confidential information with respect

3 to any of the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, class members, Cintas, Cintas's employees or former

4 employees, and other witnesses may be designated in writing as "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" or

5 "ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" (individually and collectively "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY"). The

6 term "trade secrets" as used herein means information that derives economic value, actual or

7 potential, from not being generally known to other persons who can obtain competitive advantage or

8 economic value from its disclosure or use. "Trade secrets" also means sensitive financial information

9 integral to the business operations of a party for which the party has a demonstrably compelling

10 interest in avoiding disclosure. Designation of information as "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" means

11 that the information is also designated as CONFIDENTIAL, as defined in this protective order.

12 Examples of the types of information that may be designated as ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

13 include, but are not limited to:

14

(1) proprietary information containing trade secrets of a party;

15

(2) personnel information incorporating trade secrets of a party;

16

(3) marketing and business plans of a party;

17

(4) confidential information that individually identifies any current or prospective

customer or supplier; and

18

(5) private, confidential information as defined below.

19

As used herein, "trade secrets" does not include the location of Cintas facilities that employ SSRs

20

("SSR facilities"); the numbers used to refer to Cintas's SSR facilities; the names and location of

21

companies that have been acquired by or merged with Cintas; job descriptions and other materials

22

posted or distributed to potential applicants (internal or external to the company) to advertise or

23

describe jobs and job openings within Cintas's SSR facilities; job titles of jobs within the Cintas

24

organization; press releases issued by Cintas; articles or other information published in the press or

25

posted on the internet; financial reports filed by Cintas with the Securities and Exchange Commission

26

("SEC"); information that has been filed in litigation without being subject to a confidentiality or

27

protective order; or other information that has been disclosed to the public. If it satisfies the other

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

3

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page4 of 23

1 provisions of this stipulation and order, however, such information may be designated as

2 "CONFIDENTIAL."

3

The term "private, confidential information" as used herein means potentially embarrassing

4 personal information and includes the following information with respect to a person or any of the

5 person's dependents or family members: hourly rates of pay, salary or commission earnings or pay,

6 including the pay rates and earnings of SSRs; performance evaluations and disciplinary documents,

7 medical history or conditions or treatment; psychotherapy or other counseling; substance abuse or

8 substance-abuse treatment; arrests or criminal conviction; government investigation; social security

9 number; tax liability, tax filings, or failure to file tax returns; child-support obligations or payments;

10 divorce or separation; child custody; domestic disputes or orders of protection; prior marriages;

11 children born out of wedlock; adoption or foster care; government action or investigation with

12 respect to child care; citizenship or immigration status; wage garnishment, credit status, credit history,

13 less-than-honorable discharge from the military; or bankruptcy (whether personal bankruptcy or of a

14 company in which the person was a majority owner). "Private, confidential information" does not

15 include job assignments, job titles, work duties, job history, education, or numerical performance

16 ratings. If it satisfies the other provisions of this protective order, such information may be designated

17 as "CONFIDENTIAL." ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information does not include information

18 that lawfully has been publicly disclosed. Where a party lawfully has or receives information or

19 documents from a person or entity not a party to this case, and where the information is not provided

20 pursuant to a subpoena, deposition, or other discovery proceeding in this litigation, that information

21 will not be treated as ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, except that (1) any party may retroactively

22 designate as "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" any information obtained or received by another party

23 from a person or entity not a party to this case if the designating party believes the information was

24 unlawfully obtained or received by the person or entity not a party to this case. (In such

25 circumstances, the party who or which obtained the information from the third person may seek relief

26 from the "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" designation pursuant to ¶10 of this protective order); and

27 (2) information maintained or received by a party's present or prior vendors may be designated as

28 "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," if it is produced by a party or vendor in this litigation.

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

4

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page5 of 23

1 2. Marking of confidential information and/or attorneys' eyes only information.

2

(a) Marking. Documents, information, or tangible items shall be designated

3 CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY within the meaning of this protective order

4 in the following ways:

5

(1) in the case of documents or tangible items and the information contained

therein that are produced by any party, designation shall be made by placing

6

on each page of the document, or on the tangible item with a clearly visible

mark, the legend CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY on

7

which a designation is sought;

8

(2) in the case of documents or tangible items and the information contained

therein that are obtained by subpoena or other discovery from third parties,

9

designation shall be made as follows: upon receipt by the receiving party, the

documents or tangible things automatically shall be deemed CONFIDENTIAL

10

and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY. The receiving party shall furnish a copy

thereof to all parties within five (5) business days of receipt. (If the material

11

cannot be reproduced for any legitimate reason, all parties shall be given an

opportunity to inspect it.) All parties thereafter shall have 30 calendar days

12

within which to formally designate the document or tangible thing as

CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY. Should any party

13

desire to so designate the document or tangible thing, it shall be labeled

accordingly from that point forward and bear that designation unless contested

14

pursuant to §8. If no party designates the document or tangible thing as

CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY within said 30-day

15

period, then the CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

designation will terminate;

16

(3) in the case of interrogatory answers and requests for admission and the

17

information contained therein, designation shall be made by placing on the

pages containing the confidential information the legend CONFIDENTIAL

18

and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY;

19

(4) in the case of tangible items, designation shall be made by visibly marking the

item CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY;

20

(5) in producing original files and records for inspection, no marking need be made

21

by the producing party in advance of the inspection. For the purposes of the

inspection, all documents produced shall be considered as marked

22

CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY and inspected only by

counsel, their staff and services retained by counsel to photocopy or image

23

documents or evidence, except as otherwise limited herein. Thereafter, upon

selection of specified documents for copying by the inspecting party, the

24

producing party shall mark as CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS'

EYES ONLY the copies of such documents as may contain confidential

25

information at the time the copies are produced to the inspecting party.

26

(b) Good faith. The parties agree to designate information as CONFIDENTIAL or

27 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY on a good-faith basis and not for purposes of harassing the receiving

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

5

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page6 of 23

1 party or parties or for purposes of unnecessarily restricting the receiving party's or parties' access to

2 information concerning the lawsuit.

3

(c) Receipt of designated information. Except as permitted by further order of the Court,

4 or by subsequent written agreement of the producing party, such designated documents or testimonial

5 information shall be received by counsel of record for the party or parties upon the terms and

6 conditions of this protective order.

7

(d) Unmarked documents to be produced for use at trial. In advance of a jury trial or any

8 proceeding to be held before a jury, if a document that has been listed by any party for use as a trial

9 exhibit, the party that has produced that document will provide a copy of the document that does not

10 have a written designation on it that it is CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY. The

11 production of that copy or use of it at trial will not effect or alter the status of the document as

12 CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or otherwise amend or alter any of the other

13 provisions of this protective order.

14 3. Right of access to designated information.

15

(a) CONFIDENTIAL information. Disclosure of information designated as

16 CONFIDENTIAL, including summaries thereof, shall be limited to the Court; the parties' counsel of

17 record in the Serrano and Ramirez matters; Cintas Corporation in-house counsel or otherwise

18 specifically identified counsel for Cintas; and associate attorneys and paralegal and clerical employees

19 assisting any of these counsel; defendant and its officers and directors; and to the following persons,

20 who shall be required to first execute the requisite declaration as set forth in subsection (d) below:

21 (1) defendant's managers and human resources staff, but only to the extent to which disclosure to

22 them is reasonably necessary to evaluate and defend against the claims in this case; (2) plaintiffs

23 Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, Mirna Serrano, Stefanie McVay, and Linda Allen (individually,

24 "plaintiff"; collectively, "plaintiffs"); (3) consultants or experts retained by the parties to consult or

25 testify in the case and their employees if assisting any of these consultants and experts; (4) court

26 reporters and videographers of sworn proceedings; (5) services retained by counsel to photocopy or

27 image or keypunch information from documents or evidence or to prepare charts, summaries,

28 timelines, illustrations, or other demonstrative materials to be used in the litigation; (6) any person that

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

6

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page7 of 23

1 a document, on its face, indicates has previously seen, or has been sent the designated information,

2 such as authors, drafters, recipients and copyholders of the documents or information; and (7)

3 witnesses and prospective witnesses to the extent deemed necessary by counsel to prepare for or

4 give testimony regarding facts at issue in this litigation, or to assist counsel in performing work in this

5 litigation, but as to this category (7), counsel must retain physical custody of the CONFIDENTIAL

6 document or other tangible thing unless consent to release it is given by the party that designated it as

7 CONFIDENTIAL. Disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information to any expert or consultant, their

8 employees if assisting any expert or consultant, or other service provider assisting counsel shall be

9 limited to that confidential information necessary for the consultation work or preparation to testify.

10 In no case shall CONFIDENTIAL information be disclosed to any person or entity who competes

11 directly or indirectly with Cintas (a "competitor") or any labor organization, its representatives or

12 agents, that represents or is engaged in organizing Cintas employees (a "labor union").

13

(b) ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information.

14

1. Disclosure of information designated as ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, including

15 summaries thereof, shall be limited to the Court; the parties' counsel of record in the Serrano and

16 Ramirez matters; Cintas Corporation in-house counsel or otherwise specifically identified counsel for

17 Cintas; and associate attorneys and paralegal and clerical employees assisting any of these counsel;

18 defendant and its officers, directors, managers and human resources staff, but only to the extent to

19 which disclosure to them is reasonably necessary to evaluate and defend against the claims in this

20 case; and to the following persons, who shall be required to first execute the requisite declaration as

21 set forth in subsection 3(d) below: (a) court reporters and videographers of sworn proceedings in

22 which the ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information is raised; (b) services retained by counsel to

23 photocopy or image or keypunch information from documents or evidence or to prepare charts,

24 summaries, timelines, illustrations, or other demonstrative materials to be used in the litigation; (c)

25 experts or consultants (not including competitors or labor unions) retained by the parties and their

26 employees if assisting any of these consultants or experts; and (d) deponents as set forth in §3(e)

27 below.

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

7

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page8 of 23

1

2. Any of the following information, as it pertains to each plaintiff, to the extent it has been

2 designated as ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information, may be shown to any plaintiff so long as

3 counsel retains physical custody of the ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY document or other tangible

4 thing:

5

(a) any information that describes work performed by a plaintiff or any assessment

of such work; information describing the plaintiff's compensation; plaintiff's

6

application(s) for work at Cintas; the facilities and departments in which

plaintiff worked; plaintiff's job title(s); the dates of plaintiff's employment and

7

dates in each job assignment; and disciplinary or warning or termination notices

addressed to the plaintiff;

8

(b) any information that sets forth the rating or compensation of any other

9

individuals who (1) worked for any individual who conducted a performance

review for any named plaintiff during the same review cycle as that plaintiff; (2)

10

worked in the same job title in the same region as any named plaintiff during an

overlapping time period; or (3) worked in a lower-ranking position in the same

11

department in the same region as any named plaintiff in an overlapping time

period; and

12

(c) any summary prepared from ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information (so

13

long as the summary does not name any specific individuals other than plaintiffs

or any one of them or the individuals in (b) immediately above by name or

14

other identifiable description). By entering into this stipulation plaintiffs and

their counsel are not agreeing that the information described in this section (b)

15

may properly be designated as ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information.

16

3. If it becomes necessary for counsel for a party or parties receiving ATTORNEYS' EYES

17 ONLY information to disclose it to some other person(s) (other than as set forth in (a) and (b)

18 immediately above), in order to properly prepare this litigation for trial, or for other court proceedings

19 or filings in this litigation, or to evaluate the facts, claims, and defenses for purposes of discussing

20 settlement of this litigation, the following procedures shall be employed:

21

(a) counsel for the receiving party or parties shall notify, in writing by overnight

delivery or e-mail or fax, counsel for the party producing the ATTORNEYS'

22

EYES ONLY information of their desire to disclose such ATTORNEYS'

EYES ONLY information and shall identify the persons(s) to whom they

23

intend to make disclosure and the general purpose of the disclosure;

24

(b) if no objection to such disclosure is made by counsel for the producing party

within five business days of receipt of such notification, counsel for the

25

receiving party or parties shall be free to make such disclosure to the

designated person(s); provided however, that counsel for the receiving party

26

or parties shall serve upon opposing counsel, prior to disclosure, a declaration

using one of the forms, as applicable, attached hereto as Appendix A,

27

whereby such person agrees to comply with and be bound by this protective

order;

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

8

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page9 of 23

1

(c) if the producing party objects to such disclosure, the party wishing to make

such disclosure may bring before the Court the question of whether the

2

particular ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information can be disclosed to the

designated person(s) and the party objecting to such disclosure shall have the

3

burden of establishing before the Court the necessity for preventing such

disclosure.

4

Disclosure of ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information shall be limited to that information necessary

5

for the witness's consultation work or preparation to testify.

6

(c) Prohibition against disclosure to unauthorized persons.

7

1. With respect to all documents, information, or tangible items produced or furnished by a

8

party during this litigation which are designated as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

9

ONLY by the producing party, such information shall be kept confidential and shall not be given,

10

shown, made available, discussed, or otherwise communicated in any manner ("disclosed"), either

11

directly or indirectly, to any person not authorized to receive the information under the terms of this

12

protective order. CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information received by

13

any authorized person shall be used only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose

14

including, but not limited to, labor organizing.

15

2. Consolidated counsel.

16

(a) This prohibition does not restrict the ability of plaintiffs' counsel in the Ramirez

17

action, plaintiffs' counsel in the Serrano action, EEOC counsel in the Ramirez

action, or EEOC counsel in the Serrano action from sharing, exchanging,

18

discussing and using information produced subject to the respective protective

orders prior to consolidation in either the Serrano or Ramirez actions.

19

(b) Pursuant to this stipulated consolidated protective order, plaintiffs' counsel of

20

record in the Ramirez and Serrano actions and EEOC counsel of record in

the Ramirez and Serrano actions, including associate attorneys and paralegal

21

and clerical employees assisting any of these counsel, will have access to all

material produced or yet to be produced in either the Ramirez or Serrano

22

action and may share, exchange, discuss or use that material in conjunction

with other counsel of record in the consolidated action without violating the

23

terms of this protective order, as long as such information is handled in

accordance with the terms of this stipulated consolidated protective order.

24

(d) Requirement to obtain a written declaration. Before disclosure of any

25

CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information subject to this protective order is

26

made to anyone authorized by this agreement to see the document or other information, counsel for

27

the party disclosing the information shall obtain a written declaration using one of the forms, as

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

9

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page10 of 23

1 applicable, attached hereto as Appendix A, from each person to whom disclosure is to be made,

2 acknowledging that any document, information or tangible item that has been designated as

3 CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY is subject to this protective order, that the

4 person has read this protective order, that such person agrees to comply with and be bound by this

5 protective order, that such person is aware that contempt sanctions may be entered for violation of

6 this protective order, and that such person consents to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. The

7 originals of all signed declarations shall be maintained by the party who procures the signature

8 throughout the duration of this litigation, including all appeals.

9

(e) Use of designated information in depositions. If, in the course of this proceeding,

10 depositions are conducted which involve CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

11 information, counsel for the witness or party producing such information may designate, on the

12 record, the portion of the deposition which counsel believes may contain CONFIDENTIAL or

13 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information. If designation of CONFIDENTIAL information is

14 made, those portions of said depositions involving such CONFIDENTIAL information will be taken

15 with no one present except (1) one or more of the plaintiffs; (2) a representative of Cintas

16 Corporation selected by Cintas; (3) those persons who are authorized to have access to such

17 CONFIDENTIAL information in accordance with this protective order; (4) the reporter and

18 videographer, if any; (5) the deponent and deponent's counsel, if the deponent has separate legal

19 counsel; and (6) counsel for the parties in the consolidated action, including any in-house counsel for

20 Cintas. If designation of ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information is made, those portions of said

21 depositions involving such ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information will be taken with no one

22 present except (1) counsel for the parties in the consolidated action and any in-house counsel for

23 Cintas; (2) those persons who are authorized to have access to such ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

24 information in accordance with this protective order; (3) the reporter and videographer, if any; and

25 (4) the deponent and deponent's counsel, if the deponent has separate legal counsel. A witness,

26 whose deposition is being taken, may see any document identified as CONFIDENTIAL or

27 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY if the document is first handed to counsel for the opposing party or

28 parties ("opposing counsel") for inspection and either (1) the opposing counsel has no objection to

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

10

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page11 of 23

1 the witness seeing the document; or (2) the document indicates on its face that the witness has

2 previously seen or has been sent the document; or (3) the witness is within the category of persons

3 entitled to see this type of information, pursuant to the provisions described above in §§3(a) and (b),

4 above. If opposing counsel objects, opposing counsel will have the option to do any one or a

5 combination of the following things: (1) request that the deponent sign a declaration containing the

6 wording specified in Exhibit A to this Agreement; (2) note the objection for the record; and/or (3)

7 recess the deposition so that the matter can be brought before the Court for determination. Any

8 party shall have until 30 days after the deposition is taken within which to inform the other parties to

9 the action of the portions of the transcript (by specific page and line reference) to be designated as

10 CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY. Unless otherwise agreed by counsel, the right

11 to make such designation shall be waived unless made within the 30-day period. Prior to such

12 designation, or expiration of the 30-day period, the entire deposition transcript shall be deemed

13 CONFIDENTIAL information. Transcripts of testimony, or portions thereof, or documents

14 containing the CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information shall be filed only

15 under seal as described in §7, until further order of the Court.

16 4. Inadvertent production.

17

If, through inadvertence, a producing party provides any confidential information pursuant to

18 this litigation without marking the information as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

19 ONLY information, or provides any information subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege,

20 attorney work product or other privilege or immunity, the producing party may, within 15 business

21 days of such disclosure, inform the receiving party or parties of the CONFIDENTIAL or

22 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or privileged or immune nature of the disclosed information, and the

23 receiving party or parties shall, as applicable, treat the disclosed information as CONFIDENTIAL or

24 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information under this protective order, and shall return all copies of

25 assertedly privileged or immune documents (and destroy all summaries of same) within five business

26 days of receipt of written notice from the producing party, and to the extent the receiving party or

27 parties has or have already disclosed this information, the receiving party or parties shall promptly

28 notify the producing party as to the specific recipients of such information and shall take all

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

11

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page12 of 23

1 reasonable steps to remove such information from said recipients unless, with respect to

2 CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS EYES' ONLY information, they are otherwise entitled to

3 disclosure under this protective order.

4

If a party or counsel for a party receives a document or other information that appears on its

5 face to be inadvertently produced and subject to a claim of privilege, counsel for the receiving party

6 will inform counsel for the producing party promptly after becoming aware of the disclosure.

7 5. Disclosure contrary to this agreement.

8

If CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information is disclosed to any person

9 other than in the manner authorized by this order, the person responsible for the disclosure must

10 immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure to the attention of counsel for the

11 producing party and, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the parties, make every

12 effort to prevent further disclosure by it or by the person who was the recipient of such information.

13 6. Disclosure must conform to this agreement and future Court orders.

14

Unless modified by any future order issued by the Court, no person or party shall directly or

15 indirectly utilize or disclose any CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information

16 obtained pursuant to pretrial discovery in this action, except for the purpose of this action and any

17 appeals and retrials thereof, and such utilization or disclosure must be in compliance with this

18 Agreement.

19 7. Instructions for filing CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

ONLY information under seal, as applicable to the filing.

20

(a) For filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Any

21

document, pleading, or tangible item which contains CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

22

ONLY information, if filed or submitted to the Court, shall be filed pursuant to Northern District Civil

23

Local Rule 79-5 as follows:

24

(1) Request to file entire document under seal. Counsel seeking to file an entire

25

document under seal must:

26

(a) file and serve an administrative motion to file under seal, in

conformance with Northern District Local Rule 7-11,

27

accompanied by a declaration establishing that the entire

document is sealable;

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

12

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page13 of 23

1

(b) lodge with the Clerk of the Court and serve a proposed order

sealing the document;

2

(c) lodge with the Clerk of the Court and serve the entire

3

document, contained in an 8½-inch-by-11-inch sealed

envelope or other suitable sealed container, with a cover sheet

4

affixed to the envelope or container, setting out the information

required by Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-4(a) and (b)

5

and prominently displaying the notation: DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL;

6

(d) lodge with the Clerk of the Court for delivery to the Court's

7

chambers a second copy of the entire document, in an identical

labeled envelope or container.

8

(2) Request to file a portion of a document under seal. If only a portion of a

9

document is sealable, counsel seeking to file that portion of the document

under seal must:

10

(a) file and serve an administrative motion to file under seal, in

11

conformance with Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-11,

accompanied by a declaration establishing that a portion of the

12

document is sealable;

13

(b) lodge with the Clerk of the Court and serve a proposed order

that is narrowly tailored to seal only the portion of the

14

document which is claimed to be sealable;

15

(c) lodge with the Clerk of the Court and serve the entire

document, contained in an 8½-inch-by-11-inch sealed

16

envelope or other suitable sealed container, with a cover sheet

affixed to the envelope or container, setting out the information

17

required by Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-4(a) and (b)

and prominently displaying the notation: DOCUMENT

18

SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL. The sealable portions of the

document must be identified by notations or highlighting within

19

the text;

20

(d) lodge with the Clerk of the Court for delivery to the Court's

chambers a second copy of the entire document, in an identical

21

labeled envelope or container, with the sealable portions

identified;

22

(e) lodge with the Clerk of the Court and serve a redacted version

23

of the document that can be filed in the public record if the

Court grants the sealing order.

24

(3) Filing a document designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

25

ONLY by another party. If a party wishes to file a document that has been

designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY by another

26

party pursuant to this Agreement, or if a party wishes to refer in a

memorandum or other filing to information so designated by another party, the

27

submitting party must file and serve an administrative motion for a sealing order

and lodge the document, memorandum, or other filing in accordance with this

28

rule. If only a portion of the document, memorandum, or other filing is

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

13

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page14 of 23

1

sealable, the submitting party must also lodge with the Court a redacted

version of the document, memorandum, or other filing to be placed in the

2

public record if the Court approves the requested sealing order. Within five

days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and serve a

3

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must

lodge and serve a narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw

4

the designation of confidentiality. If the designating party does not file its

responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or

5

proposed filing will be made part of the public record. The designating party

may also agree to withdraw the designation of CONFIDENTIAL or

6

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY for the limited purpose of filing the document(s)

or information with the Court, without waiving the designation generally.

7

(4) Request denied. If a request to file under seal is denied in part or in full,

8

neither the lodged document nor any proposed redacted version will be filed.

The Clerk of the Court will notify the submitting party, hold the lodged

9

document for three days for the submitting party to retrieve it, and thereafter, if

it is not retrieved, dispose of it. If the request is denied in full, the submitting

10

party may retain the document and not make it part of the record in the case

or, within three days, resubmit the document for filing in the public record. If

11

the request is denied in part and granted in part, the party may resubmit the

document in a manner that conforms with the Court's order an this rule.

12

(5) Effect of seal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any document filed

13

under seal shall be kept from public inspection, including inspection by

attorneys and parties to the action, during the pendency of the case. Any

14

document filed under seal in a civil case shall be open to public inspection

without further action by the Court ten years from the date the case is closed.

15

However, a party that submitted documents that the Court placed under seal in

a case may, upon showing good cause at the conclusion of the case, seek an

16

order that would continue the seal until a specific date beyond the ten years

provided by this rule. Nothing in this rule is intended to affect the normal

17

records-destruction policy of the United States courts. The chambers copy of

sealed documents will be disposed of in accordance with the Court's

18

discretion. Ordinarily, these copies will be recycled, not shredded, unless

special arrangements are made.

19

(6) Conflict with Local Rules. In the event of any conflict between §7 of this

20

Agreement and any applicable Local Rule (including but not limited to

Northern District Civil Local Rule 79-5), the applicable Local Rule shall apply.

21

(7) Notice to third parties. The parties and their attorneys shall inform all

22

witnesses, consultants, employees, agents, court reporters, or anyone else who

may from time to time have access to any CONFIDENTIAL or

23

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information of the substance of this order.

24

(b) For filings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Any

25 document, pleading, or tangible item which contains CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

26 ONLY information, if filed or submitted to the Court, shall be filed pursuant to Eastern District of

27 Michigan Local Rule 5.3 as follows:

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

14

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page15 of 23

1

(1) Request to file entire document under seal. Counsel seeking to file an entire

document under seal must:

2

(a) file and serve the document in accordance with the general

3

filing requirements of Local Rule 5.1;

4

(b) place each document subject to the protective order in a

separate 9-x-12-inch envelope and sealed closed; and

5

(c) each envelope must plainly state the full case caption , title of

6

the document enclosed and the text, "FILED UNDER SEAL

PURSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER" in bold, capital

7

letters not less than one inch high.

8

(2) Filing a document designated CONFIDENTIAL by another party. If a

party wishes to file a document that has been designated CONFIDENTIAL

9

by another party pursuant to a protective order, or if a party wishes to refer in

a memorandum or other filing to information so designated by another party,

10

the submitting party must file the document or portion of the document,

memorandum or other filing that is CONFIDENTIAL under seal as permitted

11

in Local Rule 5.3. The submitting party must also lodge with the Court a

redacted version of the document, memorandum or other filing to be placed in

12

the public record.

13

(3) Effect of seal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any document filed

under seal shall be kept from public inspection, including inspection by

14

attorneys and parties to the action, during the pendency of the case. Full and

complete copies of all documents filed under seal will be served on counsel for

15

the parties. Sixty days after the entry of a final judgment and an appellate

mandate, if appealed, attorneys must present to the court a proposed order

16

specifying whether the material sealed with protective order is (a) to be

returned to the parties; or (b) unsealed and placed in the case file. Failure to

17

present the order will result in the Court ordering the clerk to unseal the

material and place it in the case file. Nothing in this rule is intended to affect

18

the normal records-destruction policy of the United States courts.

19

(4) Conflict with Local Rules. In the event of any conflict between §8 of this

agreement and any applicable Local Rule (including but not limited to Eastern

20

District of Michigan Local Rule 5.3), the Local Rule shall apply. In the event

the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan are amended, the parties

21

will confer to decide if changes to the agreement are necessary.

22

(5) Notice to third parties. The parties and their attorneys shall inform all

witnesses, consultants, employees, agents, court reporters, or anyone else who

23

may from time to time have access to any CONFIDENTIAL or

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information of the substance of this order.

24

8. Acceptance of a designated or non-designated document does

25

not constitute agreement with its designation or non-designation.

26

Acceptance or receipt by a party or parties of any information, document, or thing designated

27 as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, or with no designation, shall not constitute a

28 concession that the information, document or thing is properly so designated or not designated. Any

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

15

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page16 of 23

1 party may contest a designation that a document is CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

2 ONLY information (or a non-designation). If the receiving party or parties disagree with the

3 designation or non-designation, and marking by any producing party of any material as

4 CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, then the parties shall first try to resolve such

5 disputes on an informal basis. If agreement cannot be reached between counsel, the party so

6 designating the document shall indicate in writing the reason for its designation. The party or parties

7 opposing the designation or non-designation may present such dispute to the Court by motion or

8 otherwise. In the resolution of such matter, the burden of establishing confidentiality shall be on the

9 party who made the claim of confidentiality.

10 9. Other objections preserved.

11

This protective order shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose production

12 of any information on grounds other than confidentiality.

13 10. Right to seek or agree to other orders.

14

This protective order shall not prevent any party from applying to the Court for relief

15 herefrom, or from applying to the Court for further or additional protective orders, or from agreeing

16 among themselves to modify or vacate this protective order, subject to the approval of the Court.

17 11. Return of designated information and continued agreement to confidentiality.

18

At the conclusion of this action, including any appeals, all CONFIDENTIAL information and

19 all ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY information furnished pursuant to this protective order, and all

20 copies thereof, shall be returned to the producing attorneys of record, or, at the producing party's

21 option, destroyed by counsel for the receiving party or parties. If the documents are to be returned,

22 the producing party will pay for the cost of shipping, using whatever shipping agent it selects. If the

23 documents are to be destroyed, the producing party will be responsible for engaging a service that it

24 selects and pays to collect the documents and destroy them. Counsel for the receiving party or

25 parties is entitled to keep copies of pleadings and correspondence used in this litigation, in a secure

26 storage area subject to the terms of this agreement. The provisions of this protective order insofar as

27 it restricts the disclosure, communication of, and use of, CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS'

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

16

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page17 of 23

1 EYES ONLY information produced hereunder shall continue to be binding after the conclusion of

2 this action.

3 12. Violation.

4

Any party to this action may file a motion requesting that the Court sanction or hold in

5 contempt of Court anyone who violates the terms of this order.

6 SO STIPULATED.
7

8

/s/ Elena R. Baca

9

NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785)

nancyabell@paulhastings.com

10

ELENA R. BACA (SB #160564)

elenabaca@paulhastings.com

11

MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472)

markatkinson@paulhastings.com

12

STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG (SB# 164881)

stephensonnenberg@paulhastings.com

13

HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425)

heathermorgan@paulhastings.com

14

JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320)

josephdeng@paulhastings.com

15

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY

& WALKER LLP

16

515 S. Flower St., 25th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228

17

(213) 683-6000

(213) 627-0705 (telefax)

18

ATTORNEYS FOR CINTAS

19

20

/s/ Paul Strauss

Paul Strauss, #153937

21

Robert S. Libman, #139283

Sharon Legenza, pro hac vice

22

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND

14 W. Erie St.

23

Chicago, IL 60610

(312) 751-1170

24

(312) 751-0438 (telefax)

25

26

27

28

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

17

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page18 of 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 20 Dated: __M_a_y__1_9____________, 2006

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/s/ Morris J. Baller Morris J. Baller, #048928 Roberta L. Steele, #188198 Joseph E. Jaramillo, #178566 GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Dr., Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 (510) 835-1417 (telefax)
ATTORNEYS FOR RAMIREZ PLAINTIFFS
/s/ Robert D. Unitas Robert D. Unitas (MA) Senior Trial Attorney SLS Erica D. White-Dunston (MD) Trial Attorney SLS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L St. N.W. Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4768 (202) 663-4196 (telefax)
ATTORNEYS FOR RAMIREZ PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
___________________________________ Honorable Jeffrey S. White U.S. District Court Judge

ST IPULAT ED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDAT ED CONFIDENT IALIT Y

AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROT ECT IVE ORDER

18

No. C 04-281 JSW

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page19 of 23

1

APPENDIX A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

3

4 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al., on behalf

) No. C 04-00281 JSW

of themselves and others similarly situated,

)

5

)

Plaintiffs,

) STIPULATED

6

) CONSOLIDATED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

) CONFIDENTIALITY

7 COMMISSION,

) AGREEMENT AND AGREED

) PROTECTIVE ORDER

8

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

9

v.

) The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

)

10 CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, ) Complaint filed: January 20, 2004

)

11

Defendant.

) Trial date: none set

12 DECLARATION OF _______________
13

14

1. My name is _______________________________________. I have personal

15 knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called and sworn as a witness, I would

16 testify competently to those facts.

17

2. I live at __________________________________________________________.

18

3. I am employed as (state position): _____________________________________.

19

4. The full name and address of my employer is: ____________________________

20 ___________________________________________________________________________.

21

5. I am aware that a stipulated consolidated confidentiality agreement and agreed protective

22 order ("protective order") regarding confidential information has been entered in the case of Ramirez,

23 et al. v. Cintas Corp., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

24 ("Court") and/or Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp., in the United States District Court for the Eastern

25 District of Michigan. A copy of that protective order has been given to me. I have carefully

26 reviewed its terms and conditions.

27

28

DECLARAT ION OF ______________

No. 04-CV-40132

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page20 of 23

1

6. I agree that documents, information, and tangible items designated as CONFIDENTIAL

2 and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY shall be subject to the terms of the protective order, and agree to

3 comply with and be bound by the terms of the protective order.

4

7. Without limiting the foregoing, I agree that I will not disclose or discuss any material

5 designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY with any persons other than counsel

6 for a party in the consolidated action and paralegal and clerical personnel assisting such counsel, and

7 other persons permitted access to such material under the protective order who have signed

8 declarations under penalty of perjury undertaking to preserve the confidentiality of such material.

9

8. I agree to use any material designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

10 ONLY solely in connection with participation in this action and for no other purpose.

11

9. I understand that any use of CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

12 material, or any portion or summaries thereof, or any information obtained therefrom, in any manner

13 contrary to the provisions of the protective order shall subject me to contempt sanctions of the Court.

14

10. I consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over me by the Court.

15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of __________ and United
16 States of America that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed this ______ day of _______, 200__, in ____________, __________________.
17

18

__________________________________

19

Signature

20 28 U.S.C. §1746
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARAT ION OF ______________

2

No. 04-CV-40132

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page21 of 23

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

2

SOUTHERN DIVISION

3

MIRNA E. SERRANO, STEFANIE L.

)

4 MCVAY and LINDA D. ALLEN, individually

)

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

)

5

) No. 04-CV-40132

Plaintiffs,

)

6

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

) (The Honorable Paul V. Gadola)

7 COMMISSION,

)

)

8

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

9

v.

)

)

10 CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, )

)

11

Defendant.

)

12

consolidated with

13 ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al., on behalf of

)

themselves and others similarly situated,

)

14

) No. ___________

Plaintiffs,

)

15

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

) (The Honorable Paul V. Gadola)

16 COMMISSION,

)

)

17

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

18

v.

)

)

19 CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, )

)

20

Defendant.

)

21 DECLARATION OF _______________
22

23

1. My name is _______________________________________. I have personal

24 knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called and sworn as a witness, I would

25 testify competently to those facts.

26

2. I live at __________________________________________________________.

27

3. I am employed as (state position): _____________________________________.

28

DECLARAT ION OF ______________

No. 04-CV-40132

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page22 of 23

1

4. The full name and address of my employer is: ____________________________

2 ___________________________________________________________________________.

3

5. I am aware that a stipulated consolidated confidentiality agreement and agreed protective

4 order ("protective order") regarding confidential information has been entered in the case of Ramirez,

5 et al. v. Cintas Corp., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

6 ("Court") and/or Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp., in the United States District Court for the Eastern

7 District of Michigan. A copy of that protective order has been given to me. I have carefully

8 reviewed its terms and conditions.

9

6. I agree that documents, information, and tangible items designated as CONFIDENTIAL

10 and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY shall be subject to the terms of the protective order, and agree to

11 comply with and be bound by the terms of the protective order.

12

7. Without limiting the foregoing, I agree that I will not disclose or discuss any material

13 designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY with any persons other than counsel

14 for a party in the consolidated action and paralegal and clerical personnel assisting such counsel, and

15 other persons permitted access to such material under the protective order who have signed

16 declarations under penalty of perjury undertaking to preserve the confidentiality of such material.

17

8. I agree to use any material designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS' EYES

18 ONLY solely in connection with participation in this action and for no other purpose.

19

9. I understand that any use of CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

20 material, or any portion or summaries thereof, or any information obtained therefrom, in any manner

21 contrary to the provisions of the protective order shall subject me to contempt sanctions of the Court.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARAT ION OF ______________

2

No. 04-CV-40132

Case3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document203 Filed05/19/06 Page23 of 23

1

10. I consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over me by the Court.

2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of __________ and United
3 States of America that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed this ______ day of _______, 200__, in ____________, __________________.
4

5

__________________________________

6

Signature

7 28 U.S.C. §1746
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARAT ION OF ______________

3

No. 04-CV-40132

 
 Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 658984 United States District Court,
N.D. California. Robert RAMIREZ, et al. Plaintiff,
v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C 04-00281 JSW. | March 22, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Strauss, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Nancy L. Abell, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant. Opinion
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS, AND SEVERSON, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, (B) STAY THEIR CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION.
WHITE, J.
I. INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Cintas Corporation’s (“Cintas”) motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Jose Salcedo (“Salcedo”), A. Shappelle Thompson (“Thompson”), and Coretta Silvers (“Silvers”) (collectively the “Arbitration Plaintiffs’), or in the alternative to compel arbitration and stay the Arbitration Plaintiffs’ claims. Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, and having had the benefit of oral argument, for the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration and HEREBY STAYS this action only as to plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, and Silvers. The Court DENIES Cintas’ motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Arbitration Plaintiffs’ claims.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 21, 2004, the Arbitration Plaintiffs filed suit against Cintas as members of a purported class to pursue claims of employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII, California’s Fair Housing and Discrimination Act, and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
On July 30, 2004, Cintas moved to dismiss the Arbitration Plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that they entered into an arbitration agreement with Cintas and, therefore, are bound to arbitrate their disputes with Cintas.1 In the alternative, Cintas moved to compel arbitration and stay the Arbitration Plaintiffs’ claims.
On November 17, 2004, pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), the operative pleading in this action. Pursuant to that Stipulation, Cintas’ motion to dismiss or compel applies to the TAC. In addition, pursuant to the TAC, the state law causes of action only apply to Cintas employees who applied for employment, resided, or worked in California. Accordingly, these causes of action are inapplicable to the Arbitration Plaintiffs.
1

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
According to the TAC, Salcedo was employed by Cintas as a production supervisor in Central Islip, New York, from approximately November 1999 to October 2002. (TAC, ¶ 11). Thompson was employed by Cintas as a driver in Rochester New York, from approximately April 2000 to January 2002. (Id., ¶ 12). Silvers was employed by Cintas as an accounts receivable employee in Raleigh, North Carolina from approximately July 2002 through February 2003. (Id., ¶ 13.)
Salcedo, Thompson, and Silvers all signed employment agreements that contained arbitration clauses (the “Arbitration Agreement”). Salcedo signed his employment agreement on November 15, 1999. (Declaration of Jenice Clendening (“Clendening Decl.”), Ex. B.) Thompson signed his employment agreement on April 17, 2000. (Id., Ex. C). These two employment agreements are referred to as the “1999 Version” of Cintas’ employment and arbitration agreements and are identical in all material respects. Silvers signed her employment agreement in 2002, which is referred to as the “2002 Version” of Cintas’ employment and arbitration agreements. (Id., Ex. D.)
*2 The 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement provides:
5. EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF RESOLVING DISPUTES OR DIFFERENCES.
Should any dispute or difference arise between Employee and Employer concerning whether Employer or any agent of Employer ever at any time violated any duty to Employee, right of Employee, law, regulation or public policy or breached this [Employment Agreement], Employee and Employer shall confer and attempt in good faith to resolve promptly such dispute or difference. To have a fair, timely, inexpensive and binding method of resolving any such dispute or difference remaining unresolved after Employee and Employer confer in good faith, should Employee desire to pursue Employee’s claim, Employee shall, within one year of the date when the dispute or difference first arose or within one year of when Employee’s employment ends, whichever occurs first, submit to Employer a written request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved through impartial arbitration conducted in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes and held in the county and state where Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for employer. Employee’s initial share of the arbitration filing fee shall not exceed one day’s pay or $100, whichever is less, and the arbitrator shall have authority to direct Employer to reimburse Employee for that portion of the filing fee paid by Employee if the arbitrator upholds Employee’s claim.
In any arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator shall apply the terms of this Agreement as written, the Federal Arbitration Act and other relevant federal and state laws, including time limits on claims. If Employer loses the arbitration, Employer shall bear all fees, expenses, and charges of the American Arbitration Association and the arbitrator. The arbitrator also shall have the authority to award appropriate relief, including damages, costs and attorney’s fees, as available under relevant laws, provided that the Arbitrator cannot direct Employee to pay more than a total of two days’ pay as costs, expenses and attorney’s fees to Employer, the arbitrator or the American Arbitration Association.
Except for Employee’s workers’ compensation claim or unemployment benefits claim, the impartial arbitration proceeding, as provided in this Paragraph 5, shall be the exclusive, final and binding method of resolving any and all claims of Employee against Employer, but the arbitrator shall have authority to entertain and decide a motion for reconsideration of the arbitration award. A legal action either to maintain the status quo pending arbitration or to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitration award may be filed and pursued in any court having jurisdiction, but otherwise Employee shall not file in any court any lawsuit or counterclaim contending that Employer or any agent of Employer violated any duty, right, law, regulation or public policy or breached this Agreement.
*3 (Id., Ex. B at 3-4, Ex. C at 3-4.)
The 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreement provides:
5. EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF RESOLVING DISPUTES OR DIFFERENCES.
Should any dispute or difference arise between Employee and Employer concerning whether employer or any agent of Employer ever at any time violated any duty to Employee, right of Employee, law, regulation or public policy or breached this Agreement, Employee and Employer will confer and attempt in good faith to resolve promptly such dispute or difference. To have a fair, timely, inexpensive and binding method of resolving any such dispute or difference remaining unresolved after Employee and Employer confer in good faith, should either desire to pursue a claim against the other party, the party making the claim will, within one year of the date when the dispute or difference first arose or within one year of when Employee’s employment ends, whichever occurs first (except when Employee or Employer claims a violation
2

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
of a specific statute having its own specific statute of limitations, that statutory time limit will apply ), submit to the other party a written request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved through impartial arbitration conducted in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes and held in the county and state where Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for Employer. Employee’s initial share of the arbitration filing fee will not exceed one day’s pay or $100, whichever is less, and the arbitrator will have authority to direct Employer to reimburse Employee for that portion of the filing fee paid by Employee if the arbitrator upholds Employee’s claim.
In any arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator will apply the terms of this Agreement as written, the Federal Arbitration Act and other relevant federal and state laws, including time limits on claims. If employer loses the arbitration, Employer will bear all fees, expenses and charges of the American Arbitration Association and the arbitrator. The arbitrator also will have the authority to award appropriate relief, including damages, costs and attorney’s fees, as available under relevant laws, but the Arbitrator cannot direct Employee to pay more than a total of $200 or two days of Employee’s pay, whichever is less, toward the fees of the arbitrator and the American Arbitration Association.
Except for Employee’s workers’ compensation claim or unemployment benefits claim or a dispute concerning the interpretation, enforceability or enforcement of any provision in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement, the impartial arbitration proceeding, as provided in this Paragraph 5, will be the exclusive, final and binding method of resolving any and all disputes between Employer and Employee, but the arbitrator will have authority to entertain and decide a motion for reconsideration of the arbitration award. A legal action either to maintain the status quo pending arbitration or to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitration award may be filed and pursued either by Employee or Employer in any court having jurisdiction, but otherwise neither party will file in any court any lawsuit or counterclaim contending that Employee, Employer or any agent of Employer violated any duty, right, law, regulation or public policy or breached any provision of this Agreement other than those in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement.
*4 (Id., Ex. D at 4-5, emphasis added.)2
In addition to the Arbitration Agreement, each Employment Agreement contains a choice of law provision, which states that it shall be interpreted, governed and enforced according to the Federal Arbitration Act, and the law of the state where the employee is currently employed or was most recently employed by Cintas. (Id., Exs. B at 3, C at 3, D at 4.) Thus, for plaintiffs Salcedo and Thompson, the agreements are to be interpreted and enforced under New York law. For plaintiff Silvers, the agreement is to be interpreted and enforced under North Carolina law.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Evidentiary Matters. As a preliminary matter, the Court must address certain evidentiary issues raised in connection with the parties’ submissions.
1. Cintas’ Requests for Judicial Notice. Cintas requests that the Court take judicial notice of: (1) an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Cintas’ Motion to Compel Arbitration issued by Judge Armstrong in Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, et al., No. 03-1180(SBA), relating to a similar motion to compel arbitration filed by Cintas in that action; (2) and the reply brief Cintas filed in support of its motion to compel in the Veliz action. (See Docket Nos. 18 (Att.2), and 52.) Plaintiffs objected to the first request on a number of grounds, including the fact that Judge Armstrong granted the Veliz plaintiffs leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Although under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court properly could take judicial notice of the court records and proceedings in the Veliz action, these documents are not necessary to the resolution of this motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cintas’ requests for judicial notice.
2. Cintas’ Objections to and Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle. Ms. Eberle offers testimony relating to what she has learned, in connection with an unrelated action, from the AAA about how a class arbitration might proceed and the fees that might be incurred in connection with such an arbitration. Mr. Rubin,
3

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
who is co-counsel in the Veliz action, offers testimony about the proceedings in the Veliz action, as well as testimony about the events that have occurred since plaintiffs initiated a class arbitration proceeding in Veliz.
Cintas asserts the testimony provided in these declarations is premature, speculative, and irrelevant. Cintas also asserts that certain portions of the testimony offered is improper expert testimony by lay witnesses and inadmissible hearsay. The testimony profferd by Mr. Rubin and Ms. Eberle is relevant because the Arbtration Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that “the arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.” Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). However, to the extent the declarations contain statements made by representatives from AAA to Mr. Rubin or Ms. Eberle, the Court concludes that such statements are hearsay not subject to any exception, and those statements have not been considered by the Court. Because Cintas has not objected on hearsay grounds to correspondence sent to or received from the AAA, the Court has considered that correspondence in conjunction with this motion.
*5 The Court does not find the facts contained in Ms. Eberle’s and Mr. Rubin’s declarations as to what is expected to occur in the Veliz arbitration to be speculative. To the extent Cintas objects to this evidence on the grounds that it is speculative as to what may occur in this case, the Court concurs that these matters are speculative but finds that objection to go to the weight to be accorded the declarations rather than their admissibility.
Accordingly, Cintas’ objections to the Eberle and Rubin declarations are SUSTAINED IN PART. The Court DENIES the motion to strike the declarations.
B. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Compel Arbitration. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Once the Court has determined that an arbitration agreement involves a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA, the Court’s only role is to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the scope of the parties’ dispute falls within that agreement. 9 U.S .C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). The parties in this case do not dispute that the claims at issue would fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreements; the only issue is whether the Arbitration Agreements are valid and enforceable.
The FAA represents the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” and “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). Under the FAA, “once [the Court] is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored,” and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, the Court must order arbitration. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 400, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967). That the Court must order arbitration is true “even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985).
Where, as here, a litigant sues to enforce statutory claims, that fact alone will not necessarily preclude arbitration. The Supreme Court has “recognized that federal statutory claims can be appropriately resolved through arbitration, and [it has] enforced agreements to arbitrate that involve such claims.” Randolph, 531 U.S. at 89. If statutory claims are involved and an arbitration agreement exists, the agreement should be enforced “unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue,” and the litigant can effectively vindicate “[his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson/Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26-28, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (emphasis added).
*6 Finally, notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring arbitration, by entering into an arbitration agreement, two parties are entering into a contract. See Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989) (noting that arbitration “is a matter of consent, not coercion”). Thus, as with any contract an arbitration agreement is “subject to all defenses to enforcement that apply to contracts generally.” Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir.2003.) Although the Court can initially determine whether a valid agreement exists, disputes over the meaning of specific terms are matters for the arbitrator to decide. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002); Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-404 (holding that “a federal court may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”).
4

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
C. The Arbitration Agreements Are Enforceable. The Court must first determine whether an agreement to arbitrate exists by reference to principles of state contract law, here New York and North Carolina. Ingle, 328 F.3d at 1170. It is not disputed that each of the Arbitration Plaintiffs and Cintas executed an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause. (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-D.) Accordingly, an agreement to arbitrate exists, and the parties do not dispute that, to the extent they are enforceable, they are governed by the FAA.
The Arbitration Plaintiffs contend these agreements are not enforceable because: (1) they lack consideration in the form of a reciprocal commitment to arbitrate; (2) are unconscionable under both New York and North Carolina law; and (3) preclude them from effectively vindicating their statutory causes of action.
1. The Arbitration Agreements do not lack consideration. The Court is not persuaded that the Arbitration Agreements are unenforceable because they lack consideration.
Under North Carolina law, where each party agrees to be bound by an agreement to arbitrate, there is sufficient consideration to uphold the agreement. See Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, 148 F.3d 373, 378-379 (4th Cir.1998); Howard v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 134 N.C.App. 116, 119, 516 S.E.2d 879 (1999). The 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreement, which applies to Silvers, states that if either the employee (Silvers) or employer (Cintas) has a dispute, and cannot resolve that dispute in good faith, “should either desire to pursue a claim against the other party, the party making the claim will, ... submit to the other party a written request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved through impartial arbitration....” (Clendening Decl. Ex. C, emphasis added.) The Arbitration Agreement also provides that, apart from claims relating to paragraph 3 of the Employment Agreement, which addresses claims relating to misuse of Cintas’ confidential information, “the impartial arbitration proceeding ... will be the exclusive, final and binding method of resolving any and all disputes between Employer and Employee.” (Id.) Thus, Cintas and Silvers agreed to be bound by the agreement to arbitrate and the Arbitration Agreement is supported by adequate consideration.
*7 Under New York law, courts have determined that because mutuality of remedy is not required in arbitration agreements, if there is consideration for the entire agreement of which the arbitration agreement is a part, there is sufficient consideration. In re Ball and SFX Broadcasting Inc., 236 A.D.2d 158, 665 N.Y.S.2d 444, 446 (1997); Sablosky v. Edward S. Gordon Co., Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 133, 538 N.Y.S.2d 513, 516, 535 N.E.2d 643 (1989); cf. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Distajo, 66 F.3d 438, 452-453 (2d Cir.1995) (evaluating Connecticut law and interpreting Prima Paint to not require that arbitration clause itself be supported by independent consideration). Although the 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement does not contain the same language set forth above in the 2002 Version, it still states that “the impartial arbitration proceeding ... shall be the exclusive, final and binding method of resolving any and all claims of Employee against Employer.” (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-C.) Thus, Cintas is bound to arbitrate disputes with its employees, and to the extent the agreements lack a mutuality of remedy, that does not preclude enforcement. Moreover, the employment agreements are supported by consideration. As such, the Court concludes that under New York law, the 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement is supported by adequate consideration.
2. The Arbitration Agreements Are Not Unconscionable. The Arbitration Plaintiffs contend that the Arbitration Agreements are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and are unenforceable for this reason as well. “A court will generally refuse to enforce a contract on the ground of unconscionability only when the inequality of the bargain is so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and where the terms are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept them on the other.” Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 210, 274 S.E.2d 206 (citing Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 10 S.Ct. 134, 33 L.Ed. 393 (1889)). Cf. Ciago v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, 295 F.Supp.2d 324 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
To find a contract unenforceable on the grounds of unconscionability a court must find the contract to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Ciago, 295 F.Supp.2d at 328 (quoting Gilman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 175 A.D.2d 578, 573 N.Y.S.2d 787, 791 (1988)); King v. King, 114 N.C.App. 454, 457, 442 S.E.2d 154 (1994). However, a contract may be unenforceable if there is little procedural unconscionability but great substantive unconscionability, and the
5

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
reverse is also true. Browerv. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569, 574 (1998); Rite Color Chemical Co. ., Inc. v. Velvet Textile, Inc., 105 N.C.App. 14, 19-20, 411 S.E.2d 645 (1992).
a. The Arbitration Agreements are not procedrually unconscionable. A court looks to the contract formation process to determine if the contract is procedurally unconscionable. Brower, 676 N.Y.S.2d at 573 (court may take into “account setting of the transaction, the experience and education of the party claiming unconscionability, whether the contract contained ‘fine-print,’ whether the seller used ‘high-pressured tactics,’ and any disparity in the parties’ bargaining power”); King, 114 N.C.App. at 457, 442 S.E.2d 154 (“[p]rocedural unconscionability involves bargaining naughtiness in the formation of the contract”) (internal quotations omitted).
*8 Although the Court considers it beyond dispute that there is a measure of unequal bargaining power between Cintas and the Arbitration Plaintiffs, that fact alone will not render an arbitration agreement invalid. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 33; Ciago, 295 F.Supp.2d at 329. Nor would the fact that accepting the Arbitration Agreements as a condition of employment necessarily render them procedurally unconscionable. Ciago, 295 F.Supp.2d at 329; cf. Hightower v. GMRI, Inc., 272 F.3d 239, 243 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that continued employment with knowledge of arbitration agreement constitutes assent to agreement).
In this case, the Arbitration Agreements were not contained in a separate document nor were they hidden within “fine print” in the employment agreement. Rather, they were clearly identified by capitalized heading entitled “EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF RESOLVING DISPUTES OR DIFFERENCES.” Finally, the Arbitration Agreements were signed in the presence of witnesses, one of whom was a witness for the employee. (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-D.)
Although each of the Arbitration Plaintiffs submits a declaration stating that they did not understand what it meant to agree to arbitration, only Ms. Silvers contends she was not “given any time” to read the employment agreement. The Arbitration Plaintiffs do not contend that they were precluded from asking questions about their employment agreements, which are no longer than six pages. Nor does Ms. Silver’s statement suggest that she was not permitted to read the employment agreement or denied a request for additional time to read the agreement. The Court concludes that the evidence before it does not suggest that Cintas engaged in any high pressure tactics or otherwise attempted to coerce the Arbitration Plaintiffs into signing the employment agreements in which the Arbitration Agreements were contained. Compare Brower, 676 N.S.Y.2d at 573-574 (finding no procedural unconscionability where arbitration agreement was contained in document in which all paragraphs were in same size print that was not complex or inordinately long), with Brennan v. Bally Total Fitness, 198 F.Supp.2d 377, 383 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (invalidating arbitration agreement where plaintiff given only fifteen minutes to review fifteen page document and other high pressure tatics used to get plaintiff to sign agreement). See also Martin v. Vance, 133 N.C.App. 116, 121, 514 S.E.2d 306 (1999) (under North Carolina law, absent a showing that a person has been deceived with respect to the contents of a contract, that person is bound by the contents).
Thus, notwithstanding the inequality of bargaining power between the parties, the Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Arbitration Agreements do not render them procedurally unconscionable. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the following section, even if the Court were to conclude that the unequal bargaining power alone rendered the Arbitration Agreements procedurally unconscionable, the Court does not find the terms of the Arbitration Agreements to be substantively unconscionable.
b. The terms of the Arbitration Agreement do not render them substantively unconscionable. *9 “Substantive unonscionability ... involves the harsh, oppressive, and one-sided terms of a contract, ... [which is] so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and the terms ... so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept them on the other.” King, 114 N.C.App. at 457, 442 S.E.2d 154 (internal quotation marks omitted); Avildsen v. Prystay, 171 A.D.2d 13, 574 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1991). The Arbitration Plaintiffs claim the terms of the Arbitration Agreements are substantively unconscionable because: (1) they lack mutuality of remedy by requiring employees, but not Cintas, to arbitrate disputes; (2) they impose undue limitations on the time in which claims may be brought; (3) they eliminate the presumption that attorneys’ fees will be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff; (4) as interpreted by Cintas, they impose unaffordably high costs for classwide arbitration; and (5) as interpreted by Cintas, their venue provisions make it impossible to pursue class claims.
6

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
i. Mutuality. The Arbitration Plaintiffs’ lack of mutuality argument is, for all intents and purposes, a restatement of the challenge to the Arbitration Agreements based upon lack of consideration. However, neither New York nor North Carolina require a mutuality of remedy in Arbitration Agreements. In re Ball, 665 N.Y.S.2d at 161; Howard, 134 N.C.App. at 119-120, 516 S.E.2d 879. Accordingly, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
ii. Time limitations. The Arbitration Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1968(a), those claims are subject to a four year statute of limitations period. Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 124 S.Ct. 1836, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2004). The 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement, however, provides that if an employee and Cintas are unable to resolve a dispute through the informal process, the employee shall submit a request to resolve the dispute “within one year of the date when the dispute or difference first arose or within one year of when Employee’s employment ends, whichever occurs first.” (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-C.)
Although the 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement does state that an employee “shall” initiate an arbitration within a one year time frame, the Arbitration Agreement also provides that the arbitrator “shall apply the terms of this Agreement as written, the Federal Arbitration Act and other relevant federal and state laws, including time limits on claims.” (Id.) Cintas claims that this latter provision modifies the requirement that a litigant bring a claim within one year of the time in which the dispute arose. Reading the Arbitration Agreement in its entirety, the Court agrees that the parties have not, in fact, bargained away their rights to apply an appropriate statute of limitations period to any claim asserted, and that this provision is not so manifestly unjust or oppressive as to render the Arbitration Agreement substantively unconscionable.
*10 Although the 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreement contains the same “one year” language as the 1999 Version, it also provides that if an employee or Cintas has a statutory claim with its own statute of limitations, that limitations period is to control. (Id ., Ex. D.) Accordingly, the Court concludes this provision of the 2002 Version of the Arbitration is not so manifestly unjust or oppressive as to render it substantively unconscionable.
iii. Attorneys’ fees. Both the 1999 Version and the 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreements permit the arbitrator, in his or her discretion, to award attorneys’ fees and costs, as available under relevant law, to the prevailing party. If, however, the Employer prevails, such awards are limited to no more than a total of two days pay, under the 1999 Version of the Arbitration Agreement, or $200 or two days pay, whichever is less, under the 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreement. (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-D.) The Court does not find these terms to be so manifestly unjust or oppressive as to render the Arbitration Agreements substantively unconscionable.
iv. Costs of arbitration The Arbitration Agreements state that “Employee’s initial share of the arbitration filing fee shall not exceed one day’s pay or $100, whichever is less,” and that the Employee cannot be directed “to pay more than a total of two days’ pay as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees to Employer, the arbitrator or the” AAA”, in the case of Salcedo and Thompson, and no more than “a total of $200 or two days of Employee’s pay, which ever is less, toward the fees of the arbitrator and the” AAA. (Clendening Decl., Exs. B-D). The Court does not find these terms to be so manifestly unjust or oppressive as to render the Arbitration Agreements substantively unconscionable.
v. Venue. The venue provisions state that the arbitration is to be held “in the county and state where the Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for Employer,” presumably a county or state where the employee resides. The Court concludes that this term is not so oppressive that no reasonable person would make it nor a fair person agree to it. As such, the Court concludes that this term does not render the Arbitration Agreement substantively unconscionable.
Finally, considering the challenged provisions of the Arbitration Agreements in their entirety, the Court concludes that they
7

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
are not so manifestly unjust or oppressive that the Arbitration Agreements must be deemed substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
3. The Arbitration Agreements Do Not Preclude Effective Vindication of the Arbitration Plaintiffs’ Statutory Causes of Action. The Arbitration Plaintiffs contend that Cintas’ interpretation of the Arbitration Agreements preclude them from proceeding by way of class arbitration. The Arbitration Agreements, however, neither expressly preclude nor expressly permit class arbitration. Rather, they are silent on the issue. The Arbitration Plaintiffs improperly seek to have this Court conclude that the Arbitration Agreements are not in fact “silent” about class arbitration and that the Arbitration Agreements in fact prohibit class arbitration. The Arbitration Plaintiffs focus their argument provisions relating to the cost of initiating an arbitration and venue, claiming that based on the manner in which Cintas asserts the terms should be interpreted, they would be required to pay much more than the limited filing fee called for in the Arbitration Agreements and could not maintain an arbitration on behalf of persons outside of the state or county in which the initiating litigant was employed.3
*11 Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003), the question of whether the Arbitration Agreements can be interpreted to permit class arbitration is a matter for the arbitrator, and not the Court, to decide. Bazzle, 539 U.S. at 453. This Court is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that a party is able to effectively vindicate his or her statutory cause of action in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum. Indeed, in Gilmer the Supreme Court did not teach that a litigant has a right to litigate a statutory claim in a particular manner. Rather the Supreme Court stated that a court must look to whether Congress intended to prevent waiver of the judicial forum or whether there is an inherent conflict between the statute at issue and the FAA. Gilmer, 500 U .S. at 26-27; cf. Randolph v. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama, 244 F.3d 814, 817-818 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that despite the fact that Truth in Lending Act contemplates proceeding by way of class action, Congress did not intend to preclude waiver of judicial forum, and thus plaintiffs could vindicate TILA cause of action through arbitration).
The Arbitration Plaintiffs do not contend Congress intended to preclude waiver of a judicial forum for claims nor do they contend that the Congress intended to grant them a non-waivable right to proceed by way of class action to pursue these claims. Cf. Randolph, 244 F.3d at 817-818 (concluding that Congress did not intend to grant non-waivable right to proceed by way of class action in pursuing TILA claim). Instead, the Arbitration Plaintiffs assert that class treatment of their statutory claims is often the most effective or most convenient manner in which to litigate such the statutory causes of action at issue. This argument is unpersuasive. Absent a finding that they cannot effectively vindicate their statutory causes of action in the arbitral forum, the fact that the Arbitration Plaintiffs assert statutory claims that they wish to pursue by way of class action does not prevent the Court from enforcing the Arbitration Agreements.
Considering the terms discussed above in Section III.C.2.b, outside of the context of a potential class arbitration, the Court finds that the time limitation, attorneys’ fees, and venue provisions would not preclude the Arbitration Plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their statutory causes of action through an individual arbitration. The term regarding the costs of arbitration presents a closer question, but the Court finds that the Arbitration Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating an individual arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. Accordingly, the Court concludes, based on the record before it, that the Arbitration Plaintiffs could effectively vindicate their statutory causes of action through arbitration, and the Arbitration Agreements are therefore enforceable on this basis as well.
IV. VENUE FOR ARBITRATION
*12 One final question remains, which pertains to where the arbitration proceeding shall take place. The FAA provides that “the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. In this case, the Arbitration Agreements contain a venue provision that, if enforced, would require Salcedo and Thompson to arbitrate in various counties in New York. Silvers would be required to arbitrate in North Carolina. Cintas, however, in accordance with the FAA filed a petition to compel within this district, albeit it did so as an alternative to its motion to dismiss.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this provision of 9 U.S.C. § 4 to require that a court compelling arbitration under the FAA,
8

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
order the arbitration to proceed within the district in which the petition to compel has been filed. Continental Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir.1941); see also Homestake Lead Company of Missouri v. Doe Run Resources Corp., 282 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1143-1144 (N.D.Cal.2003) (noting concern with this interpretation but finding that court was precluded from ordering arbitration in contractually designated forum).
Although the Court recognizes that Cintas has moved in the first instance to dismiss this action, it is within the Court’s discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate. See Sparling v. Hoffman Construction Co., 864 F.2d 635, 637-638 (9th Cir.1988). The Arbitration Plaintiffs filed suit as members of a purported class, and the Court has not yet been called upon to determine the appropriate members of that class. Thus, at this time, the Court is unwilling to dismiss the Arbitration Plaintiffs from this suit. As such, because Cintas petitioned within this district to compel arbitration, the Court concludes that it is bound by Continental Grain Co.. Because, for the reasons set forth above, the Court has determined that the motion to compel arbitration should be granted, the Court also orders that any such arbitration shall take place within this judicial district.

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Cintas’ motion to compel plaintiffs Salcedo, Silvers and Thompson to arbitrate their claims, and HEREBY STAYS this action as to those plaintiffs pending completion of an arbitration proceeding within this judicial district. The Court DENIES Cintas’ motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss those plaintiffs from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parallel Citations

95 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 921

Footnotes

1

Cintas also sought to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Amy Severson on this basis as well. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties,

Cintas has currently deferred this motion as to Severson, but may renew it subject to certain conditions. (See Docket Nos. 34 at p.

11, 75 at p. 4-5.)

2

The emphasized portions of the 2002 Version of the Arbitration Agreement highlight the differences between the 1999 Version and

the 2002 Version.

3

The Court notes that at least one New York state court has concluded that arbitration agreements that prohibit class arbitration are

not unconscionable. See Ranieri v. Bell Atlantic Mobile, 304 A.D.2d 353, 759 N.Y.S.2d 448 (2003).

9

 
 Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 2894628 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOT FOR CITATION United States District Court,
N.D. California. Robert RAMIREZ, et al. Plaintiff,
v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C 04-00281 JSW. | Nov. 2, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Strauss, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Nancy L. Maldonado, Chicago, IL, Roberta L. Steele, Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dar, Morris J. Baller, Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff. Nancy L. Abell, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant. Opinion
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION.
WHITE, J.
INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Cintas Corporation’s (“Cintas”) motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff James Morgan (“Morgan”) or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay Morgan’s claims. Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, having had the benefit of oral argument, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration on the conditions set forth herein and HEREBY STAYS this action as to Plaintiff Morgan. The Court DENIES Cintas’ motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss Morgan’s claims.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Morgan was employed by Cintas as a driver, a position also known as a Sales Service Representative, in San Leandro, California from approximately December 27, 1999 to March 26, 2004. (Fourth Am. Compl., ¶¶ 14, 33.) Morgan signed two versions of Cintas’ employment agreements, a 1999 Version and a 2003 Version (“the 2003 Employment Agreement”), each of which contained an arbitration clause. It is the arbitration clause in the 2003 Employment Agreement that is pertinent to this motion (hereinafter “the Arbitration Clause”). Morgan’s 2003 Employment Agreement is witnessed by an “Employer Witness” as well as an “Employee Witness.” Morgan’s witness is Ms. Hilary Toyryla, who is Cintas’ Human Resources Manager. (Declaration of Hilary Toyryla (“Toyryla Decl.”), ¶ 1.)
Cintas’ 2003 Employment Agreement is six pages long. (Toyryla Decl., Ex. B.) The Arbitration Clause is set forth on pages four and five of the 2003 Employment Agreement and is in the same type size and font as other provisions of that document. (See id.)
1

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
The Arbitration Clause provides as follows:
8. EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF RESOLVING DISPUTES OR DIFFERENCES.
Should any dispute or difference arise between Employee and Employer concerning whether either party at any time violated any duty, right, law, regulation, public policy, or provision of this [Employment] Agreement, the parties will confer and attempt in good faith to resolve promptly such dispute or difference. The rights and claims of Employer covered by this Section 8, including the arbitration provisions below, include Employer’s claims for damages, as well as reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, caused by Employee’s violation of any provision of this [Employment] Agreement or any law, regulation, or public policy. The rights and claims of Employee covered by this Section 8, including the arbitration provisions below, specifically include but are not limited to all of Employee’s rights or claims arising out of or in any way related to Employee’s employment with Employer, such as rights or claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended (including amendments contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1991), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, state anti-discrimination statutes, other state or local laws regarding employment, common law theories such as breach of express or implied contract, wrongful discharge defamation, and negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Excluded from the arbitration provisions below in this Section 8 are all unemployment benefits claims, workers’ compensation claims, claims for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief concerning any provision of Section 4 of this [Employment] Agreement, and claims not lawfully subject to arbitration, including charges or complaints filed with an administrative agency (but not litigation connected with any such charge or complaint).
*2 If any dispute or difference remains unresolved after the parties have conferred in good faith, either party desiring to pursue a claim against the other party will submit to the other party a written request to have such claim, dispute or difference resolved through impartial and confidential arbitration to be held in the county and state where Employee currently works for Employer or most recently worked for Employer. Any such request for arbitration must be submitted within one year of the date when the dispute or difference first arose or within one year of when the Employee’s employment ends, whichever occurs first, unless a party claims a violation of a specific statute having its own specific statute of limitations, in which event that statutory time limit will apply. Arbitration under this [Employment] Agreement will be conducted in accordance with the AAA’s National Rules for Resolution of Employment Disputes, except if such AAA rules are contrary to applicable state or federal law, applicable law shall govern.
In any arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator will apply the terms of this [Employment] Agreement as written, the Federal Arbitration Act, and other relevant federal and state laws, including time limits on claims. The parties will have the right to conduct civil discovery and bring motions, as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and enforced by the Arbitrator. The arbitrator also will have the authority to award either party appropriate relief, including damages, costs and attorney’s fees, as available under relevant laws. The Arbitrator will issue a decision or award in writing, stating the essential findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Except for worker’s compensation claims, unemployment benefits claims, claims for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief concerning any provision of Section 4 and claims not lawfully subject to arbitration, the impartial arbitration proceedings, as provided above in this Section 8, will be the exclusive, final and binding method of resolving any and all disputes between Employer and Employee. The arbitrator, however, will have the authority to entertain and decide a motion for reconsideration of the arbitration award.
(Toyryla Decl., Ex. B, at 4-5 (emphasis added).)
In addition to the Arbitration Clause, the 2003 Employment Agreement contains a choice of law provision, which states that the 2003 Employment Agreement shall be “INTERPRETED, GOVERNED, AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, AND THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW (NOT INCLUDING CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES) OF THE STATE OF OHIO.” (Id. at 4 (bold and capitalization as in original).) The Arbitration Clause differs from prior versions of Cintas’ arbitration clauses in that it does not expressly provide for a cap on the costs an employee would incur to institute or participate in arbitration proceedings.
Morgan has filed a complaint against Cintas based on employment discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII, and California’s Fair Housing and Discrimination Act and for violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
2

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
*3 On March 22, 2005, this Court granted in part and denied in part a similar motion filed by Cintas with respect to different plaintiffs and involving different versions of Cintas employment agreements and arbitration clauses (the “March 22, 2005 Order”). Cintas now moves to dismiss Morgan’s claims relying on the Arbitration Clause in his 2003 Employment Agreement. In the alternative, Cintas moves to compel arbitration and stay Morgan’s claims.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Compel Arbitration. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Once the Court has determined that an arbitration agreement relates to a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA, the Court’s only role is to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the scope of the parties’ dispute falls within that agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). The parties in this case do not dispute that the claims at issue would fall within the scope of the Arbitration Clause; the only issue is whether the Arbitration Clause is valid and enforceable.
The FAA represents the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” and “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). Under the FAA, if the Court determines that the parties have agreed to arbitrate and that agreement has not been honored, and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, the Court must order arbitration. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 400, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967). This is true even if the result might be the maintenance of separate proceedings in different fora. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985).
Where, as here, a litigant sues to enforce statutory claims, that fact alone will not preclude arbitration. The Supreme Court has “recognized that federal statutory claims can be appropriately resolved through arbitration, and [it has] enforced agreements to arbitrate that involve such claims.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). If statutory claims are involved and an arbitration agreement exists, the agreement should be enforced “unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue,” or the litigant cannot effectively vindicate “[his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson/Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26-28, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991).
Finally, notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring arbitration, by entering into an arbitration agreement, two parties are entering into a contract. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989) (noting that arbitration “is a matter of consent, not coercion”). Thus, an arbitration agreement is “subject to all defenses to enforcement that apply to contracts generally.” Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir.2003). Although the Court initially can determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, disputes over the meaning of specific terms within that agreement are matters for the arbitrator to decide. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002); Prima Paint, 384 U.S. at 403-04 (holding that a “federal court may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”).
B. Choice of Law.1 *4 The 2003 Employment Agreement provides that it is to be governed by Ohio law. (Toyryla Decl., Ex. B, § 7.) The parties dispute whether this provision is enforceable. The following analysis relates only to the question of what state law should be applied to determine whether the Arbitration Clause is valid.
California law generally favors enforcement of bargained for choice-of-law provisions. Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 465, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 834 P.2d 1148 (1992). When a court is faced with whether it should enforce a choice-of-law provision it must first determine “(1) whether the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties or their chosen transaction, or (2) whether there is any other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice of law.” Id. at 466, 11
3

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 834 P.2d 1148. If the answer to either of those questions is in the affirmative, “the court must next determine whether the chosen state’s law is contrary to a fundamental policy of California.” Id. (emphasis in original). If there is a conflict between the designated forum law and California law, a court must determine whether California has “a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue.” Id. (quoting Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, § 187, subd. (2)).2 If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the choice of law provision will not be enforced. Id.
It is undisputed that Ohio, as Cintas’ principal place of business, has a substantial relationship to the parties and provides a reasonable basis for the choice of Ohio law. See Nedloyd, 3 Cal.4th at 467, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 834 P.2d 1148 (noting that substantial relationship will be met if one of the parties is domiciled in or resides in the chosen state). Morgan claims that applying Ohio law would violate fundamental California policy in three ways. First, Morgan argues that his claims for injunctive relief under California’s unfair competition law are not arbitrable. See Cruz v. Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 303, 315-17, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 58, 66 P.3d 1157 (2003). Although Morgan did not cite conflicting authority in his brief, at oral argument he claimed that Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150, 809 N.E.2d 1161 (2004) created a conflict with California policy. In Eagle, the court noted that the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) did not preclude arbitration clauses in sales contracts. Id., 157 Ohio App.3d at 162, 809 N.E.2d 1161. Morgan appears to suggest that the implied holding of Eagle is that claims for injunctive relief on a consumer claim could be arbitrated. Eagle makes no such express statement. To the extent that there is a conflict between Ohio law and California policy on the question of whether Section 17200 claims for injunctive relief are arbitrable, the Court concludes that California has a materially greater interest in seeing its law applied because Morgan is a California resident and worked for Cintas in California. As such, the Court will apply California law on this issue. Morgan’s claim for injunctive relief under Section 17200 is not subject to this Order and will be severed from his other claims.
*5 Second, Morgan argues that Ohio law violates fundamental California policy as set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (2000), because under Ohio law Cintas would not be required to bear the costs of arbitration. The Court concludes there is no true conflict on this point. Both Ohio and California apply the principle that if a litigant is required to arbitrate statutory claims, he or she must be able to effectively vindicate those rights in the arbitral forum and cannot be required to pay fees that he or she would not be required to pay to litigate those claims in court. See Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 93-96, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669; id. at 110, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (“imposition of substantial forum fees is contrary to public policy”); Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 82-83, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 (2003) (discussing “centrality of costs” as concern in determining whether statutory rights can be vindicated effectively in arbitration); Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646, 657-58 (6th Cir.2003) (“If, then, the splitting or sharing of costs of the arbitral forum under a particular arbitration agreement effectively prevents the vindication of a plaintiff’s statutory rights, those rights cannot be subject to mandatory arbitration under that agreement.”); cf. Eagle, 157 Ohio App.3d at 166-171, 809 N.E.2d 1161 (applying case-by-case approach to determine arbitration agreement imposed excessive fees on litigant required to arbitrate statutory claim). Moreover, in this case, there is no conflict because, as set forth in Section D infra, the Court interprets the Arbitration Clause to require Cintas to bear all costs of an individual arbitration.
Finally, Morgan relies on Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100 (2005), to assert that California has a fundamental policy against waiver of classwide arbitration. The Court cannot, however, read the Discover Bank case to hold California precludes all waivers of classwide arbitration when the California Supreme Court explicitly stated that it did “not hold all class action waivers are necessarily unconscionable.” Id. at 162, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100; see also Independent Ass’n of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 659, 2005 WL 2249918 at *8 (Cal.App. Sept.16, 2005) (“classwide arbitration is well accepted under California law as workable and appropriate in some cases” ) (emphasis added) (“hereinafter “Independent Ass’n” ).
Furthermore, it does not appear that there is a conflict between California law and Ohio law on this point. In the Eagle case, which like Discover Bank involved a consumer claim and potentially small damages, the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement that expressly precluded class arbitration of claims under the Ohio CSPA on the ground that it would “hinder[ ] the consumer protection purposes of the CSPA.” Unlike the arbitration agreements at issue in the Discover Bank and Eagle cases, here the Arbitration Clause is silent on the question of class arbitration. It would thus be up to the arbitrator to determine whether or not class arbitrations are permitted under the Arbitration Clause. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 445, 453 (2003); Discover Bank, 36 Cal.4th at 170-71, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100. Because the Discover Bank case provides that in some instances waivers of class arbitration may be permitted, the Court cannot conclude that application of Ohio law would necessarily violate a fundamental California policy on this basis.
4

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
C. The Arbitration Clause Will Not Be Revoked on the Ground That It Is Unconscionable. *6 Morgan contends that the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable and, therefore, is unenforceable in its entirety. Although the Court could apply Ohio law to the Arbitration Clause, the Court concludes that under either Ohio law or California law, the Arbitration Clause is not unconscionable.
When a party challenges an arbitration agreement on the basis of unconscionability, that party must demonstrate that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Morrison, 317 F.3d at 666 (citing Jeffrey Mining Prods., L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co., 143 Ohio App.3d 708, 718, 758 N.E.2d 1173 (2001)); Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669. While under both Ohio and California law, both elements must be present, under California law, a contract may be unenforceable if there is little procedural unconscionability but great substantive unconscionability, and the reverse is also true. See Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669. As the party challenging the Arbitration Clause on these grounds, Morgan bears the burden to demonstrate the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable. He has not met this burden.
1. The Arbitration Clause is not procedurally unconscionable. To determine whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable under Ohio law, courts should look to such factors as the age, education, business acumen and experience of the parties, which party drafted the agreement, whether the party seeking to avoid arbitration had the benefit of counsel, and other such factors bearing on bargaining position of the parties. See Morrison, 317 F.3d at 666; Eagle, 157 Ohio App.3d at 163, 809 N.E.2d 1161. Under California law, the procedural element of unconscionability “focuses on the unequal bargaining position and hidden terms common in the context of adhesion contracts.” Independent Ass’n, 2005 WL 2249918 at 6; cf. Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (procedural element focuses on “oppression” or “surprise”).
Morgan does not dispute the fact that he signed the 2003 Employment Agreement containing the Arbitration Clause, which bears the signature of two witnesses, albeit Morgan’s witness is a Cintas employee. (See Toyryla Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. B.) Rather, Morgan claims that he does not recall the meeting during which he signed the 2003 Employment Agreement containing the Arbitration Clause. There is no dispute that Cintas drafted the 2003 Employment Agreement. Similarly, there is no suggestion that Morgan was accompanied by counsel when he signed the 2003 Employment Agreement or that Morgan had the opportunity to consult counsel before signing it. Morgan attests that in general he believed that he “had to sign whatever documents or paperwork Cintas managers gave me to sign. I did not believe that I had a choice about whether to sign or not, and I did not believe that I could change any of the words on the documents.” (Morgan Decl., ¶ 17; see also id. ¶¶ 18-20, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669.)
Most of Morgan’s arguments with respect to procedural unconscionability relate to the circumstances surrounding the execution and formation of the 2003 Employment Agreement as a whole, rather than just the Arbitration Clause. Under recent Ninth Circuit authority, any issue relating to the making of the 2003 Employment Agreement as a whole would be a matter for the arbitrator to address. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., 401 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2005); cf. Guttierez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 88, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 (2003) (“Of course, simply because a provision within a contract of adhesion is not read or understood by the nondrafting party does not justify a refusal to enforce it. The unbargained-for term may only be denied enforcement if it is also substantively unreasonable.”) (emphasis added). The Sixth Circuit is in accord. See Burden v. Check Into Cash of Ky., 267 F.3d 483, 491 n. 3 (6th Cir.2001).
*7 Considering the question of procedural unconscionability as to the Arbitration Clause itself, it is located at pages four and five of the six-page 2003 Employment Agreement. The Arbitration Clause also is identified by a capitalized heading “EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF RESOLVING DISPUTES OR DIFFERENCES.” Thus, it is not hidden within fine print or buried within an otherwise lengthy agreement. Finally, although he did not attend college, Morgan is a high school graduate, and he does not claim that he did not understand the Arbitration Clause. (Morgan Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court considers it beyond dispute that there is a measure of unequal bargaining power between Cintas and Morgan, but that fact alone will not render the Arbitration Clause invalid. See Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 33. Considering all of the facts and circumstances set forth above and notwithstanding the inequality of bargaining power between Cintas and Morgan, the Court concludes that Morgan has not met his burden to show that the Arbitration Clause itself is procedurally unconscionable.
Moreover, even if the Court were to find that the circumstances surrounding the formation and execution of the Arbitration Clause did render it procedurally unconscionable, the Court concludes the Arbitration Clause is not substantively unconscionable and that any possible procedural unconscionability does not rise to such a level that the Arbitration Clause should not be enforced.
5

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2. The terms of the Arbitration Clause do not render it substantively unconscionable. Under Ohio law, to determine if an arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable, the Court considers whether the terms of the clause are unfair and unreasonable. Morrison, 317 F.3d at 666; Eagle, 157 Ohio App.3d at 163, 809 N.E.2d 1161 (when evaluating substantive unconscionability, court considers whether terms of contract “commercially reasonable”). Under California law, the concept of substantive unconscionability relates to the actual terms of the arbitration agreement and whether those terms are “overly harsh” or “one-sided.” Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669.
Morgan claims the Arbitration Clause is substantively unconscionable on two grounds. First, he argues that the Arbitration Clause lacks mutuality of remedy because the claims that Cintas is most likely to litigate against employees are excluded from arbitration. Morgan also argues that the Arbitration Clause is substantively unconscionable because it effectively prohibits class arbitrations by imposing excessive fees. The Court rejects both of these arguments.
a. Mutuality. Morgan argues that the Arbitration Clause lacks mutuality because Cintas is not required to arbitrate claims for declaratory or injunctive relief arising out of a breach of Section 4 of the 2003 Employment Agreement. In Armendariz, the California Supreme Court stated that arbitration agreements require a “modicum of bilaterality” to be enforceable. Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 117, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669. Although the Armendariz court found the agreement in question to be lacking in mutuality, the court recognized that in some cases an employer might be able to demonstrate that business realities required the exclusion of certain types of claims from the arbitration process. Id. at 117-18, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669.
*8 Under the Arbitration Clause, Cintas must arbitrate all claims for damages it may bring against its employees. (Toyryla Decl., Ex. B at 4.) Cintas has, however, reserved the right to litigate claims for declaratory or injunctive relief for a breach of Section 4 of the 2003 Employment Agreement, which pertains to such issues as Cintas’ confidential and proprietary information, trade secrets and non-competition agreements.3 When he signed the 2003 Employment Agreement, Morgan agreed and acknowledged that “a breach of any covenant in this Section 4 will cause Employer irreparable injury and damage for which Employer may have no adequate remedy.” (Toyrola Decl., Ex. B at 3.)
The Court concludes that Cintas has demonstrated that there are reasonable business realities that justify excluding claims for declaratory and injunctive relief from arbitration. Therefore, the Arbitration Clause contains the necessary modicum of bilaterality and is not substantively unconscionable on this basis. Although Morgan raises this argument only under California law, the Court would reach the same conclusion under Ohio law. See Raasch v. NCR Corp., 254 F.Supp.2d 847, 855 (S.D.Ohio 2003) (finding arbitration agreement to be sufficiently mutual even where it excluded disputes over confidential information, non-compete agreements, and other intellectual property).
b. Prohibition on class arbitration. Morgan also argues that the Arbitration Clause is substantively unconscionable under both Ohio and California because it prohibits class arbitration. Morgan concedes, as he must, that there is no express ban on class arbitration. Rather, he argues that by imposing high costs to proceed by way of class arbitration, the Arbitration Clause effectively prohibits class treatment. Because the Arbitration Clause does not expressly prohibit class arbitration, the question of whether a class arbitration is permitted is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. See Bazzle, 539 U.S. at 453; Discover Bank, 36 Cal.4th at 170-71, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100. Accordingly, the Court does not find the Arbitration Clause to be substantively unconscionable on this basis.
D. Morgan Has Met His Burden to Show That He Cannot Effectively Vindicate His Statutory Claims on An Individual Basis Under the Arbitration Agreement. Notwithstanding the conclusion that the Arbitration Clause is not unconscionable, this Court is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Morgan effectively can vindicate his statutory claims in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum. See Randolph, 531 U.S. at 90; Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 93-96, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669; Morrison, 317 F.3d at 658. In Gilmer, the Supreme Court made clear that the focus of this question is whether the cause of action can be
6

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
vindicated effectively, not whether a party can proceed on the cause of action in any particular manner. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 28. Thus, the pertinent questions are whether Congress intended to prevent waiver of the judicial forum or whether there is an inherent conflict between the statute at issue and the FAA. Id. at 26-27.
*9 Morgan does not contend that there is a legislative intent to preclude waiver of a judicial forum for his Title VII claim, FEHA claim, or the damages and restitution aspect of his Section 17200 claim. Therefore, absent a finding that he cannot effectively vindicate his statutory causes of action in the arbitral forum, the fact that Morgan asserts statutory claims that he wishes to pursue by way of class action does not prevent the Court from enforcing the Arbitration Clause. Morgan’s only valid challenge to the Arbitration Clause on this point would be that it would be prohibitively expensive for him to arbitrate these claims on an individual basis.
Earlier versions of Cintas’ arbitration clauses placed an express cap on the fee an employee would be required to pay to initiate arbitration. In this case, however, to determine what fees an employee would be required to pay to arbitrate his or her claims, one must look to the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules for Employment Disputes (“the AAA Employment Rules”). Under the AAA Employment Rules, if the arbitration arises out of an Employer Promulgated Plan, an employee’s filing fee is capped at $125. (See AAA Employment Rules-Administrative Fee Schedule.)4 If, however, the arbitration arises out of an Individually Negotiated Employment Agreement or Contract, and even if that contract references or incorporates an Employer Promulgated Plan, the filing fee to initiate arbitration ranges from $750 to $10,000, and an employee also must pay a case service fee ranging from $200 to $4,000, depending upon the size of his or her claim. (Id.)
The fact that the Arbitration Clause does not contain an express cap on the amount of fees Morgan would be required to pay to initiate arbitration renders it fundamentally different from the earlier versions of Cintas’ arbitration clauses upheld in this Court’s March 22, 2005 Order. Nor is it clear, as Cintas argues, that the Arbitration Clause would be considered an Employer Promulgated Plan, capping the fee at $125. Thus, the evidence in the record demonstrates that there is a fifty percent chance Morgan would be required to pay at least $950 to initiate an individual arbitration. That fee alone exceeds any filing fee he was required to institute his lawsuit. Further, Morgan has submitted a declaration outlining his monthly income and expenses and attesting that he could not afford to pay more than a $125 filing fee to arbitrate his claims. (Morgan Decl., ¶ 15.) Cintas has not rebutted this evidence. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Morgan has met his burden of showing that the Arbitration Clause as drafted effectively precludes him from vindicating his statutory rights on an individual basis.
However, the Court does not find the Arbitration Clause in this case to be permeated with illegality such that it would refuse to enforce the Arbitration Clause. The Court concludes that the only objectionable provision relates to the fees Morgan would be required to pay to arbitrate his claim. Under Ohio law, the question of whether an agreement “is entire or divisible depends generally on the intention of the parties, and this must be ascertained by the ordinary rules of construction.” Morrison, 317 F.3d at 675 (quoting Toledo Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. City of Toledo, 94 Ohio App.3d 734, 740, 641 N.E.2d 799 (1994)). Under California law, if the Court can enforce the Arbitration Clause without an unconscionable clause or restrict the application of an unconscionable clause to avoid an unconscionable result, it may do so. Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 121-22, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.5).
*10 The Court concludes that it can restrict the application of the objectionable provision. At best, the Arbitration Clause is ambiguous as to the question of fees because of the reference to the AAA Employment Rules, which contain two different fee schedules. Cintas drafted the Arbitration Clause and the Court shall construe any ambiguity against Cintas. Further, the Arbitration Clause states that if the AAA Employment Rules conflict with applicable federal or state law, the applicable law governs. Under federal and state law, Morgan must be able to effectively vindicate his statutory claims on an individual basis in an arbitral forum. Randolph, 531 U.S. at 90; Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 93-96, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669; Morrison, 317 F.3d at 658. Accordingly, the Court construes the Arbitration Clause to require Cintas to pay all costs associated with an individual arbitration.5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Cintas’ motion to compel Morgan to arbitrate his claims under Title VII, FEHA, and his claims under Section 17200, except to the extent Morgan he seeks injunctive relief. The Section 17200 claim for injunctive relief is severed from the arbitrable claims. Further, this action is HEREBY STAYED as to Morgan pending completion of an arbitration proceeding within this judicial district. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court DENIES Cintas’ motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Morgan from this action.6
7

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

To the extent the choice of law provision may affect matters pertaining to portions of the 2003 Employment Agreement other than

the Arbitration Clause, any disputes between the parties about the applicable law should be for the arbitrator to resolve. See Prima

Paint, 384 U.S. at 403-04.

2

Section 187 of the Restatement Second of Conflicts of Law states that a “forum will not refrain from applying the chosen law

merely because this would lead to a different result than would be obtained under the local law of the state of the otherwise

applicable law.” Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, § 187 subd. g (emphasis added).

3

Under the California Arbitration Act, Cintas would not be precluded from instituting a request in court for an injunction,

notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement, on the ground that any potential award would be rendered ineffectual

without such provisional relief. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 1281.8(b).

4

Attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nina Rabin.

5

The Court expresses no opinion on whether Morgan can proceed on a classwide basis in arbitration; nor does it express an opinion

on what fees Morgan might be required to pay if he chooses to file such an arbitration.

6

Cintas filed a request for judicial notice, to which Morgan did not object. Because the documents were not necessary to resolution

of this motion, Cintas’ request is DENIED.

8

 
 Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 3388628 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Robert RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant. Larry Houston, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cintas Corporation, Defendant.
Nos. C 04-00281 JSW, C 05-03145 JSW. | Nov. 22, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Strauss, Nancy L. Maldonado, Robert S. Libman, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Sharon K. Legenza, Scott A. Entin, Chicago, IL, Roberta L. Steele, Morris J. Baller, Nina Avny Rabin, Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dar, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs. Rachael Rowe, Michael Womack, Cincinnati, OH, Jon Geier, Maureen E. O’Neill, Washington, DC, Nancy L. Abell, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant. Opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Cintas Corporation’s (“Cintas”) Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).) For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, Cintas’ Petition is DENIED and the hearing set for December 1, 2006 is VACATED.
BACKGROUND The facts relevant to this dispute are set forth in the Court’s Orders granting in part and denying in part Cintas’ motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration and shall not be repeated here. (See Docket Nos. 81, 173.) In those Orders, the Court determined that the issue of whether Cintas’ arbitration agreements permitted class arbitration was a matter for the arbitrator to decide. (See Docket No. 81 at p. 14; Docket No. 173 at 12.)
Pursuant to the Court’s Order requiring certain plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims with Cintas, the parties commenced arbitration proceedings before the Honorable Eugene F. Lynch (Ret.) (hereinafter the “Arbitrator”) on or about December 29, 2005.
On August 16, 2006, the Arbitrator issued a ruling entitled “Arbitrator’s Opinion and Decision re Issues of Class Action 1

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Arbitration” (hereinafter the “Award”), in which he found that the arbitration agreements permitted class arbitration, although he expressly stated that he “need not address at this time the merits of whether the facts of this case would allow the class to be certified (i.e., numerosity, commonality, etc.)” (Declaration of Paul Grossman, Ex. V (Award at 00008 n. 2 & 20 (emphasis in original).) The Arbitrator also interpreted the Arbitration Agreement to permit a class arbitration in Alameda County, and not in a county where a Cintas employee currently works or most recently worked. (Id. at 20-22.)
Although Cintas does not challenge the Arbitrator’s Award with respect to the former issue, it does challenge the latter.
ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10, a court may vacate an arbitration award on the following grounds: “(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)-(4).1
The Ninth Circuit has made clear that arbitrators “exceed their powers” within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is ‘completely irrational,’ ... or exhibits a ‘manifest disregard of the law.’ “ Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential Bache Trade Servs., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting French v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 784 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir.1982) and Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir.1991)).
*2 “These grounds afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration matters .” Id. at 998; see also G.C. & K.B. Investments, Inc., 326 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that courts “have interpreted sections 9 and 10 [of the Federal Arbitration Act] narrowly”).
B. The Question of the Place of Arbitration is Not a “Gateway Issue.” Cintas contends, relying on Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), that the question of where the arbitration may proceed is a “gateway” matter to be determined by this Court. The Court disagrees. In Bazzle, the Supreme Court cited as examples of “gateway” matters the issues of “whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy.” Bazzle, 539 U.S. at 452. The Supreme Court further clarified the meaning of a “gateway” matter when it stated that the issue presented in Bazzle was not about the “validity of the arbitration clause nor its applicability to the underlying dispute between the parties,” but rather “what kind of arbitration proceeding the parties agreed to.” Id. at 452-53 (emphasis added). The Court noted that the answer to that question involved “contract interpretation and arbitration procedures,” questions that an arbitrator is well suited to answer. Id. at 453.
Contrary to Cintas’ position, the instant dispute, as in Bazzle, does not involve whether the arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy. Rather, as is evident from Cintas’ argument in support of vacating the award, the dispute pertains to the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the arbitration clause itself and, specifically, to what kind of arbitration proceedings the parties agreed. As this Court made clear in its Order requiring arbitration of these claims, disputes over the meaning of specific terms are matters for the Arbitrator to decide in the first instance. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002); Prima Paint, 388 U.S. 395, 403-04 (1967) (holding that “a federal court may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”).
C. The Arbitrator’s Award Will Not Be Vacated.
2

Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
As set forth above, this Court’s review of the Arbitrator’s Award is limited, and the Court should not set it aside unless the Award is ‘completely irrational,’ ... or exhibits a ‘manifest disregard of the law.’ “ Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 997. The Court has considered Cintas’ argument that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction but finds that Cintas’ argument is nothing more than a disagreement with the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement. That is not a proper basis for this Court to vacate the Award. See, e.g., United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987) (“The arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract; but the parties having authorized the arbitrator to give meaning to the language of the agreement, a court should not reject an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract. .... [A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of this authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.”) (brackets as in original); Pacific Reins. Mgmt. Co. v. Ohio Reins. Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.1991) ( “[C]ourts must not decide the rightness or wrongness of the arbitrators’ contract interpretation, only whether the panel’s decision draws its essence from the contract. In making that determination, the district court must accord considerable deference to the arbitrator’s judgment and should not vacate the award because it interpreted the agreement differently.”) (internal quotations, citations and brackets omitted).
*3 Moreover, in reaching his decision, the Arbitrator set forth the applicable principles of contract interpretation and recognized that he could not add to the plain language of the agreement. (See Award at 17, 21.) He then interpreted the agreement to permit a class action in a county other than where an employee last worked. Cintas may disagree with this interpretation, but the Court cannot say that the Arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.2 See, e.g., Carter v. Health Net of California, Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2004) (“Manifest disregard of the law means something more than just an error of law or a failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law. It must be clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.”) (quoting Mich. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995). Because the Arbitrator determined that the matter can proceed as a class action, the Court also does not find an interpretation of the Agreement that would permit the matter to proceed as a putative nation-wide class action, pending a ruling on class-certification, to be irrational.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Cintas’ petition to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED. The parties shall, in accordance with the Court’s Order requiring Joint Status Reports, submit their next report to the Court on or before February 28, 2007.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

Cintas does not rely on 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)-(3) as bases for challenging the Award.

2

Cintas submitted for the Court’s consideration the Award in the Veliz litigation, in which the arbitrator limited the place of

arbitration to the county where any given employee last worked. Plaintiffs submit a motion to file additional authority, in which

they ask the Court to take notice of an order of clarification regarding the Veliz award. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

3

 
 CAND-ECF

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...

ADRMOP, E-Filing, PROTO, STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW

Ramirez et al v. Cintas Corporation Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Relate Case Case: 3:05-cv-03145-JSW Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff Robert Ramirez
1 of 30

Date Filed: 01/20/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss Miner Barnhill & Galland 14 W. Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312-751-1170 Email: pstrauss@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Louise Steele Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dar 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510/763-9800 Fax: 510-835-1417 Email: RLS@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610-5397 312-751-1170 Fax: 312-751-0438 Email: slegenza@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. Jaramillo Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510-763-9800
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Plaintiff Robin Beasley TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 Plaintiff Sandra Evans TERMINATED: 12/08/2005
2 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Fax: 510-835-1417 Email: jej@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris J. Baller Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 Email: mjb@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado Miner, Barnhill & Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312-751-1170 Fax: 312-751-0957 Email: nmaldonado@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312-751-1170 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Plaintiff Robert Harris TERMINATED: 01/12/2006
Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza TERMINATED: 03/09/2006
Plaintiff Jose Salcedo
3 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Plaintiff A. Shapelle Thompson
Plaintiff Coretta Vick TERMINATED: 12/14/2007
Plaintiff Blanca Nelly Avalos TERMINATED: 05/11/2006
4 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Plaintiff Anthony Jones TERMINATED: 05/11/2006
Plaintiff James Morgan
5 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. Jaramillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Plaintiff Amy Severson TERMINATED: 09/20/2005 V. Intervenor Pla US EEOC TERMINATED: 05/11/2006
V. Defendant Cintas Corporation
6 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Robert D. Unitas US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7712 Washington, DC 20507 202-663-4768 Fax: 202-663-4196 Email: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica D. White-Dunston US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7212 Washington, DC 20507 202-663-4826 Fax: 202-663*4196 Email: erica.white-dunston@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Kryvoruka Equal Opportunity Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507 202-663-4768 Email: kenneth.kryvoruka@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Rachael Rowe 6800 Cintas Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513-754-3640

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
Date Filed 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/27/2004

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon Geier 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202-551-1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen E. O'Neill 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202-551-1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Womack 6800 Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513-754-3640 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Abell Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Employment 555 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371 213 683-6162 Fax: (213) 627-0705 Email: nancyabell@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Cintas Corporation (Filing fee $ 150.). Filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2004 (vlh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2004)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/21/2004. Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
3 INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/27/04. (jjo, ) (Filed on 1/27/2004) (Entered: 01/27/2004)

7 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
02/09/2004 04/26/2004 05/05/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 06/30/2004
06/30/2004
06/30/2004
07/01/2004 07/06/2004
07/07/2004 07/30/2004
8 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
4 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Failure to E-File and/or Failure to Register as an E-Filer (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/26/2004) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
Summons Issued as to Cintas Corporation. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2004) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
6 STIPULATION -- STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
7 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 6 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME filed by Robin Beasley. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
8 ORDER GRANTING 6 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference to October 1, 2004. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 13, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/1/2004 01:30 PM. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
9 MOTION to Amend/Correct Plaintiffs' Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2004 09:00 AM. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Regarding Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15)(Related document(s) 9 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
11 Proposed Order re 9 Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Strauss Notice Of Appearance Of Additional Counsel For Plaintiffs (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/1/2004) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
13 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
14 ORDER GRANTING 9 Unopposed MOTION For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 7, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2004) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
15 Certificate of Interested Entities (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
07/30/2004 07/30/2004
07/30/2004
08/02/2004 08/02/2004 08/03/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004
9 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
16 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation Corporate Disclosure Statement (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Larry Fultz# 2 Declaration of Matthew Ketchem# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer or Dismiss# 4 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jenice Clendening# 2 Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration# 4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice# 5 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
19 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Transfer or Dismiss filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
20 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
21 Declaration of Jenice Clendening (Supplemental) in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/3/2004) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
22 STIPULATION re 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration, 17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs Re Briefing Schedule by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation, 23 Certificate of Service re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Second Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
26 Proposed Order re Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
27 STIPULATION AND ORDER re Breifing Schedule re: 22 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 5, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2004)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
08/17/2004 08/31/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004
10/29/2004
10/29/2004 11/03/2004
11/04/2004
10 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
(Entered: 08/05/2004)
28 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 27 Order (Entry of Order) re: Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss Non-California Plaintiffs, and (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/17/2004) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
29 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2004) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
30 ORDER re [29 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 1, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/12/2004 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
31 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Entry of Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/3/2004) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
32 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 26, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2004) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
33 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Third Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/28/2004) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
34 ORDER Re 33 Stipulation to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 29, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
35 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, Or in the Alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson for Lack of Venue (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/3/2004) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
36 ORDER on 35 Notice of withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, or in the alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thomston, Silvers and Severson for lack of venue. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 4, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2004) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/17/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004
11 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
37 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/5/2004) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
38 ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 8, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2004) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
39 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Third) against Cintas Corporation. Filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/17/2004) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
40 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) STAY THEIR CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
41 Declaration of MICHAEL RUBIN in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4# 2 Errata 5# 3 Exhibit 6-9# 4 Exhibit 10# 5 Exhibit 11-12)(Related document(s) 40 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
42 Declaration of Betty Eberle in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 40 , 41 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
43 Declaration of Jose Salcedo in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
44 Declaration of Coretta Silvers in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
45 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support,, 44 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson,
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
01/07/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
46 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 45 Declaration in Support,, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (B) STAY THIER CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 45 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 1/7/2005) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
47 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
48 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
49 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
50 OBJECTIONS to and Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositon to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
51 Proposed Order Sustaining Defendant Cintas Corporation's Objections and Granting its Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
52 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
53 Proposed Order [Amended] Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

12 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 02/01/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation Re: Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
55 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Signed) filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
56 EXHIBITS re 55 Request for Judicial Notice, (Exhibit B) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Corrected) filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
57 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Requests for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Revised) by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
58 MOTION to Intervene filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2005 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certification from EEOC General Counsel# 2 Exhibit Complaint-In-Intervention# 3 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of EEOC Associate General Counsel# 4 Proposed Order)(White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/1/2005) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
59 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
60 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
61 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
62 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS, FILED 02/02/05 filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
63 EXHIBITS 3-4 to DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)

13 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005
02/03/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005
02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
64 Statement of Non-Opposition re 58 MOTION to Intervene PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE IN EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 58 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
65 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
66 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
67 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
68 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 3, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
69 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion re 68 Order PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
70 MEMORANDUM in Support Memorandum of Additional Authorities and Exhibits A-C, F-H filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 2 Exhibit B to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 3 Exhibit C to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 4 Exhibit F to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 5 Exhibit G to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 6 Exhibit H to Memorandum of Additional Authorities)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
71 EXHIBITS E to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
72 EXHIBITS D to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
73 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/4/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 2/4/2005). (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
74 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions Regarding Plaintiffs Robin Beasley and Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
75 ORDER GRANTING 74 Stipulation to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 18, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)

14 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
02/18/2005 02/24/2005
02/24/2005 02/24/2005
03/01/2005 03/22/2005
04/07/2005
04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005
15 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
76 MOTION to Expedite filed by US EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Robert Unitas# 2 Proposed Order)(White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
77 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, and Submission Without Oral Argument of EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene, and for Leave to Participate in the Case Management Conference; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Suport of Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
78 Declaration in Support of 77 Memorandum in Opposition, of Nancy L. Abell filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
79 Proposed Order re 77 Memorandum in Opposition, Setting Case Management Deadlines Following the Court's Ruling on the EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene; and Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Submission Without Oral Argument for EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
80 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 76 Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Sumission Without Oral Argument for Leave to Intervene. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 1, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
81 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 18 Motion to Dismiss Claims or Stay and Compel Arbitration and SUSTAINING IN PART 50 Objections to Evidence and DENYING Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2005) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
82 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/7/2005) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
83 ORDER APPROVING 82 Stipulation To Reset Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 8, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Admissions due by 6/3/2005. Case Management Conference set for 6/10/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
84 Statement of Non-Opposition to and Statement of Position Regarding EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene as to the Claim of Gender Discrimination in SSR Recruitment and Hiring filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
85 Declaration of Nancy L. Abell in Support of 84 Statement of Non-Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
04/15/2005 04/26/2005 04/26/2005 04/27/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005
05/06/2005
05/09/2005 05/09/2005 05/10/2005 05/12/2005
05/17/2005 05/19/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
86 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 84 Statement of Non-Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
87 ANSWER to Complaint (Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint) 39 byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/26/2005) Modified on 4/28/2005 (far, Court Staff). (Entered: 04/26/2005)
88 ORDER GRANTING 58 MOTION to Intervene filed by EEOC. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 26, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2005) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
89 Intervenor COMPLAINT. Filed byUS EEOC. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 4/27/2005) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
90 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Cintas on April 29, 2005 by US EEOC. Waiver of Service due by 5/19/2005. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
91 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by US EEOC. Service waived by Cintas Corporation waiver sent on 4/29/2005, answer due 6/28/2005. May 19, 2005 is the answer due date pursuant to Court Order. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
92 STIPULATION -- STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/6/2005) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
93 ORDER GRANTING 92 Stipulation to Extend ADR Certification Deadline. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 9, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/10/2005) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
96 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b)of discussion of ADR options, 95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b)of discussion of ADR options filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans. (Related document(s) 94 , 95 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
97 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/19/2005) (Entered: 05/19/2005)

16 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
05/23/2005 05/24/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005
06/03/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005
06/17/2005
17 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
99 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 98 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 23, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
100 Statement of Non-Opposition re 98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by EEOC filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Related document(s) 98 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
101 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Page Limit for Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
102 ORDER RE 101 Stipulation to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 31, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
103 STIPULATION Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed [Proposed] Protective Order by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
104 Administrative Request For Leave to File Joint Case Management Conference Statement in Excess of 15 Pages filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) Modified on 6/6/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2005)
105 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9 filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
106 ORDER APPROVING 103 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
107 ORDER APPROVING 104 Miscellaneous Administrative Request. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
108 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
109 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/10/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 6/13/2005). (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/13/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2005. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2005) Modified on 6/14/2005 (jjo, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
111 Memorandum in Opposition by Defendant Cintas Corporation to EEOC's 98 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-in-Intervention filed byCintas
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/30/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005 08/02/2005
08/02/2005
08/03/2005 08/08/2005 08/12/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) Modified on 6/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2005)
112 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-in-Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 111 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
113 Proposed Order re 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-in-Intervention by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
114 Reply to Opposition filed byUS EEOC. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 6/30/2005) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
115 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Robert Harris (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
116 STIPULATION and Proposed Order To Permit The Filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fourth Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
117 ORDER GRANTING 116 Stipulation to Permit Filing of A Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 27, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Nancy L. Maldonado filed by Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
118 AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Cintas Corporation. Filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 8/3/2005) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
120 ORDER GRANTING 119 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY NANCY L. MALDONADO PRO HAC VICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/8/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2005) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
121 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/10/05 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Joan Columbini. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2005) (Entered: 08/15/2005)

18 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/31/2005 08/31/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
123 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 122 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
124 Proposed Order re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
125 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
126 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Have Cases Related by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
127 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 126 Stipulation Of Attestation Regarding Stipulation to Have Cases Related (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
129 Declaration in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Hilary Toyryla# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
130 Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) of Lourdes V. Malam# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

19 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/22/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
131 Proposed Order re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
132 Request for Judicial Notice re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1) to Request for Judicial Notice# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2) to Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice# 4 Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
133 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO HAVE CASES RELATED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/19/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2005) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
134 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Robin Beasley)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
135 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) to Amy Severson Stipulation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
136 ORDER GRANTING 126 Stipulation to relate cases. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 19, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
137 ORDER GRANTING 134 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
138 ORDER GRANTING 135 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Amy Severson. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
139 STIPULATION And [Proposed] Order To Continue Case Management Conference And Hearing On The Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion To Amend The Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
140 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Applicaton for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice - Rachael Rowe (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
141 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice and (Proposed) Order - Michael Womack (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376669. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)

20 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376668. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Rachael Rowe re 140 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Michael Womack re 141 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
142 ORDER GRANTING 140 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
143 ORDER GRANTING 141 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
144 ORDER GRANTING 139 Stipulation to Continue CMC and Hearing on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
145 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
146 Declaration of Nina Rabin In Support Of Plaintiffs'Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2# 2 Exhibit 3-5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8-11# 6 Exhibit 12# 7 Exhibit 12a# 8 Exhibit 12b# 9 Exhibit c)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
147 Declaration of James E. Morgan In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
148 Proposed Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Or Stay and Compel Arbitration of Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
149 Memorandum in Opposition [CORRECTED VERSION] PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)

21 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
09/29/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005
10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
150 NOTICE of Appearance by Erica D. White-Dunston Notice of Appearance of Kenneth Kryvoruka (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 9/29/2005) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
151 Reply to Opposition re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
152 Appendix re 151 Reply to Opposition, of Out-of-State and Westlaw Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1)# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2)# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C (Part 1)# 5 Exhibit C (Part 2)# 6 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 151 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Receipt of transferred Claims from USDC-Western/ Kansas City. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
Receipt of transfered Claims to USDC-Western/Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
153 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Sharon K. Legenza filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Proposed Order re 157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
154 ***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 155 ***,/b>
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
155 AMENDED NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. CORRECTION OF DOCKET 154 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND(jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
156 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING Further Case Management Conference to 1/20/2006 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 12/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)

22 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
10/11/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005
10/13/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/18/2005 10/20/2005 10/25/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
158 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 12, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
159 RESPONSE in Support EEOC's Motion to Amend filed byUS EEOC. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
160 Brief Response to Question Posed By The Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
161 Brief Corrected Response to Question Posed by the Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
162 Brief in Response to Question No. 3 of the Court's Amended Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing on the EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint in Intervention filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
163 Brief Notice of Additional Authorities in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
164 Brief re 163 Brief, Additional Authority Submitted By Cintas In Support Of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 163 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
165 Brief Revised Additional Authorities Submitted By Cintas In Support of Its Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
166 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 10/14/2005). (Court Reporter Michael Shintaku.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
167 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jeffrey S. White. Granting 157 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2005) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
168 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed byUS EEOC. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/20/2005) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
169 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Maureen E. O'Neill; and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

23 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
10/25/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 11/02/2005
11/07/2005 11/18/2005 11/28/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005
24 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
170 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Jon A. Geier, and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Motions Filing fee: $ 420, receipt number 3377733. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2005) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
171 ORDER GRANTING 170 Application for Admission of Attorney Jon Geier Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
172 ORDER GRANTING 169 Application for Admission of Attorney Maureen E. O'Neill Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
173 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 128 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Compel Arbitration re Plaintiff James Morgan. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2005) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
174 Defendant Cintas Corporation's ANSWER to Amended Complaint in Intervention byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/7/2005) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
175 NOTICE by US EEOC of EEOC's Motion to Intervene in Serrano, et. al v. Cintas Corporation (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 11/18/2005) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
176 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Fourth Amended) byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/28/2005) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions and Replies Thereto filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
178 Proposed Order re 177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions and Replies Thereto by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
179 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 177 Joint Motion for Leave to File More than One Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Motions. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
181 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 14, 2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Michael Shintaku. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
180 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Joint) of Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attestation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/7/2005) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
182 ORDER GRANTING 180 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 8, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
01/11/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/06/2006 03/08/2006
03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/09/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
183 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff Robert Harris' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
184 Joint STIPULATION AND ORDER of dismissal of plaintiff Robert Harris' claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 01/12/06. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2006) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
185 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/13/2006) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
186 ORDER VACATING Mediation Deadline and CONTINUING Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 17, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 4/16/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Scott A. Entin-fee paid # 3382410 filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
188 ORDER GRANTING 187 Application for Admission of Scott A. Entin Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/6/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2006) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
189 STIPULATION of Dismissal (JOINT) OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
190 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ENLARGE TIME OF CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES by US EEOC. (White-Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
191 ORDER GRANTING 190 Stipulation and Order to Continue Supplemental Case Management Conference and to Enlarge Time of Case Management Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
192 ORDER GRANTING 189 Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza's Claims wiht Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

25 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
03/09/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/25/2006
04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/05/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/11/2006
26 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 09:00 AM. Class Certification Hearing set for 8/3/2007 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
193 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/17/2006) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
194 ORDER Granting 193 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement / Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/18/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
195 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proof of Service)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
196 ORDER GRANTING 195 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement/Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 25, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 5/12/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
197 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS JONES' AND AVALOS' TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 CLAIMS AND EEOC INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF AVALOS' STATE LAW CLAIMS, AND STAY OF PLAINTIFF RAMIREZ' CLAIMS PENDING ARBITRATION by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Stipulated [Proposed] Order of Consolidation# 2 Exhibit B -- Stipulated [Proposed] Consolidated Discovery and Scheduling Order# 3 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
198 ORDER GRANTING 197 Stipulation Regarding Transfer of Plaintiffs Jones' and Avalos' Title VII and Section 1981 Claims and EEOC Intervention Complaint to the Eastern District of Michigan and Dismissal of Plaintiff Avalos' State Law Claims, and Stay of Plaintiff Ramirez' Claims Pending Arbitration. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 11, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
Case Stayed (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
199 Sent certified copy of order and docket sheet to USDC-Eastern Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
200 STIPULATION -- STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
05/16/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/28/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006
09/15/2006
27 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
201 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 200 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/16/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2006) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
202 STIPULATION -- STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
203 ORDER GRANTING 202 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 19, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
204 ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORTS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 24, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2006) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
205 Receipt from USDC-Michigan (Eastern). (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2006) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
206 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Robert Ramirez. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/28/2006) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
207 Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
208 > EXHIBIT A TO PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
210 Declaration in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "M" (BOUND VOLUME 1
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 10/13/2006 10/24/2006
28 of 30

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 2 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "N" THROUGH "P" (BOUND VOLUME 2 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 3 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "Q" THROUGH "X" (BOUND VOLUME 3 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD)(Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
211 Declaration of STEVEN CHRISTERSON in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
212 Proposed Order re 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
213 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE on Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 15, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
214 EXHIBITS A-M re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
215 EXHIBITS N-P re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
216 EXHIBITS Q-X re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
217 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 215 Exhibits, 214 Exhibits, 216 Exhibits (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
218 MEMORANDUM in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
219 Brief Plaintiffs' Motion To File Additional Authority In Support Of Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Clarifying Clause Construction Award)(Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/24/2006) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
10/27/2006 10/27/2006 11/22/2006 02/28/2007 06/27/2007 10/25/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007
10/30/2007
11/02/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
220 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
221 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
222 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White DENYING 207 , 209 Petition and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
223 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by James Morgan. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
224 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties re Status of the Claims on which Arbitration was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
225 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
226 NOTICE by Robert Ramirez Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Robert Ramirez. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
228 Declaration of Roberta L. Steele in Support of 227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 227 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
229 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks (Aka Coretta Silvers) Individual Claims With Prejudice And Her Putative Class Claim On Behalf Of Current And Former African American Non-Exempt Employees (Except SSRs) With Respect To Pay Without Prejudice And [Proposed] Order by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
230 ORDER re Unopposed Motion to Approve Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Individual Claims and Class Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 2, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)

29 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

CAND-ECF
11/08/2007
11/08/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 02/22/2008

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?770703590050013-L_1...
231 EXHIBITS re 230 Order First Amended Confidential Settlement Agreement [FILED UNDER SEAL] filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration Of Roberta L. Steele# 2 Exhibit A) Copies of news articles and press releases# 3 Exhibit B) Legal claims against Cintas grow to add more plaintiffs and charges of gender discrimination# 4 Exhibit C) Pamphlet "The 'spirit' is the problem; Systemic Racial & Gender Discrimination At Cintas)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
232 (UNDER SEAL) First Amended Confidential SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
233 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 11, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2007) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
234 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/14/2007 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 12/14/2007). (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
235 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 227 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
236 ORDER GRANTING 229 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 14, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
237 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/22/2008) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/20/2008 11:36:42

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 21

Cost:

eeoc 3:04-cv-00281-JSW 1.68

30 of 30

3/20/2008 1:36 PM

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 1 of 29
ADRMOP, E−Filing, PROTO, STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−00281−JSW

Ramirez et al v. Cintas Corporation Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Relate Case Case: 3:05−cv−03145−JSW Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff
Robert Ramirez

Date Filed: 01/20/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss 5525 S. Woodlawn Ave. Chicago, IL 60637 773−551−5350 Email: pstrauss@acornhousing.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Louise Steele Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dar 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510/763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: RLS@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610−5397 312−751−1170 Fax: 312−751−0438 Email: slegenza@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. Jaramillo Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: jej@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris J. Baller Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: mjb@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado Miner, Barnhill &Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312−751−1170

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 2 of 29

Fax: 312−751−0957 Email: nmaldonado@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312−751−1170 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robin Beasley TERMINATED: 09/22/2005

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sandra Evans TERMINATED: 12/08/2005

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Harris TERMINATED: 01/12/2006

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luis Pocasangre Cardoza TERMINATED: 03/09/2006

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 3 of 29

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jose Salcedo

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff A. Shapelle Thompson

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Coretta Vick TERMINATED: 12/14/2007

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 4 of 29

Blanca Nelly Avalos TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anthony Jones TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Morgan

represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph E. Jaramillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Amy Severson TERMINATED: 09/20/2005

V.

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 5 of 29

Intervenor Pla
US EEOC TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

represented by Robert D. Unitas US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7712 Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4768 Fax: 202−663−4196 Email: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica D. White−Dunston US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7212 Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4826 Fax: 202−663*4196 Email: erica.white−dunston@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J. Kryvoruka Equal Opportunity Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4768 Email: kenneth.kryvoruka@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Cintas Corporation

represented by Rachael Rowe 6800 Cintas Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513−754−3640 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon Geier 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202−551−1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen E. O'Neill 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202−551−1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Womack 6800 Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513−754−3640 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Abell Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker LLP

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 6 of 29
Employment 555 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−2371 213 683−6162 Fax: (213) 627−0705 Email: nancyabell@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/20/2004
01/20/2004 01/27/2004 02/09/2004 04/26/2004 05/05/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004 05/13/2004 06/30/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Cintas Corporation (Filing fee $ 150.). Filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2004 (vlh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2004)

2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/21/2004. Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) (Entered: 01/22/2004)

3 INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/27/04. (jjo, ) (Filed on 1/27/2004) (Entered: 01/27/2004)

4 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Failure to E−File and/or Failure to Register as an E−Filer (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/09/2004)

5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/26/2004) (Entered: 04/26/2004)

Summons Issued as to Cintas Corporation. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2004) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

6 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

7 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 6 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME filed by Robin Beasley. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

8 ORDER GRANTING 6 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference to October 1, 2004. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 13, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/1/2004 01:30 PM. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

9 MOTION to Amend/Correct Plaintiffs' Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2004 09:00 AM. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 7 of 29

06/30/2004
06/30/2004 07/01/2004 07/06/2004 07/07/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004
07/30/2004
08/02/2004 08/02/2004 08/03/2004

10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Regarding Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15)(Related document(s) 9 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
11 Proposed Order re 9 Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Strauss Notice Of Appearance Of Additional Counsel For Plaintiffs (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/1/2004) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
13 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
14 ORDER GRANTING 9 Unopposed MOTION For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 7, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2004) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
15 Certificate of Interested Entities (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
16 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation Corporate Disclosure Statement (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Larry Fultz# 2 Declaration of Matthew Ketchem# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer or Dismiss# 4 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jenice Clendening# 2 Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration# 4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice# 5 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
19 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Transfer or Dismiss filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
20 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
21 Declaration of Jenice Clendening (Supplemental) in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 8 of 29

08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/17/2004 08/31/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004

Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/3/2004) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
22 STIPULATION re 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration, 17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs Re Briefing Schedule by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation, 23 Certificate of Service re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Second Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
26 Proposed Order re Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
27 STIPULATION AND ORDER re Breifing Schedule re: 22 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 5, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
28 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 27 Order (Entry of Order) re: Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss Non−California Plaintiffs, and (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/17/2004) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
29 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2004) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
30 ORDER re [29 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 1, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/12/2004 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
31 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Entry of Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/3/2004) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
32 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 26, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2004) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
33 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 9 of 29

10/29/2004
10/29/2004 11/03/2004 11/04/2004
11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/17/2004 12/23/2004
12/23/2004

for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Third Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/28/2004) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
34 ORDER Re 33 Stipulation to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 29, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
35 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, Or in the Alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson for Lack of Venue (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/3/2004) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
36 ORDER on 35 Notice of withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, or in the alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thomston, Silvers and Severson for lack of venue. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 4, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2004) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
37 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/5/2004) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
38 ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 8, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2004) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
39 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Third) against Cintas Corporation. Filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/17/2004) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
40 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) STAY THEIR CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
41 Declaration of MICHAEL RUBIN in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4# 2 Errata 5# 3 Exhibit 6−9# 4 Exhibit 10# 5 Exhibit

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 10 of 29

12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 01/07/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005

11−12)(Related document(s) 40 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
42 Declaration of Betty Eberle in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 40 , 41 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
43 Declaration of Jose Salcedo in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
44 Declaration of Coretta Silvers in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
45 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support,, 44 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
46 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 45 Declaration in Support,, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (B) STAY THIER CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 45 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 1/7/2005) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
47 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
48 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
49 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 11 of 29

01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005

Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
50 OBJECTIONS to and Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositon to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
51 Proposed Order Sustaining Defendant Cintas Corporation's Objections and Granting its Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
52 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
53 Proposed Order [Amended] Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation Re: Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
55 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Signed) filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
56 EXHIBITS re 55 Request for Judicial Notice, (Exhibit B) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Corrected) filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
57 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Requests for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Revised) by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 12 of 29

02/01/2005
02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005
02/03/2005

58 MOTION to Intervene filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2005 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certification from EEOC General Counsel# 2 Exhibit Complaint−In−Intervention# 3 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of EEOC Associate General Counsel# 4 Proposed Order)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/1/2005) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
59 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
60 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
61 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
62 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS, FILED 02/02/05 filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
63 EXHIBITS 3−4 to DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
64 Statement of Non−Opposition re 58 MOTION to Intervene PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE IN EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 58 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
65 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
66 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
67 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
68 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 3, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 13 of 29

02/03/2005 02/04/2005
02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/24/2005
02/24/2005 02/24/2005
03/01/2005

69 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion re 68 Order PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
70 MEMORANDUM in Support Memorandum of Additional Authorities and Exhibits A−C, F−H filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 2 Exhibit B to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 3 Exhibit C to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 4 Exhibit F to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 5 Exhibit G to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 6 Exhibit H to Memorandum of Additional Authorities)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
71 EXHIBITS E to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
72 EXHIBITS D to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
73 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/4/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 2/4/2005). (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
74 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions Regarding Plaintiffs Robin Beasley and Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
75 ORDER GRANTING 74 Stipulation to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 18, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
76 MOTION to Expedite filed by US EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Robert Unitas# 2 Proposed Order)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
77 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, and Submission Without Oral Argument of EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene, and for Leave to Participate in the Case Management Conference; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Suport of Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
78 Declaration in Support of 77 Memorandum in Opposition, of Nancy L. Abell filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
79 Proposed Order re 77 Memorandum in Opposition, Setting Case Management Deadlines Following the Court's Ruling on the EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene; and Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Submission Without Oral Argument for EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
80 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 76 Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Sumission Without Oral Argument for Leave to Intervene. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S.

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 14 of 29

03/22/2005
04/07/2005
04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/26/2005 04/26/2005 04/27/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005

White on March 1, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
81 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 18 Motion to Dismiss Claims or Stay and Compel Arbitration and SUSTAINING IN PART 50 Objections to Evidence and DENYING Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2005) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
82 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/7/2005) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
83 ORDER APPROVING 82 Stipulation To Reset Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 8, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Admissions due by 6/3/2005. Case Management Conference set for 6/10/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
84 Statement of Non−Opposition to and Statement of Position Regarding EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene as to the Claim of Gender Discrimination in SSR Recruitment and Hiring filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
85 Declaration of Nancy L. Abell in Support of 84 Statement of Non−Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
86 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 84 Statement of Non−Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
87 ANSWER to Complaint (Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint) 39 byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/26/2005) Modified on 4/28/2005 (far, Court Staff). (Entered: 04/26/2005)
88 ORDER GRANTING 58 MOTION to Intervene filed by EEOC. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 26, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2005) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
89 Intervenor COMPLAINT. Filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 4/27/2005) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
90 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Cintas on April 29, 2005 by US EEOC. Waiver of Service due by 5/19/2005. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
91 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by US EEOC. Service waived by Cintas Corporation waiver sent on 4/29/2005, answer due 6/28/2005. May 19, 2005 is the answer due date pursuant to Court Order. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 15 of 29

05/06/2005 05/09/2005 05/09/2005 05/10/2005 05/12/2005
05/17/2005 05/19/2005 05/23/2005 05/24/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005

92 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/6/2005) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
93 ORDER GRANTING 92 Stipulation to Extend ADR Certification Deadline. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 9, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/10/2005) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
96 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b)of discussion of ADR options, 95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b)of discussion of ADR options filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans. (Related document(s) 94 , 95 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
97 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/19/2005) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
99 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 98 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 23, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
100 Statement of Non−Opposition re 98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by EEOC filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Related document(s) 98 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
101 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Page Limit for Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
102 ORDER RE 101 Stipulation to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 31, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
103 STIPULATION Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed [Proposed] Protective Order by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
104 Administrative Request For Leave to File Joint Case Management Conference Statement in Excess of 15 Pages filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) Modified on 6/6/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 16 of 29

06/03/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/30/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005

105 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16−9 filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
106 ORDER APPROVING 103 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
107 ORDER APPROVING 104 Miscellaneous Administrative Request. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
108 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
109 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/10/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 6/13/2005). (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/13/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2005. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2005) Modified on 6/14/2005 (jjo, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
111 Memorandum in Opposition by Defendant Cintas Corporation to EEOC's 98 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) Modified on 6/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2005)
112 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 111 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
113 Proposed Order re 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
114 Reply to Opposition filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 6/30/2005) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
115 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Robert Harris (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
116 STIPULATION and Proposed Order To Permit The Filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fourth Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
117 ORDER GRANTING 116 Stipulation to Permit Filing of A Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S.

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 17 of 29

08/02/2005 08/02/2005 08/03/2005 08/08/2005 08/12/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/31/2005 08/31/2005

White on July 27, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Nancy L. Maldonado filed by Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
118 AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Cintas Corporation. Filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 8/3/2005) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
120 ORDER GRANTING 119 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY NANCY L. MALDONADO PRO HAC VICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/8/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2005) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
121 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/10/05 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Joan Columbini. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2005) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
123 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 122 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
124 Proposed Order re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
125 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
126 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Have Cases Related by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
127 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 126 Stipulation Of Attestation Regarding Stipulation to Have Cases Related (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 18 of 29

09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005

128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
129 Declaration in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Hilary Toyryla# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
130 Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) of Lourdes V. Malam# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
131 Proposed Order re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
132 Request for Judicial Notice re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1) to Request for Judicial Notice# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2) to Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice# 4 Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
133 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO HAVE CASES RELATED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/19/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2005) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
134 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Robin Beasley)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
135 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) to Amy Severson Stipulation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
136 ORDER GRANTING 126 Stipulation to relate cases. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 19, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 19 of 29

09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005
09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005
09/22/2005 09/23/2005

137 ORDER GRANTING 134 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
138 ORDER GRANTING 135 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Amy Severson. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
139 STIPULATION And [Proposed] Order To Continue Case Management Conference And Hearing On The Plaintiff−Intervenor's Motion To Amend The Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
140 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Applicaton for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice − Rachael Rowe (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
141 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice and (Proposed) Order − Michael Womack (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376669. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376668. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Rachael Rowe re 140 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Michael Womack re 141 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
142 ORDER GRANTING 140 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
143 ORDER GRANTING 141 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
144 ORDER GRANTING 139 Stipulation to Continue CMC and Hearing on Plaintiff−Intervenor's Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
145 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 20 of 29

09/23/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005
09/29/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005
10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005
10/07/2005

(Entered: 09/23/2005)
146 Declaration of Nina Rabin In Support Of Plaintiffs'Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2# 2 Exhibit 3−5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8−11# 6 Exhibit 12# 7 Exhibit 12a# 8 Exhibit 12b# 9 Exhibit c)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
147 Declaration of James E. Morgan In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
148 Proposed Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Or Stay and Compel Arbitration of Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
149 Memorandum in Opposition [CORRECTED VERSION] PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
150 NOTICE of Appearance by Erica D. White−Dunston Notice of Appearance of Kenneth Kryvoruka (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 9/29/2005) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
151 Reply to Opposition re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
152 Appendix re 151 Reply to Opposition, of Out−of−State and Westlaw Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1)# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2)# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C (Part 1)# 5 Exhibit C (Part 2)# 6 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 151 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Receipt of transferred Claims from USDC−Western/ Kansas City. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
Receipt of transfered Claims to USDC−Western/Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
153 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Sharon K. Legenza filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Proposed Order re 157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A.

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 21 of 29

10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005

Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
154 ***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 155 ***,/b>
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
155 AMENDED NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. CORRECTION OF DOCKET 154 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND(jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
156 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING Further Case Management Conference to 1/20/2006 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 12/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
158 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 12, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
159 RESPONSE in Support EEOC's Motion to Amend filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
160 Brief Response to Question Posed By The Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
161 Brief Corrected Response to Question Posed by the Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
162 Brief in Response to Question No. 3 of the Court's Amended Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing on the EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint in Intervention filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
163 Brief Notice of Additional Authorities in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
164 Brief re 163 Brief, Additional Authority Submitted By Cintas In Support Of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 22 of 29

10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/18/2005 10/20/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 11/02/2005
11/07/2005 11/18/2005 11/28/2005 12/02/2005

Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 163 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
165 Brief Revised Additional Authorities Submitted By Cintas In Support of Its Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
166 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 10/14/2005). (Court Reporter Michael Shintaku.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
167 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jeffrey S. White. Granting 157 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2005) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
168 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/20/2005) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
169 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Maureen E. O'Neill; and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
170 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Jon A. Geier, and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Motions Filing fee: $ 420, receipt number 3377733. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2005) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
171 ORDER GRANTING 170 Application for Admission of Attorney Jon Geier Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
172 ORDER GRANTING 169 Application for Admission of Attorney Maureen E. O'Neill Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
173 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 128 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Compel Arbitration re Plaintiff James Morgan. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2005) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
174 Defendant Cintas Corporation's ANSWER to Amended Complaint in Intervention byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/7/2005) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
175 NOTICE by US EEOC of EEOC's Motion to Intervene in Serrano, et. al v. Cintas Corporation (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 11/18/2005) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
176 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Fourth Amended) byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/28/2005) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 23 of 29

12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005 01/11/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 02/28/2006
02/28/2006

and Replies Thereto filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
178 Proposed Order re 177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions and Replies Thereto by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
179 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 177 Joint Motion for Leave to File More than One Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Motions. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
181 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 14, 2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Michael Shintaku. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
180 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Joint) of Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attestation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/7/2005) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
182 ORDER GRANTING 180 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 8, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
183 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff Robert Harris' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
184 Joint STIPULATION AND ORDER of dismissal of plaintiff Robert Harris' claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 01/12/06. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2006) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
185 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/13/2006) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
186 ORDER VACATING Mediation Deadline and CONTINUING Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 17, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 4/16/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Scott A. Entin−fee paid # 3382410 filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 24 of 29

03/06/2006 03/08/2006
03/09/2006
03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/09/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/25/2006
04/25/2006 04/25/2006

188 ORDER GRANTING 187 Application for Admission of Scott A. Entin Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/6/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2006) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
189 STIPULATION of Dismissal (JOINT) OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
190 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ENLARGE TIME OF CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES by US EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
191 ORDER GRANTING 190 Stipulation and Order to Continue Supplemental Case Management Conference and to Enlarge Time of Case Management Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
192 ORDER GRANTING 189 Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza's Claims wiht Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 09:00 AM. Class Certification Hearing set for 8/3/2007 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
193 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/17/2006) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
194 ORDER Granting 193 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement / Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/18/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
195 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proof of Service)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
196 ORDER GRANTING 195 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement/Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 25, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 5/12/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 25 of 29

05/05/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/11/2006
05/16/2006 05/19/2006
05/19/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/28/2006

197 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS JONES' AND AVALOS' TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 CLAIMS AND EEOC INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF AVALOS' STATE LAW CLAIMS, AND STAY OF PLAINTIFF RAMIREZ' CLAIMS PENDING ARBITRATION by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Stipulated [Proposed] Order of Consolidation# 2 Exhibit B −− Stipulated [Proposed] Consolidated Discovery and Scheduling Order# 3 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
198 ORDER GRANTING 197 Stipulation Regarding Transfer of Plaintiffs Jones' and Avalos' Title VII and Section 1981 Claims and EEOC Intervention Complaint to the Eastern District of Michigan and Dismissal of Plaintiff Avalos' State Law Claims, and Stay of Plaintiff Ramirez' Claims Pending Arbitration. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 11, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
Case Stayed (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
199 Sent certified copy of order and docket sheet to USDC−Eastern Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
200 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
201 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 200 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/16/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2006) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
202 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
203 ORDER GRANTING 202 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 19, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
204 ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORTS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 24, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2006) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
205 Receipt from USDC−Michigan (Eastern). (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2006) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
206 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Robert Ramirez.

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 26 of 29

09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006
09/15/2006 09/15/2006

(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/28/2006) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
207 Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
208 > EXHIBIT A TO PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
210 Declaration in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "M" (BOUND VOLUME 1 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 2 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "N" THROUGH "P" (BOUND VOLUME 2 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 3 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "Q" THROUGH "X" (BOUND VOLUME 3 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD)(Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
211 Declaration of STEVEN CHRISTERSON in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
212 Proposed Order re 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 27 of 29

09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 10/13/2006 10/24/2006
10/27/2006 10/27/2006 11/22/2006 02/28/2007 06/27/2007 10/25/2007 10/30/2007

213 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE on Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 15, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
214 EXHIBITS A−M re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
215 EXHIBITS N−P re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
216 EXHIBITS Q−X re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
217 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 215 Exhibits, 214 Exhibits, 216 Exhibits (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
218 MEMORANDUM in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
219 Brief Plaintiffs' Motion To File Additional Authority In Support Of Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Clarifying Clause Construction Award)(Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/24/2006) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
220 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
221 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
222 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White DENYING 207 , 209 Petition and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
223 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by James Morgan. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
224 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties re Status of the Claims on which Arbitration was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
225 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
226 NOTICE by Robert Ramirez Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 28 of 29

10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 11/02/2007 11/08/2007
11/08/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007

227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Robert Ramirez. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
228 Declaration of Roberta L. Steele in Support of 227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 227 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
229 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks (Aka Coretta Silvers) Individual Claims With Prejudice And Her Putative Class Claim On Behalf Of Current And Former African American Non−Exempt Employees (Except SSRs) With Respect To Pay Without Prejudice And [Proposed] Order by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
230 ORDER re Unopposed Motion to Approve Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Individual Claims and Class Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 2, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
231 EXHIBITS re 230 Order First Amended Confidential Settlement Agreement [FILED UNDER SEAL] filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration Of Roberta L. Steele# 2 Exhibit A) Copies of news articles and press releases# 3 Exhibit B) Legal claims against Cintas grow to add more plaintiffs and charges of gender discrimination# 4 Exhibit C) Pamphlet "The 'spirit' is the problem; Systemic Racial &Gender Discrimination At Cintas)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
232 (UNDER SEAL) First Amended Confidential SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
233 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 11, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2007) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
234 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/14/2007 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 12/14/2007). (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
235 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 227 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
236 ORDER GRANTING 229 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 14, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-281 As of: 05/21/2008 06:23 AM PDT 29 of 29

02/22/2008

237 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/22/2008) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

 
 1. EE-CA-0190 2. 3:04-cv-00281-JSW (N.D. Cal.) and 3:05-cv-03145-JSW (N.D. Cal.) 3. Related 4. 3:04-cv-00281: Docket entry #133
3:05-cv-03145: Docket entry #12 5. 9/20/2005 6. Deemed related and assigned to the same judge because the parties agree “that the two
actions should be deemed ‘related’ pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a), and as set forth in the Motion to Relate Cases because (a) the two actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transactions and events . . . .” (consolidation order) 7. 3:04-cv-00281: Plaintiffs - Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Luis Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Blanca Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Amy Severson, EEOC (intervenor). Defendant – Cintas Corp. Theory – Class action alleging pattern and practice of discrimination based on race, national origin and sex, violating Title VII, § 1981, and state laws. 3:05-cv-03145: Plaintiffs – Larry Houston and Clifton Cooper. Defendant – Cintas Corp. Theory - Class action alleging pattern and practice of discrimination based on race, violating § 1981 and state laws. 8. 3:04-cv-00281: Ramirez filed suit on 1/20/2004; Defendant filed motion to transfer case or dismiss plaintiffs and motion to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration; EEOC intervened; and ADR with some plaintiffs before cases were related. 3:05-cv-03145: Houston filed suit on 8/3/2005; not much activity before cases were related.
1

9. 3:04-cv-00281: Numerous subsequent activities (another ten pages) after cases were related (only a few entries appear on both dockets). 3:05-cv-03145: Defendant’s motion to vacate arbitration award denied after cases were related.
2

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 1 of 25
ADRMOP, CLOSED, E−Filing, PROTO
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−00281−JSW

Ramirez et al v. Cintas Corporation Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Relate Case Case: 3:05−cv−03145−JSW Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury
Plaintiff
Robert Ramirez

Date Filed: 01/20/2004 Date Terminated: 09/25/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Paul Leonard Strauss 5525 S. Woodlawn Ave. Chicago, IL 60637 773−551−5350 Email: pstrauss@acornhousing.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Louise Steele Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dar 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510/763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: RLS@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon K. Legenza 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610−5397 312−751−1170 Fax: 312−751−0438 Email: slegenza@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Marie Mills Goldstein, Demchak, et al. 300 Lakeside Dr., Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: hmills@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. Jaramillo Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: jej@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris J. Baller Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 2 of 25

(510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: mjb@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Abell Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker LLP Employment 555 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−2371 213 683−6162 Fax: (213) 627−0705 Email: nancyabell@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado Miner, Barnhill &Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312−751−1170 Fax: 312−751−0957 Email: nmaldonado@lawmbg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 312−751−1170 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robin Beasley TERMINATED: 09/22/2005

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sandra Evans TERMINATED: 12/08/2005

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Harris TERMINATED: 01/12/2006

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 3 of 25

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luis Pocasangre Cardoza TERMINATED: 03/09/2006

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jose Salcedo

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Abell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
A. Shapelle Thompson TERMINATED: 04/03/2009

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 4 of 25

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Coretta Vick TERMINATED: 12/14/2007

represented by Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Blanca Nelly Avalos TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anthony Jones TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Morgan

represented by Sharon K. Legenza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 5 of 25

Plaintiff
Amy Severson TERMINATED: 09/20/2005

Joseph E. Jaramillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Abell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Leonard Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Entin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Pla
US EEOC TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

represented by Robert D. Unitas US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7712 Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4768 Fax: 202−663−4196 Email: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica D. White−Dunston US EEOC Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7212 Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4826 Fax: 202−663*4196 Email: erica.white−dunston@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Kryvoruka , Equal Opportunity Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507
202−663−4768 Fax: Email: kenneth.kryvoruka@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 6 of 25

V. Defendant Cintas Corporation

represented by Rachael Rowe 6800 Cintas Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513−754−3640 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon Geier 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202−551−1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen E. O'Neill 875 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202−551−1722 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Womack 6800 Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45262 513−754−3640 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Abell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/20/2004
01/20/2004 01/27/2004 02/09/2004 04/26/2004 05/05/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Cintas Corporation (Filing fee $ 150.). Filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2004 (vlh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2004)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/21/2004. Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2004) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
3 INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 5/28/2004 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/27/04. (jjo, ) (Filed on 1/27/2004) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
4 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Failure to E−File and/or Failure to Register as an E−Filer (vlh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/26/2004) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
Summons Issued as to Cintas Corporation. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2004) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
6 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Robin Beasley. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
7 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 6 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME filed by Robin Beasley. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 7 of 25

05/13/2004 05/13/2004 06/30/2004
06/30/2004
06/30/2004 07/01/2004 07/06/2004 07/07/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004
07/30/2004
08/02/2004 08/02/2004 08/03/2004

8 ORDER GRANTING 6 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference to October 1, 2004. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 13, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/1/2004 01:30 PM. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2004) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
9 MOTION to Amend/Correct Plaintiffs' Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2004 09:00 AM. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Regarding Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint filed by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15)(Related document(s) 9 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
11 Proposed Order re 9 Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/30/2004) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Strauss Notice Of Appearance Of Additional Counsel For Plaintiffs (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/1/2004) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
13 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
14 ORDER GRANTING 9 Unopposed MOTION For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 7, 2004. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2004) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
15 Certificate of Interested Entities (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
16 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation Corporate Disclosure Statement (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Larry Fultz# 2 Declaration of Matthew Ketchem# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer or Dismiss# 4 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jenice Clendening# 2 Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration# 4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice# 5 Proof of Service)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
19 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Transfer or Dismiss filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
20 Renotice motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 09:00 AM. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
21 Declaration of Jenice Clendening (Supplemental) in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/3/2004) (Entered: 08/03/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 8 of 25

08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/17/2004 08/31/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004
10/29/2004
10/29/2004

22 STIPULATION re 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration, 17 MOTION to Transfer Case or Dismiss Plaintiffs Re Briefing Schedule by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 22 Stipulation, 23 Certificate of Service re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Second Amended) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
26 Proposed Order re Stipulation re Briefing Schedule for Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss, or (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
27 STIPULATION AND ORDER re Breifing Schedule re: 22 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 5, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2004) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
28 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 27 Order (Entry of Order) re: Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Motions to (1) Transfer Venue or Dismiss Non−California Plaintiffs, and (2) Dismiss Arbitration Plaintiffs or Stay and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/17/2004) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
29 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2004) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
30 ORDER re [29 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 1, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/12/2004 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
31 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Entry of Order to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Dates (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/3/2004) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
32 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 26, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2004) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
33 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Third Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/28/2004) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
34 ORDER Re 33 Stipulation to (1) Narrow the Second Amended Complaint; (2) Address Issues Raised in Defendant's Venue Motion; (3) Revise the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Arbitration Motion; (4) Continue the Case Management Conference Dates; and (5) Permit Filing of Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 29, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 9 of 25

11/03/2004 11/04/2004 11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/17/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004 12/23/2004

35 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, Or in the Alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson for Lack of Venue (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/3/2004) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
36 ORDER on 35 Notice of withdrawal of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, or in the alternative, (B) Dismiss Plaintiffs Ramirez, Beasley, Evans, Harris, Salcedo, Thomston, Silvers and Severson for lack of venue. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 4, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2004) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
37 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robin Beasley, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/5/2004) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
38 ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 8, 2004. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2004) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
39 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Third) against Cintas Corporation. Filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 11/17/2004) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
40 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) STAY THEIR CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
41 Declaration of MICHAEL RUBIN in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4# 2 Errata 5# 3 Exhibit 6−9# 4 Exhibit 10# 5 Exhibit 11−12)(Related document(s) 40 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
42 Declaration of Betty Eberle in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 40 , 41 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
43 Declaration of Jose Salcedo in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
44 Declaration of Coretta Silvers in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
45 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 40 Memorandum in Opposition,, 41 Declaration in Support,, 42 Declaration in Support,, 43 Declaration in Support,, 44 Declaration in Support, Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson or in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 12/23/2004) (Entered: 12/23/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 10 of 25

01/07/2005
01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005
01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/21/2005

46 Declaration of Shappelle Thompson in Support of 45 Declaration in Support,, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO (A) DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS SALCEDO, THOMPSON, SILVERS AND SEVERSON OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (B) STAY THIER CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 45 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 1/7/2005) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
47 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
48 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
49 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
50 OBJECTIONS to and Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositon to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
51 Proposed Order Sustaining Defendant Cintas Corporation's Objections and Granting its Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
52 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
53 Proposed Order [Amended] Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation Re: Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
55 Request for Judicial Notice (Supplemental) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Signed) filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
56 EXHIBITS re 55 Request for Judicial Notice, (Exhibit B) in Support of Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Corrected) filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
57 Proposed Order (Amended) Granting Defendant Cintas Corporation's Requests for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to (A) Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Thompson, Silvers and Severson Or, in the Alternative, (B) Stay Their Claims and Compel Arbitration (Revised) by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 11 of 25

02/01/2005
02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005
02/03/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005

(Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
58 MOTION to Intervene filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2005 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certification from EEOC General Counsel# 2 Exhibit Complaint−In−Intervention# 3 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of EEOC Associate General Counsel# 4 Proposed Order)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/1/2005) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
59 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
60 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
61 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
62 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS, FILED 02/02/05 filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
63 EXHIBITS 3−4 to DECLARATION OF PAUL STRAUSS filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Attachments: # 1)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
64 Statement of Non−Opposition re 58 MOTION to Intervene PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE IN EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 58 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
65 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
66 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
67 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declarations of Michael Rubin and Betty Eberle)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
68 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 3, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
69 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion re 68 Order PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 2/3/2005) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
70 MEMORANDUM in Support Memorandum of Additional Authorities and Exhibits A−C, F−H filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 2 Exhibit B to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 3 Exhibit C to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 4 Exhibit F to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 5 Exhibit G to Memorandum of Additional Authorities# 6 Exhibit H to Memorandum of Additional Authorities)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 12 of 25

02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/04/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/24/2005
02/24/2005 02/24/2005
03/01/2005 03/22/2005
04/07/2005
04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/15/2005

71 EXHIBITS E to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
72 EXHIBITS D to Memorandum of Additional Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
73 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/4/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 2/4/2005). (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
74 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions Regarding Plaintiffs Robin Beasley and Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
75 ORDER GRANTING 74 Stipulation to Extend Time to Engage in Settlement Discussions. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 18, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
76 MOTION to Expedite filed by US EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Robert Unitas# 2 Proposed Order)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
77 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, and Submission Without Oral Argument of EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene, and for Leave to Participate in the Case Management Conference; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Suport of Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
78 Declaration in Support of 77 Memorandum in Opposition, of Nancy L. Abell filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
79 Proposed Order re 77 Memorandum in Opposition, Setting Case Management Deadlines Following the Court's Ruling on the EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene; and Order Denying EEOC's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Submission Without Oral Argument for EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/24/2005) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
80 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 76 Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Sumission Without Oral Argument for Leave to Intervene. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 1, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
81 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 18 Motion to Dismiss Claims or Stay and Compel Arbitration and SUSTAINING IN PART 50 Objections to Evidence and DENYING Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2005) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
82 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/7/2005) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
83 ORDER APPROVING 82 Stipulation To Reset Case Management Conference and Related Dates. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 8, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Admissions due by 6/3/2005. Case Management Conference set for 6/10/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
84 Statement of Non−Opposition to and Statement of Position Regarding EEOC's Motion for Leave to Intervene as to the Claim of Gender Discrimination in SSR Recruitment and Hiring filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 13 of 25

04/15/2005 04/15/2005 04/26/2005 04/26/2005 04/27/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005
05/06/2005
05/09/2005 05/09/2005 05/10/2005 05/12/2005
05/17/2005 05/19/2005 05/23/2005 05/24/2005
05/31/2005

85 Declaration of Nancy L. Abell in Support of 84 Statement of Non−Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
86 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 84 Statement of Non−Opposition filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
87 ANSWER to Complaint (Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint) 39 byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/26/2005) Modified on 4/28/2005 (far, Court Staff). (Entered: 04/26/2005)
88 ORDER GRANTING 58 MOTION to Intervene filed by EEOC. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 26, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2005) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
89 Intervenor COMPLAINT. Filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 4/27/2005) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
90 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Cintas on April 29, 2005 by US EEOC. Waiver of Service due by 5/19/2005. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
91 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by US EEOC. Service waived by Cintas Corporation waiver sent on 4/29/2005, answer due 6/28/2005. May 19, 2005 is the answer due date pursuant to Court Order. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/3/2005) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
92 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/6/2005) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
93 ORDER GRANTING 92 Stipulation to Extend ADR Certification Deadline. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 9, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/9/2005) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/10/2005) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
96 Declaration of PAUL STRAUSS in Support of 94 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b)of discussion of ADR options, 95 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b)of discussion of ADR options filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans. (Related document(s) 94 , 95 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
97 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by US EEOC. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 5/19/2005) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
99 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 98 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 23, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
100 Statement of Non−Opposition re 98 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by EEOC filed byLuis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (Related document(s) 98 ) (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
101 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Exceed Page Limit for Joint Case Management Conference Statement by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 14 of 25

05/31/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005
06/17/2005
06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/30/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005
07/27/2005

102 ORDER RE 101 Stipulation to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 31, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2005) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
103 STIPULATION Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed [Proposed] Protective Order by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
104 Administrative Request For Leave to File Joint Case Management Conference Statement in Excess of 15 Pages filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) Modified on 6/6/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2005)
105 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16−9 filed by Robert Ramirez. (Baller, Morris) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
106 ORDER APPROVING 103 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
107 ORDER APPROVING 104 Miscellaneous Administrative Request. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
108 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 10, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
109 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/10/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 6/13/2005). (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/13/2005) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Further Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2005 09:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2005. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2005) Modified on 6/14/2005 (jjo, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
111 Memorandum in Opposition by Defendant Cintas Corporation to EEOC's 98 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) Modified on 6/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2005)
112 Declaration of Larry Fultz in Support of 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 111 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
113 Proposed Order re 111 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint−in−Intervention by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
114 Reply to Opposition filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 6/30/2005) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
115 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiff Robert Harris (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
116 STIPULATION and Proposed Order To Permit The Filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fourth Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
117 ORDER GRANTING 116 Stipulation to Permit Filing of A Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 27, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 15 of 25

08/02/2005
08/02/2005
08/03/2005 08/08/2005 08/12/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005
08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/31/2005 08/31/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005

119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Nancy L. Maldonado filed by Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 119 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Robin Beasley, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
118 AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Cintas Corporation. Filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 4# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 5 to 8)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 8/3/2005) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
120 ORDER GRANTING 119 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY NANCY L. MALDONADO PRO HAC VICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/8/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2005) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
121 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/10/05 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Joan Columbini. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2005) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
123 Declaration of Joseph W. Deng in Support of 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 122 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
124 Proposed Order re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
125 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 122 MOTION to Related Case of Cintas Corporation for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 3−12 and 7−11 (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
126 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Have Cases Related by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
127 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation re 126 Stipulation Of Attestation Regarding Stipulation to Have Cases Related (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
129 Declaration in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Hilary Toyryla# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Hilary Toyryla)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 16 of 25

09/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005

130 Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam in Support of 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) of Lourdes V. Malam# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam# 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Lourdes V. Malam)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
131 Proposed Order re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
132 Request for Judicial Notice re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1) to Request for Judicial Notice# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2) to Request for Judicial Notice# 3 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice# 4 Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice)(Related document(s) 128 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
133 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO HAVE CASES RELATED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/19/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2005) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
134 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Robin Beasley)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
135 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Transfer Claims of Amy Severson by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) to Amy Severson Stipulation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
136 ORDER GRANTING 126 Stipulation to relate cases. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 19, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2005) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
137 ORDER GRANTING 134 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Robin Beasley. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
138 ORDER GRANTING 135 Stipulation To Transfer Claims of Amy Severson. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/20/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
139 STIPULATION And [Proposed] Order To Continue Case Management Conference And Hearing On The Plaintiff−Intervenor's Motion To Amend The Complaint by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
140 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Applicaton for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice − Rachael Rowe (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
141 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice and (Proposed) Order − Michael Womack (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376669. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 210, receipt number 3376668. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Rachael Rowe re 140 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 17 of 25

09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005
09/29/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/07/2005

Received Document (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Michael Womack re 141 Notice (Other) by Cintas Corporation. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
142 ORDER GRANTING 140 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
143 ORDER GRANTING 141 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
144 ORDER GRANTING 139 Stipulation to Continue CMC and Hearing on Plaintiff−Intervenor's Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 22, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 10/14/2005 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
145 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
146 Declaration of Nina Rabin In Support Of Plaintiffs'Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2# 2 Exhibit 3−5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8−11# 6 Exhibit 12# 7 Exhibit 12a# 8 Exhibit 12b# 9 Exhibit c)(Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
147 Declaration of James E. Morgan In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
148 Proposed Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Or Stay and Compel Arbitration of Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
149 Memorandum in Opposition [CORRECTED VERSION] PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JAMES MORGAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY HIS CLAIMS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
150 NOTICE of Appearance by Erica D. White−Dunston Notice of Appearance of Kenneth Kryvoruka (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 9/29/2005) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
151 Reply to Opposition re 128 MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
152 Appendix re 151 Reply to Opposition, of Out−of−State and Westlaw Authorities filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1)# 2 Exhibit A (Part 2)# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C (Part 1)# 5 Exhibit C (Part 2)# 6 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 151 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/30/2005) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Receipt of transferred Claims from USDC−Western/ Kansas City. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
Receipt of transfered Claims to USDC−Western/Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
153 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 18 of 25

10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005
10/14/2005

(Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Sharon K. Legenza filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Proposed Order re 157 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan, Sandra Evans, Robert Harris. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
154 ***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 155 ***,/b>
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
155 AMENDED NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 11, 2005. CORRECTION OF DOCKET 154 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON EEOC'S MOTION TO AMEND(jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
156 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING Further Case Management Conference to 1/20/2006 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) Modified on 12/20/2005 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2005) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
158 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 12, 2005. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
159 RESPONSE in Support EEOC's Motion to Amend filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
160 Brief Response to Question Posed By The Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
161 Brief Corrected Response to Question Posed by the Court in its Notice of Tentative Ruling on EEOC's Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
162 Brief in Response to Question No. 3 of the Court's Amended Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing on the EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint in Intervention filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/12/2005) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
163 Brief Notice of Additional Authorities in Support of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, in the Alternative, Stay His Claims and Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
164 Brief re 163 Brief, Additional Authority Submitted By Cintas In Support Of Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 163 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/13/2005) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
165 Brief Revised Additional Authorities Submitted By Cintas In Support of Its Motion To Dismiss Claims Of Plaintiff James Morgan Or, In The Alternative, Stay His Claims And Compel Arbitration filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 19 of 25

10/14/2005 10/18/2005 10/20/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 11/02/2005
11/07/2005 11/18/2005 11/28/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005

on 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
166 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 10/14/2005). (Court Reporter Michael Shintaku.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
167 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jeffrey S. White. Granting 157 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2005) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
168 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed byUS EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 10/20/2005) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
169 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Maureen E. O'Neill; and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
170 NOTICE by Cintas Corporation of Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Jon A. Geier, and Proposed Order (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Motions Filing fee: $ 420, receipt number 3377733. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2005) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
171 ORDER GRANTING 170 Application for Admission of Attorney Jon Geier Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
172 ORDER GRANTING 169 Application for Admission of Attorney Maureen E. O'Neill Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/27/05. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
173 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 128 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Compel Arbitration re Plaintiff James Morgan. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2005) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
174 Defendant Cintas Corporation's ANSWER to Amended Complaint in Intervention byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/7/2005) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
175 NOTICE by US EEOC of EEOC's Motion to Intervene in Serrano, et. al v. Cintas Corporation (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 11/18/2005) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
176 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Fourth Amended) byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 11/28/2005) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions and Replies Thereto filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
178 Proposed Order re 177 Joint MOTION for Leave to File More Than One Motion For Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication and Oppositions and Replies Thereto by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
179 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 177 Joint Motion for Leave to File More than One Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Motions. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2005) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
181 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 14, 2005 before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter: Michael Shintaku. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
180 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Joint) of Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attestation)(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 12/7/2005) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
182 ORDER GRANTING 180 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Sandra Evans' Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 8, 2005. (jswlc3,

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 20 of 25

01/11/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/06/2006 03/08/2006
03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/09/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006

COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
183 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff Robert Harris' Claims and [Proposed] Order by Cintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
184 Joint STIPULATION AND ORDER of dismissal of plaintiff Robert Harris' claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 01/12/06. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2006) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
185 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL filed by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/13/2006) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
186 ORDER VACATING Mediation Deadline and CONTINUING Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 17, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 4/16/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Scott A. Entin−fee paid # 3382410 filed by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 187 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
188 ORDER GRANTING 187 Application for Admission of Scott A. Entin Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/6/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2006) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
189 STIPULATION of Dismissal (JOINT) OF PLAINTIFF LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
190 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ENLARGE TIME OF CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES by US EEOC. (White−Dunston, Erica) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
191 ORDER GRANTING 190 Stipulation and Order to Continue Supplemental Case Management Conference and to Enlarge Time of Case Management Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
192 ORDER GRANTING 189 Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Luis Pocasangre Cardoza's Claims wiht Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 9, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 09:00 AM. Class Certification Hearing set for 8/3/2007 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
193 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/17/2006) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
194 ORDER Granting 193 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement / Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/18/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2006. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 21 of 25

04/25/2006
04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/05/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/11/2006
05/16/2006 05/19/2006
05/19/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/28/2006

195 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT/STATUS REPORT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proof of Service)(Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
196 ORDER GRANTING 195 Stipulation Concerning Filing of Case Management Conference Statement/Status Report. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 25, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 5/12/2006 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
197 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS JONES' AND AVALOS' TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 CLAIMS AND EEOC INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF AVALOS' STATE LAW CLAIMS, AND STAY OF PLAINTIFF RAMIREZ' CLAIMS PENDING ARBITRATION by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Stipulated [Proposed] Order of Consolidation# 2 Exhibit B −− Stipulated [Proposed] Consolidated Discovery and Scheduling Order# 3 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
198 ORDER GRANTING 197 Stipulation Regarding Transfer of Plaintiffs Jones' and Avalos' Title VII and Section 1981 Claims and EEOC Intervention Complaint to the Eastern District of Michigan and Dismissal of Plaintiff Avalos' State Law Claims, and Stay of Plaintiff Ramirez' Claims Pending Arbitration. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 11, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
Case Stayed (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
199 Sent certified copy of order and docket sheet to USDC−Eastern Michigan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
200 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
201 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 200 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/16/06. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2006) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
202 STIPULATION −− STIPULATED [PROPOSED] CONSOLIDATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, Blanca Nelly Avalos, Anthony Jones, James Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Legenza, Sharon) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
203 ORDER GRANTING 202 Stipulated Consolidated Confidentiality Agreement and Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 19, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
204 ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORTS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 24, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2006) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
205 Receipt from USDC−Michigan (Eastern). (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2006) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
206 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Robert Ramirez. (Strauss, Paul) (Filed on 6/28/2006) (Entered: 06/28/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 22 of 25

09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006
09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006

207 Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
208 > EXHIBIT A TO PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Cintas Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
210 Declaration in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CINTAS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byCintas Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "M" (BOUND VOLUME 1 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 2 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "N" THROUGH "P" (BOUND VOLUME 2 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD# 3 Exhibit MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR EXHIBITS "Q" THROUGH "X" (BOUND VOLUME 3 OF 3) TO THE DECLARATION OF PAUL GROSSMAN IN SUPPORT OF CINTAS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD)(Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2006 (hdj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
211 Declaration of STEVEN CHRISTERSON in Support of 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 209 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
212 Proposed Order re 209 MOTION to Vacate 207 MOTION to Vacate [Petition to Vacate] Arbitration Award (9 U.S.C. Section 10) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
213 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE on Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 15, 2006. (jswlc3, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
214 EXHIBITS A−M re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
215 EXHIBITS N−P re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
216 EXHIBITS Q−X re 210 Declaration in Support filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 210 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
217 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cintas Corporation re 215 Exhibits, 214 Exhibits, 216 Exhibits (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 23 of 25

10/13/2006 10/24/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006 11/22/2006 02/28/2007 06/27/2007 10/25/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007
10/30/2007
11/02/2007 11/08/2007

218 MEMORANDUM in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD filed byRobert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
219 Brief Plaintiffs' Motion To File Additional Authority In Support Of Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Clarifying Clause Construction Award)(Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/24/2006) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
220 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed byCintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
221 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/27/2006) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
222 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White DENYING 207 , 209 Petition and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
223 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by James Morgan. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
224 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties re Status of the Claims on which Arbitration was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
225 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
226 NOTICE by Robert Ramirez Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Robert Ramirez. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
228 Declaration of Roberta L. Steele in Support of 227 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Motion, Unopposed Motion To Approve Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks Individual And Class Claims And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 227 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
229 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Plaintiff Coretta Vicks (Aka Coretta Silvers) Individual Claims With Prejudice And Her Putative Class Claim On Behalf Of Current And Former African American Non−Exempt Employees (Except SSRs) With Respect To Pay Without Prejudice And [Proposed] Order by Robert Ramirez. (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
230 ORDER re Unopposed Motion to Approve Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Individual Claims and Class Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 2, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
231 EXHIBITS re 230 Order First Amended Confidential Settlement Agreement [FILED UNDER SEAL] filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration Of Roberta L. Steele# 2 Exhibit A) Copies of news articles and press releases# 3 Exhibit B) Legal claims against Cintas grow to add more plaintiffs and charges of gender discrimination# 4 Exhibit C) Pamphlet "The 'spirit' is the problem; Systemic Racial &Gender Discrimination At Cintas)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Steele, Roberta) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 24 of 25

11/08/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 02/22/2008 06/20/2008 10/17/2008 02/18/2009 03/02/2009
03/02/2009
03/02/2009
03/02/2009
03/02/2009

232 (UNDER SEAL) First Amended Confidential SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Jose Salcedo, A. Shapelle Thompson, Coretta Vick, Robert Ramirez, James Morgan. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
233 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 11, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2007) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
234 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/14/2007 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 12/14/2007). (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
235 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 227 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
236 ORDER GRANTING 229 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Coretta Vick's Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 14, 2007. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
237 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ON WHICH ARBITRATION WAS COMPELLED by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 2/22/2008) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
238 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Completed by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 6/20/2008) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
239 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled by James Morgan. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
240 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Status Report Of The Parties Regarding The Status Of The Claims On Which Arbitration Was Compelled filed by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 2/18/2009) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
241 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Notice Of Unopposed Motion And Motion For Approval Of Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, Of Putative Class Claims Of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, And A. Shappelle Thompson by Robert Ramirez (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
242 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Unopposed Motion And Motion For Approval Of Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, Of Putative Class Claims Of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, And A. Shappelle Thompson filed by Robert Ramirez. Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
243 Brief re 242 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Unopposed Motion And Motion For Approval Of Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, Of Putative Class Claims Of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, And A. Sha filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 242 ) (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
244 Declaration of Heather M. Mills in Support of 243 Brief, Unopposed Motion To Approve Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, Of Putative Class Claims Of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, And A. Shappelle Thompson filed byRobert Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 243 ) (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
245 Statement of Non−Opposition re 241 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Defendant Cintas Corporation's Statement of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Approve Dismissal, Without Prejudice and Without Notice, of Putative Class Claims of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, and A. Shappelle Thompson filed byCintas Corporation. (Related document(s) 241 ) (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered:

Case: 3:04-cv-00281-JSW As of: 07/15/2010 05:42 PM PDT 25 of 25

03/02/2009
03/18/2009 04/02/2009
04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 06/19/2009 09/25/2009 01/28/2010 01/28/2010

03/02/2009)
246 STIPULATION re 243 Brief, JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSONS INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND HIS PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN CURRENT AND FORMER AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Robert Ramirez. (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
247 ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/18/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2009) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
248 Brief re 242 MOTION to Dismiss Notice Of Unopposed Motion And Motion For Approval Of Dismissal, Without Prejudice And Without Notice, Of Putative Class Claims Of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, And A. Sha Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Unopposed Motion to Approve Dismissal, Without Prejudice and Without Notice, of Putative Class Claims of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo, Larry Houston, Clifton E. Cooper, James Morgan, and A. Shappelle Thompson filed byRobert Ramirez. (Related document(s) 242 ) (Mills, Heather) (Filed on 4/2/2009) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
249 ORDER GRANTING 246 Stipulation to Dismiss Plaintiff Thompson's Individual and Putative Class Claims. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on Aprik 3, 2009. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
250 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 242 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Putative Class Claims. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
251 RESPONSE to re 247 Order Cintas Corporation's Response to Request for Supplemental Briefing on Dismissal Without Prejudice and Without Notice, of Putative Class Claims by Cintas Corporation. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
252 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties Regarding the Status of the Claims on Which Arbitration Was Compelled by Robert Ramirez. (Jaramillo, Joseph) (Filed on 6/19/2009) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
253 ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 25, 2009. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
254 STIPULATION −− JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Cintas Corporation, James Morgan, Robert Ramirez, Jose Salcedo. (Abell, Nancy) (Filed on 1/28/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
255 ORDER GRANTING (42 in 3:05−cv−03145−JSW) Stipulation OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, (254 in 3:04−cv−00281−JSW) Stipulation OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/28/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)