• • \~,,\\.~ Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 1 of 24

rc- ,. ,-" "".., ".•'"" r" .'"

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 't\~§:~.~" ,\).)~b.

' J ,._•. , I,,;'....

0'.,; ,-', I !,! r' I ~

r ,. FOR TIlE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

' \ '!>

EASTERN DIVISION

f,.,\-'O

, r

:,: 'MELVIN'Bf\I{!'IES and

)

TRACY STEELE, on

)

behllif of themselves lind all other black )

persons simillirly sitnated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,
~

)

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

)
)

JUDGE l)\GEL

CANADIAN NATIONAL/ILLINOIS )

CENTRAl, RAILROAD a/k/ll

)

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD

)

COMPANY,

)

MAG/STHATE JUu''''(...;',[:'~' j'"'JJ'\.~~",.JlV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION

NATURE Ol<'THIS ACTION

I. This action is brought by Melvin Barnes and Tracy Steele (hereinafter "Barnes" and

"Steele" or "Plaintiffs), two African-American employees of Canadian National/Illinois Central

Railroad a/k/a Illinois Central Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "CN" or "Defendant").

Barnes ,md Steele bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to them.

2. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant has engaged in a systemic

pattern and practice of racial discrimination in employment opportunities and that such conduct is

unlawful under Title VII oflhe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as anlended, 42 U.S.c. § J981 & &1981(A). The Plaintiffs liJrthcr

seck a pemlanent injunction and other equitable relief necessary to eliminate the effects of the

Defendant's past and present racial discI1nljnation aJId hostile work environment, and prevent such

discrimination from continuing to adversely affect their lives and careers in the future, including but

I /{

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 2 of 24

nol limited 10, affirnlalivc restructuring of the Defendant's selection and lraining procedures, el imination ofthe hostile work environmenl in which they have been forced to work, implemcntation of equitable relieCto include dec\aral()[y and injunctive relief, reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs further seek backpay, other equitable remedies and damages neccssary to make them and the members of the class whole. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343(3) and (4), and 2201 and 2202. This is a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Act of Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as anlendcd by the "Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the "Civil Rights Act of1866," 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a).
4. Venue is proper in the Northern District oflllinois under 28 U.S.c. § 1391 (B) & (e) because CN has offices here, maintains personnel records here, and engages in or ratifies illegal conduct here, adversely affecting the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class. PROCEDURAL lIISTORY
5. Plaintiff Banles has fullilled all conditions precedent to the institution oflhis action under the Act of Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.c. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the "Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the "Civil Rights Act of J866," 42 U.S.c. § J981 and 1981 (a). Barnes filed his charge ofdiscrimination within 300-days ofthe last discriminatory act. (See Ex. A, Barnes EEOC Charge). Bames has also lilcd his lawsuit within 90-days ofreceiving his
notice or right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See Ex. B, Barnes'
Notice ofRightto Sue). Barnes' claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion.

2

,

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 3 of 24

6. Plaintiff Steele has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action under the Act of Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the "Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the "Civil Rights Act of 1866," 42 U.S.C. ~ 1981 and 1981 (a). Steele tlled his charge ofdiscrimination within 300-days ofthe last discriminatory act. (See Ex. C, Steele EEOC Charge). Steele has also filed his lawsuit within 90-days ofreceiving his notice ofright to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See Ex. D, Steele Notice of Right to Sue). Steele's claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion. PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFFS 7. Plaintiff Barnes is an African-American citizen of the United States and a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Barnes has worked for CN from 1970 to the present. Barnes is currently employed as a Canllan. At all times material to this action, Barnes has been employed at the Defendant's facility in Markham, Illinois. 8. Steele is an African-American citizen ofthe United States and a resident of Cook County Illinois. Steel has worked for CN from 1997 to the present. Steele is currently employed as a Call11an. At all time material to thi~ action, Steele has been employed at the Defendant's filcility in Chicago, Illinois. B. Defendant 9. CN is a corporation authorized to do business in the Northem District of 1l1inois, Eastern Division, and at all times material to this action, has engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce. The Defendant is an entity subject to suit Ullder Title VII of the "Civil Rights

3

,

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 4 of 24

Act of 1964," as amended, 42 U,S,C. § 2000 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. At all times material to this action, the Defendant has employed fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. CLASS ALLEGA'fIONS
A. CLASS DEFINITION 10. The named Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-American employees of CN. The named Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent. That class consists of current, former, and future African-American employees of CN who, from approximately September 25, 2002 to the present, have been subjected to one or morc aspects of the systemic racial discrimination described in this Complaint. 8. COMMON OUESTIONS OF I..AW AND FACT II. The prosecution of the claims of the named Plaintiffs will require adjudication of questions common to the putative class, such as whether the Defendant has engaged in systemic racial disclimination in its selection procedures with regards to promotions, training, hostile work environment and other terms and conditions of employment in a manner made unlawful by the statutes under which this action is brought. Tbe claims of the named Plaintiffs are embedded in common questions of law and fact because the Defendant has: (I) prevented tbem from learning about or competing for supervisory and/or managerial positions traditionally held by white employees; (2) precluded or delayed their selection for suehjobs; (3) channeled and segregated them into jobs traditionally held by African-Americans; (4) denied them training that would have prepared them for these higher and better paying supervisory/managerial positions; and (5) required them to

4

"

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 5 of 24

work in il hostile work envirorunent.
12. The Defendant's procedures challcnged herein, as well as the other systemic policies
and practices that make up these procedures, are dctennined at the corporate level ofthe Defendant's operations and do not vary significantly from one geographical location to another. The employment policies, practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint are not unique or limited to one geographical area, but ratl1er affect the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class in the same way throughout the Defendant's operations.
C, TYPICALITY OF CLAIMS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 13. The systemic racial discrimination challenged in this Complaint has affected, and continues to affect, both the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent in the same way as they have been forced to work in a hostile work enviromnent and have been denied promotions to supervisory and/or managerial positions, training, and other benefits which has, and continues to affect their compensation. Moreover, CN's discriminatory selection policies, practices and procedures have deprived, and continues to deprive, African·American employees ofthe opportunity (0 he supervised and work with people of (heir own race who would have been supervisors in tl1e absence of such discrimination, 14, CN has failed to create adequate incentives for its managerial/supervisory workforce to comply with equal employment opportunity laws regarding each of the policies, practices and procedures described in this Complaint and has failed to discipline adequately its managers and other supervisory employees for violation of these laws, 15. The claims of the named Plaintiffs and tl1e relief necessary (0 remedy the claims of the named Plaintiffs are the same as the claims ofthe putative class members and (he rcliefnecessary

5

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 6 of 24

to remedy these claims. The named Plainti ITs seek the following relief for their individual claims and the claims of the putative class: (1) a declaratory judgment that the Defendant has engaged in systenlic racial discrimination by requiring its African-Atnerican employees to work in a hostile work environment and limiting the employment opportunities ofAfrican-Americans to lower paying and less desirable positions and providing them with unequal training opportnnities; (2) a permanent injunction against such continuing discrimination; (3) a restructuring of the Defendant's selection and training procedures so that African-Americans are able to learn about, train for and fairly compete in the future for higher and bctter paying positions traditionally enjoyed by white emp loyees; (4) a restrncturing 0 f the De fendant' s workforce so that African-Americans are assigned to the better and higher paying positions, locations and compensation levels that they would have held in the absence of the Defendant'S past racial discrimination; (5) elimination of the hostile working environment; (6) the implementation of a non-discriminatory posting and bidding procedure; and (7) damages, back pay and other equitable remedies necessary to make the named Plaintiffs and putative class members whole from Defendant's past discrimination.
O. NUMEROSITY AND IMPRACTICABILITY OF JOINDER 16. The class thal the named Plaintiffs seek to represent is too numerous to make joinder practicable. The proposed class consists of hundreds of former, current, and future AfricanAmerican employees who either have been, or will be, employed by eN. E. ADEOUACY OF REPRESENTATION 17. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class inasmuch as they are broadly representative, as reflected in the preceding paragraphs. There are no conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class as each

6

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 7 of 24

would benefit similarly from the imposition ofa remedy for the discriminatory employment practices challenged in this Complaint. The named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in litigating major class actions in the field of employment discrimination, who are prepared and able to meet the time and fiscal demands of class action litigation of this size and complexity. The combined interests, experience, and resources ofthe named Plaintiffs and their counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claims of race-based employment discrimination at issue satisfy the adequacy ofrepresentation requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).
F. EFl<"ICTENCY OF CLASS PROSECUTION 01<' COMMON CLAIMS 18. Certification ora class ofsimilarly-situated African-American individuals is the most efficient and economical means ofresolving the questions oflaw and fact that arc common to the individual claims ofthe nanwd Plaintiffs and the proposed class. The individual claims ofthe nanled Plaintiffs require resolution ofthe common qnestion ofwhether Defendant has engaged in a systemic pattcm and practice of racial discrimination against African-American individuals. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be snbject to re-litigation in a multitude of" individnallawsnits with an attendant risk of ineonsistent adjndications and conflicting obligations. Certification of the class of African-American employees adversely affected by the common questions of law and fact sel forth in this Complaint is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments nccessary to resolve such qucstions for the named Plaintiffs, the class and the Defendan\. The named Plainli fTs' individual and class claims arc premised upon the traditional bi furcated method ofproofand trial for systemic disparate treatment claims ofthc type at issue in this complaint. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common issues.

7

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 8 of 24

G. CERTIFICATION IS SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIY. P. 23(h)(2} 19. eN has acted on grounds generally applicable to the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class by adopting and following systemic practices and procedures that are racially discriminatory. Racial discrimination is CN's standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic OCCUlTenco. eN has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by: (1) refusing to adopt or follow selection procedures for promotions and training which do not systemically discriminate against African·American individuals; and (2) refusing to provide a non·disctiminatory work environment and other equal terms and conditions of work to Afriean·American employees. eN's systemic discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are not racially discriminatory have made appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 20. The inj unctive and declaratory relief are the predominate reliefs sought in this case hecause they arc both the cumulation of the proof of the Defendant's individual and class·wide liability althe end of Stage I of a bifurcaled trial and the essential predicate for the named Plaintiffs' and class members' entitlement to monetary and non·monetary remedies at Stage II of such a trial. Declaratory and injunctive relief flow directly and automatically from proof of the common questions oflaw and fact regarding the existence of systemic racial discrimination against Aliican· Amcrican employees. Such relicfis the factual and legal predicate for the named Plaintiffs and the class members' entitlemcnt to monetary and non·monctary remedies for individual losses caused by such systemic discri.mination. H. CERTIFICATION IS SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) 21. The common issues offact and law affecting the claims ofthe named Plaintiffs and proposed class members, including but not limited to, the common issues identified in paragraphs

8

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 9 of 24

1-20 above, predominate over any issues affecting only individnal claims. 22. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and emcient
adjudication of the claims orthe named Plaintiffs and members ofthe proposed class. 23. The cost of proving the Defendant's pattern and practice of discrimination makes it
impracticable for the named Plaintiffs and members ofthe proposed class to control the prosecution or their claims individually.
24. The named Plaintiffs are unaware orany pending class action race discrimination lawsuit brought against the Defendant and the Northern District of lllinois is the most logical forum in which to litigate the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class in this case because the Del"cndant's North American Corporate Office is here. COMMON ALLEGATIONS
25. Plaintiff Melvin Barnes has been, and continues to be, adversely affected by the challenged systemic pattern and practice ofracial discrimination with regards to working in a hostile work environment and selection decisions lor promotions, training and other terms and conditions of employment. This pattern and practice ofracial discrimination has adversely affected Barnes by requiring him to work in a hostile work environment; by denying him the opportunity to work in an integrated environment in which African-American employees hold supervisory/managerial positions; by not being considered ior job classi lications traditionally held by white employees at CN; and by being denied training regularly provided to white employees.
20. CN has continually failed to notify, post or make readily accessible to its AfricanAmerican employees job announcements for all positions that might lead to promotions andlor advancement to higher and better paying positions.

9

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

Filed 02/18/2004

•Page 10 of 24

27. In mid~2002, Ron Haney, a white employee with less seniority and quali Ilcations than Barnes was given a Relief Foreman position without any notice being given to Barnes or any other Afi-ican~American employee. Barnes was bctter qua/i fled than Haney fOf tbis position and had he known of its existence, he would have applied for it. Similarly, in September of 2003, Mike Smith, another less senior and less qualified white employee, was given a Foreman's position without notice being given to Barnes or any other African-American employee. Barnes was also bctter qualified than Smith for this position and had he known ofits existcnce he would have applied for it. This second position was located in the Defendant's Champagne/Decatur yards which has very (cw, if any, African-Americans in supervisory.
28. Despite over thirty years of experience, Barnes is not considered for temporary
assignments to supervisory positions at CN. In September of2003, Barnes' foreman was assigned
to train Mike Smith, a white employee, for seven weeks at Defendant's Champagne, Tllinois yard. This cre<lted a vacant foreman position at Defendant's Markham, lliinois yard, where Barnes worked. The general foreman, who is white, placed Greg Pazour, another white male employee, into the position without posting it for bid. Pazour is less senior and less qualified than Barnes. Notice of (his temporary vacancy was not given to Barnes or any other African-American cmployee ofCN. Had this position been posted, Barnes would have applied for it, as it would have enhanced his experience and added to his qualifications.
29. CN has additionally denied Barnes and other African-American employees training oppottunities regularly atTorded to similarly situated white employees. These training opportunities enhance an employee's ability to be considered for positions of greater pay, responsibility and authority.

10

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 11 of 24

30. In September of 2003, Tony Switzer, a white supervisor, selected only white enlp loyees to attend a training session regarding a new air-brake system. The denial of opportuni lies to train on all aspects of equipment is detrimental to an employee's prospects for promotion in that an employee must be knowledgeable regarding all equipment in his department to be considered for any supervisory positions that could become available.
31. Barnes has continually experienced racial harassment and/or racial intimidation at eN. During the course of his employment he has heard the words "nigger", "porch monkey" and other racially demeaning language. Bames has also had to witness other African-Americans being subjected to racial slurs.
32. As a result of eN's hostile environment and discriminatory practices, Barnes has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme harm.
33. Plaintiff Tracy Steele has been, and continues, to be adversely affected by the challenged systemic pallern and practice ofracial discrimination, the hostile work environment and discriminatory selection decisions for promotions, training and other terms and conditions of employment. This pattern and practice of racial discrimination has adversely affected Steele by requiring him to work in a hostile environment; by denying him the opportunity to work in an integrated environment in which African-American employees hold supervisory/managerial positions; by not being considered for job classi fications traditionally held by white employees at eN; and by being denied training regularly provided to white employees.
34. eN has continually failed to notify, post or make readily accessible to its AfricanAmerican employees job announcements for all positions that might lead to promotions and/or advancement to higher and better paying positions.

11

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 12 of 24

35. In mid-2000, the general foreman ofthe mechanical department resigned his position
and Steele was asked ir he was interested in temporarily filling this vacancy. Steele aecep(ed the
position and was trained for approximately one-day. Steele performed the duties of this position until he was replaced by Johnny Kovaleski, a white male, who was given the position on a pemlanent basis. Kovaleski is less senior and less qualified than Steele. Neither Steel nor any other African-American employees were given notice that the Defendant was looking to fill (his position on a pel1nanent basis.
36. In mid 2001, Johnny Kovaleski was demoted and, again without notice being given, Tony Switzer, another white employee, was given the general foreman's position. Prior (0 Switzer receiving (his position, Steele had expressed a desire to be made aware of any such vacancies in his department on several occasions. Moreover, when Switzer became general foreman, he immediately awarded (he mechanical foreman's position to Billy Baisden, another white employee with less seniority and less qualifications than Steele_
37. Steel complained to management about the abovementioned incidents and was subsequently assigned to another location where he received some foreman's training. In September 2003, Steele was working as a relief foreman, when a foreman's position again became available. The position was not posted. Steele became aware of its existence anyway because he had worked as a relief foreman under the incumbent who was leaving. Steele applied fOT the position by submitting a resume and speaking with senior management about the position. Steele was informed by senior management that the position would he awarded based on qualifications and not seniority. The position was awarded to Roy Talman, a white employee with no experience as a foreman. Steele was better qualified and had more experience as a foreman than Talman when Talman was

12

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 13 of 24

awarded this position. In late September or carly October 2003, Talman was demoted for poor perfonnance.
38. In September of 2003, Tony Switzer, a white supervisor, selected only white employees to attend a training session regarding a new air-brake system. The denial of opportunities to train on all aspects of equipment is detrilllental to an employee's prospects for promotion in that an employee must he knowledgeable regarding all equipment in his department to be considered lar any sllpcrvisory positions that could become available.
39. Steele has continually experienced racial harassment andlorracial intimidation at CN. During the course ofhis employment he has heard the word "nigger"and other racially demeaning language. Steele has also had to witness other African-Americans being subjected to racial slurs_ Steele has been subjected to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment.
40. As a result of CN's hostile environment and discriminatory practices, Steele has sllilcred and will continue to suffer extreme harm. COUNT ONE
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.c. § 2000 et seq.
41. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 40, above as part of this Count of the Complaint.
42. CN has discriminated against the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent with regards to a hostile work environment, promotions, training, and other terms and conditions of
employment because of their race, in violation of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42
U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act ofl99J. 43. eN's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with disregard

\3

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 14 of 24

of the rights of Plaintiffs and members orthe proposed class. 44. By reason ofCN's discriminatory employment practices, the named Plaintiffs and the
proposed class members have experienced extreme harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other employment benefits, and, as such, are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under § 2000. COUNT TWO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 01<' 1866, 42 U.S.c. § 1981
45. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 44, above as part ofthis Count ofthe Complaint.
46. CN has discriminated against the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent with regards to a hostile work environment, promotions, training, and other tCrulS and conditions of employment hecause oftheirracc, in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of1866, 42 U.S.c. § 1981 and 1981(a).
47. CN's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and members ofthe proposed class.
48. By reason ofCN's discriminatory employment practices, the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have experienced extreme harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other employment benefits, and, as such, are entitled to alllegal and equitable remedies available under Section 1981. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class they seck

14

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 15 of 24

to represent, request the following relief: I. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; 2. Certification ofthe case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3) on behalfofthe proposed plaintilTclass, and designation oI'the named Plaintiffs as representatives ofthe proposed class and their counsel of record as class counscl;
3. A declaratory judgment that the employment practices challenged herein are illegal and a violation of the rights secured to nanled Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class;
4. A preliminary and pemlanent injunction against the Defendant and their partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, and racial discrimination as set forth herein;
5. An Order requiring the Defendant to initiate and implement programs that (i) provide equal employment opportunities and a non-hostile work environment for African-American employees; (ii) remedy the effects of the Defendant's past and present unlawful employment practices; and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory practices described herein above;
6. An Order requiring the Defendant to initiate and implement systems for the posting and bidding ofjobs and for the assigning, training, transferring, and promoting ofAfrican American employees to higher and better paying positions in a non-discriminatory manner;
7. An Order placing or restoring the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent into those jobs they should now be occupying but for the Defendant's discriminatory practices;

15

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 16 of 24

8. An Order directing the Defendant to adjust the wage rates and benefits for the named Plaintiffs and tlw class they seck to represent to the level that they should be enjoying bLlt for the Defendant's discliminatory practices;
9. An award of back pay; front pay; lost benefits; preferential rights to jobs; damages for lost compensation and job benefits suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent;
10. An Order requiring the Defendant to make the named Plaintiffs; and the class they seek to represent whole by awarding them back pay (plus interest), compensatory, punitive, liqLlidatcd, amVor nominal damages;
11. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members;
12. Prejudgment interest; and 13. Sl~ch other and turther relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury, pLlrsuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules or Civil Procedure, of all issues so triable.

Geneva, IL 013 (630) 232-4 (630) 232·8265 FAX
16

J

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 17 of 24

Robert M. Footc Attorney for thc Plaintiffs Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC 416 S. Second St, Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232~6333 (630) 845~8982 FAX

William E. Ready Attorney for the Plaintiffs Ready & Associates P.O. Box 827 517 23rd Ave. Meridian, MS 39302~0827 (601) 693~8678 (601) 693~ 1485FAX
Robert F. Childs Roderick T. Cooks Ben Degweck Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Wiggins, Childs, Quin & Pantazis 1400 South Tntst Tower 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 328-0640 (205) 254-1500 FAX

17

~~b-13-04Cas1e21:4:004P-cv-01249 Document 1

Filed 02/18/2004

Page 18 of 24

P.03

AGENCY CHARGE NlIMBElO

:;: ':'L~l-m 1 . Itt't:t::~~d b\' t.h~ ~':,j":!I:'y J\t:1. C',!" 1~7"; See f'T~'\f;'I'~V }\(:l St~\ll2mo:'n";. !;)4 ld lr:~l this fC'rm.

Iq·;p.a,
.1L f.;t-;IJ~;

and EEOC

JWuRUS

t: - "5,,, NUHSr.R OF' EMPJrOYEES t Mh~'RS TELJ:,PHONE (Inelude Are;:" C":(1\'!"":

M<Jr. \~"'um 100

'"1 r, '/;y) -

9-.

ClTY, STATE ~O tl~ con~

1-141 (fJr.·OJ, I L

( I n d \ld9 A"If~ t~!"I1'I1": I
-70g JI':)'; -ft;.v0d-.

_SEX _lU!LlGION _'HSABI LI T'I

ACT10N

Ie/eN ha5 (:()rI8i~'t:.ently failed t:o noti fy ~nd/o.t IN!lke .iiVilj lable t by po:ettngs in an Io<,c'"55ibl.e pl.Qcti for me .and other AfIican J\tneriol!1In e1't'lPloyee~, any a.nd all position", ~u.rt"Prntly
t. and avaiJ.a,bltt.
2. Ie/CN has denied rol=!: and ot:her African 1\met1eanloi oppox:tunititCS {oJ:' equa.l and compet.tmt ra.,1ning, :9uch as wh1r.~ employees get foX' the S~~ jobs. Wh~n t.t~ininq is bvn.1la.hle to black
loyees" t.he teacher:!! Ilr$ disinterestl(d:U and uncoop~["ative and, oft-at· t::ompletion,. employees
gAigned to diffct'CI:nt job withjn 4. ~ho.rt t.inu:!.
J. Sin~~ the beginning of my employment with Ie/eN, I have b~en, and continu~ to be,
I."""<~~~M' to 6uch CO'l"l~l.ant and oppres,ive; supervision t.hBt 1 have to be cOr1?StAntly on guard the llppell)"l:Ince of conduct that CD\Jld be- 1nt.~t:'preted as a basis. for discjpl.ina Q;I:
scharga, whil~ wh1~e employees are allow~d lo break rul~~ and requJation with no fear of
·~ciplin~d or dischar9~d.
4. Ie/eN has denied m@ and other AtTlcA~n Americans oppo.rtunit:1.e.s to transfet" t.O ).)t.tter baevina jobs by Withholdjnq O,t" fal11ng to adve~·tjn., job.3 with hettel.:r poy .!nd c.onditions ~ thCil5l~
are not J)o.a1:ed tor bid ba.5eeJ orl seniority b"U\. .are given to mostly wh.1.t~ "'new hires·1 ;
c:-mployee.s or ttlf~i:t" fcun1..ly. Thi5 prac~t"i.mJl ha~ been ongoin9 5in!::~ 'r began wo:r;kino for the ilI·oad and -c:orl't.1nu~s to thi.~ diSY.

""'.III.;. Ihj~ charql.i! f11'·'1"1 .....itt. bOot. I! Ihr: 1;.;1;;(')('; .,,~j I hI!' ::':'tat~ Ill·
: 11 "r;~I1';::Yt 11 .-Illy. I '0111 \ ,:vv,i,~( 't"'Jtlt ,lql.!:lcicos if r (.;tum,.,
" Ijr t"!l~phoIH" IIm"b't.' ..' ~I'ld (:C,tlpCriilltlil ,,,Iiv 1It'1't.h T.II~~II j"l
R1rl ll rd m.y .:=hl!lr(~f;: i r\ .uCI~Q,rI,;UII'II'~t~ wlth thel,· P{·o~.:!;;<;i1.U,·fr'

NQTl\ftl (~'I'.*I ••lt~r:r'~;';ilI"y ::cr ~i'all' ~\rl~ I-~t:=al IH,(;ui'·"m,',;,t.,

.-w.,lr •• 1' ~I

rm

·IV,"

'hut i t :18 ,: I~!~ lr,1 th .. bfr:!':t.

ana tl~11 If,'r.

. I ~I

<, .
A

Ff'!b-~~-;4c:a:.~:O:hat Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 19 of 24

P.04

•

'nlscriminl:lte

8g," nst

ll.'i.~-rih"ilaS n dAi smcer.ir.m:icianna teemdp, l

dO.OW oyees in

i

and ts

cuc~otnotmifniurey s

to policies

~nd procedurc~ ilnd their application to such employees, indivioually and as a

'.class gener<llly finO particulat'ly with respect to assignments, transiers,

promotions and demotions, application, testing and performance standards,

evaluation and ..nforcement, hostile work environment, notice and opportUnity for

beneficial allerations and Changes in employment positions and conditions and

other actions and omissjon~ I.n violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

as amended and other United States Statutes. The discriminatory policies and

practice of Respondent have discour-aged 1\frican Arneric:ans trom seeking movement

to better and higher- paying jobs, R@spondent's conduct is continuous in nature

and is pa£t of the pattern and pr~cticeB which has resulted in both disparate

treatment lInd impact against me and similarly situated jndividual~.

6. Also th@ IC/CN has, by satd action:; and/or: omi5si.ons, Violated my rights under 42 U.S.C. Soctjon 1981 et seq. I charge that Ie/eN ha~, pursuant tu long standing and continuing customary policies and practices, in relation to me and other such employees, deni~i to me equal rights to and under Contract as
held and util i Zed by white cl tizens.

F~b-13-0C4aselZ1,:0440-Pcv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 20 of 24

P.05

EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPFORTUNllY COM MISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
Iissued on ",qUilt)

1!1I2~ Mo",hficld lIa..><y IL 6041~

o

C ••Un.d, 1001 03(.0 ()OQO 0463 2Hl~ CI' Ally. Oil iI,·lra'!iifa l'I~".ifl/J (lgWi(''IIf'd H:hr1.f l'l jllfll~I;'JI Ii C(nt/n/)F~"fH{.

(}9 c.r~N, MIN 7ft,,)

From:
Equal f.n.ploymenl Opportunity Commi••ion
500 W""I Modl,oll Sui Ie 11100 Chic.~o, III;".;. 110M1

( Sec the additiDnal infotmslion Httnched to this form)

nit: sur:.. TO

rJ'.RSON AtaaUF.VJ.Il: Thi:-; i!i your-NOTTer at' ItHil !TTO

It is i:!isued <It yom" rC'lut'~.lrYI~1I inh.:n<.i tu "u~ In!!: r~"rHH'lUcnt(:-I)

",,,,,,,,1 in you, cilorp'. YOI.! MI.lST DO SO WITHIN NI~I'TY ('Ifl) nAYS OF YOIIR Rr.C~II''I' OF TillS NOTICE: OTIIERW1S~ YOl!11

RIGHT TO Sill, IS LOST.
o MOI'C Llliln 180 dilY:-i h.v':- c.~rirlid :;:incc 11l~ Hlillg tlf Ihi~ c:har~.
m I ,e~~ tlllm 180 Ui.I)':;; hilvl: ,"x~ircd !<>jn\.~t tll~ Hlil'1g oflhis chilrge, hull ~~C d~~C"UljI1~\J thl\l Ih~ cnmmiS5iuIl will he unahle lo(.umplc[c um il5 pfOCCS.';; wilhin do.y,1I1. ftlltfl Lh" l1Iil\(t orlhe ,hurgc.

I T ] Wilh Ih,~ i~...~,umcc .11" Ihi~ N<HI(:I'", (IF RIGH r T() S( Ir:" lhc Coml1\j~sil," i'j H~rmjl\Dotill~ il.~ prucc,"Ij:tj with re5pl,;~II~1 thi~ ch;lrv.e,

C J 11 ha... hc~n dClc"nlilh~d Ihlllthe COlnlni!'~ilU"l wilJ continuc= '~1 in"~:.;IiAa~c: ),rulf I.:hI't1'£.tC.
C J AOI',,\; While TlU~ vn unt! 1M ADA reljuirc EhOC ttl is~uc Ihi!> nMiC'~ Ilr~illlht In I;U¢ IIl!:l'ur(! you ~Gn brillr II luwsuil you Illil}" :,;u~
lmd~1' Ihe: Age Di~c.fiU1inlltiQn in 1:"ml'luym~DII\c:t (AIutA) IIny tin~ hO dllrs afief your' chi\rgc wa<; filt:fJ Imlil 90 days afl.« )"IIJ,I nuived " ..tit. tllAt t;1'~OC h"lllt C'Dmplelt=d Hdion un YBur f:h"'TJ;II.

c : J n,c.ulM'" t:.l-:OC i5 ('Ioiin, yuur <;IUie. ~nul' IWW!oItlh I.lndc..r th~ AnEA must ht= hrou,II,hl within 'JO thY~ Or),(lllt tc..:dpl nftlli!li m""I!.\!. Olt'k,.wl~" )'L1ur ri~ht to ~1I~ i."i lust

C J EEor: Is rOJiUlluing its inveiliptinn, YO\I \~ill hI:' I1l)linC(I wll,!11 we nt-Wi:" ~L~mrlelcd action amI. irHpprolW'ia.h:. "l1lr notice will inclUde rtHlii,:\,: ufl'l~h' tn .:.:uc tinder tilt: An[A.

o

EPA: While Tille \iJf and 1'1.... AUA ,~quiRi ~EOC to i.'o.;;ue litis Notice: nfRi~ht til SUe' I-lli=fl'rc yO\1 CoIlI\ Irfiii¥" 100WS~li\' )'1111 ulrcM},

t"1l1vl.' thl.: ri~hlll~ !li:111; under the H~lIn\ Pal Act (EI'A) (Yuu BfC nl11 rr,:j,luir..:d ttl enl1lplai" 10 ilily eIlJon~cm~nt Oifa'lI;Y bl.:rorc. bl'i".u.il~~
n un EIII\ f.l~it ill ~:O\1l1J, \WA Sl1i1~ nlml ht: brought Wilhil\ 2 ycars yetlr;s fur willful vi!Jll\1iml~) ofUI~ ~Ilkw.;:d EPA url(.IcrpaylY\~nt.

Hn~losumil
lnthmllliion ~he~\ Copy Itf Ch3r!l~
B

F,eb-13-0C4as1e21::4014P-cv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 21 of 24 "

P,07

CHARGE

SCRIMlNATION

CIJARGt NUMIiER

i'ol-n~ If"; wt!,.I~'I.·d by t.IHI ~riva(":y f\-=t til 1!l71; ;'1:'1:" l':'11.!;!cy A(~-r: r-;1.O'l!.I'I~nt ~~ln'9' t.h\/: fornl.

and

HOMEWOOD, XL 60430

COOK

UlT£S:r
I I

AAE

e~tra.

leG (eN) ha~ con$l~tently tailed to nn

ana/or rnAkl!: ,J:vaj lallle J hoy postinq:; in .::10

~lace fd~ me and uth8r Atrican American empl()yees, any a.net. all p05.i.tion£ C1.u::rently vacant

:? 1<';(; (eN) h ..s "~nied me t'hllll! oppo:r-tunl'1:Y tor trllj,ning when I t~rainil!!'d tor III " .. lief !DI"eman'~ tor Ollila d.~y arid th~Jl the 5up_ril18or DelIDj,:oI <.:owyec stoiit.'t,d tI:aininq .. white employ(le with. h!:iI:!t
1'.'n:loriLy than my5e-lf~ (0.,. thlii! .r:t!lli@t torQm.n·:! "job. Thfli white trainer. VllS given tbtl! positign.
Since th~ bl(tgitU'l:i.nq .u£ JlI.Y emplOYlhlllot wi th lCQ, I have been ..nod conlinue to be made to tQiC!l 01:' t.Q whit.~ e-mplo'yCI:." !luch as when 1 lI~ked t.wo whit:e lead t:arm~n ",herQ II certain piec. of. ipm~ilnt. wa!, one of U1....f!'1 .repl~~d \!If I tuld you that r.h-en that_ W'ouliJ ntake you Sl'D4.t'tlllr thdn UJ3I-
4. I charQ'i& that leG ha", d..!:IIcriminat;.lI!!od, doe~ OQ\oi $nd l;'ontinu,,!1 to discri.LDinate agr.tinst .i.t! Amer1r.-.n eniployee! in its c::u~tO$ary po] i.c1C!t and pro~"durfd~ and "their applic:atl.Wl to such
.""",loy.~. I indi vidUtt.ll y a.nd a::J 8. cl ",.ss glilneral1y and p~:;t',ic\Jlarl y wi tn ~~~pect ty 1I!;!lignJl\ent~. , Pf¢lllot"_ions OIImJ demotions I .ftpplicatioJJ. test..i.ng and p~rf(jrma.nce !IIt:andards, eV'aluj9tion i:md
O"'",,.,,,,.t. nO!!lti le work etiV,1ronll'\ent, not;'e~ and 0PP0.l'\..unity for b.n'l!ticia] al te.r.t:ions and atuir~qe~ in
t::I(.\':'IJitiun~ and ctl.nr:iitiun, &U'ld other actions .ul.d O:rn1"~~ons in viQlat:ion of Ti.tle VII of the Right!! Act, .8 amendflui and oth~r 1]n.it.d ~tdte!l :3t.¥t:ut.e,s .
.5. Al:lllO tn~ ICG ha~, by ~aid ac:tion~ and/or omi,s,.sJ.ons, .....iol~ted my J;·.t'iJht3 untle.r 42 u.~.c . •",.-" ;~~ 1981 et =s.lP.Iq. 1 c:hi:uqe 1~h.~ leG haa l pur:Juant to long ~tandinq and t:=ontinuinq cU$tomary ppl
itJ I"IQ:1ation to lne and other :liUch. f::Implc;)Y.fII~. d~td ed. tt.,J me equal ri.Ctht.5 to .and und~r 48 held ~na u~ilizerl by white citi~~n5.
H,jk r:;-...~·'"iltl !.~l~d .....Jf.1! l;1och ! "",,,""V, i f ~j".~,. l"'~ J I .'~'1~z1"I~ th'!i! "''t,I!;.'nej~:;
,Ii:!lephcno;! n.IIIII.,.·~ and ':')i;'plllljj';e ~11.lly '''i\ \ II ~hf':tI; in ~If .IIY l~I'ldr\Je J n "(:I\~\(',jiil":'.' W11 tl th.fl:' ,. pr()r:~'~l~\J:ft\!

f-.: pen,'! I \ y
r

,Ill" 7.

c

, ~Qb-13-0C4as1e21::4014-Pcv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 22 of 24

P,OB

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
(I.oo""d on ",q uo••)

...., Tcp<y Sl<~l 514 Nn'Ih lIamlin ChICQgO. JL 611624

o

C.rWled: 70111 113611 noon 046328 IS (;1' Ally.
Otr Pt.'hQ(fr.tI II Mj'.f~;! tJg*"~Vj~J wlr()~{' im'nlity ',f {DNFflU;.\,11IlL

(}9 C.l-:H.. IMII.1(fJ}J

Fqua' !:;uoploym.nl O~~orlunll)' Conllni..inD SOli W••I M.dlson l>u;l< 2800 Chicagn, IIlinob 60661
Number

the additional inform8lioti ouach$d 10

TOTIIF.. PF,RSON AG(;RIF.VF.O: This jllj ynur NflT1Cr. OF RIG! rrT() SlJf. ,. i, isstu:d at YOlJr rec..pu:51. tfyou intend \11 }Out: Ih~r~~PQM~t(!1i)

)'Q'" ".",,,1 ;"

.hor~o. VOll MUST UO SO WITHIN NINt::TY I~II) IlA YS OF )'01111 Ill'.CUPT OF TillS NOTICE: OHIERWISii YOUR

RIOIIT TO sim IS LllST.

D
o
W

M\l~ llilln 180 da)'~ ha.\'~ I::xpin:d :iincc thl:: lilirlt ui" Ihb char~c.
1.l!s!' lh~n J80 di1)"~ II;I...·~~ \~"'Pjrl,,~d :-:.llu;~ ll,t=; rili"g Ofllli:,>cha.r~e. hv~ r hflV'~ dCICJ',ninll!;lllhHI ~hc Ctlmmi:o;:~iulJ \Viii ttc unil.bl~ It)~(un:plelc
illi: "ril~\!~~ within 180 day:,; I"nJlll Ihl; Olin. QI'lht clmrg!:,
Willi Ihe iSSllllnc:e IIf Ihi~ f'OnCL Ol~ A:1GH'j' TO SliE, Ih(: Cllmmi~s.ion iN h.ri'tljnil1jll~ it'i "ro,,~ss Wilh n.:::'op~!.:Ilv \hi~ char(I,C,

o

It I,i':-O hl;cn d~rel'nlinl'llllh41lIhc Commi:-;:-;il.)n will cun[inl.it!. III i"'.1..·.stij.!,ale ~Ilur I.;htlrgc.

o

4DEA: While 'I'ill~~ VII 811d the ,\f)A rcqull'" "':U)(: II' i.s~uc .his n,ll;c.e Ilrti~hll() ItUC th!/'i..ln: you elln bril)f. illuwsuit you may ~II~

'0 IlIIth,r Ihe Af!.!:. Di~,,;riu,in:ilion in El'llrl,'}'mcT1t Act (l\DEA) any lillie lin .JIIY~ ancr yout t.:hllrgc Wil." t1Ied Ilnlil d.)·s ..ftr.- yuu

t'tt(l:ivel' l10tiu (llll I':F.OC h• .f.: tonll,lcl.Ccl "dion on yftu.- ".ha....:e,

o

Itecau:u: [ro(: I!I clnling )'Gur tlllC"j ynill' IlIw!'itlil UJld':I'lli~ ADEA mus.t he hnHIj4hr willlin {m ~IQYs OiY,"!l.Jf ~ipl ",fthis

11111;1,:":. Othcrwi:>IC. YI,.WI· riAhlln ... IJI; i::;: IOSL

o t:~OC is I:t'iitinuifillt lu ;nvesti".Uon. Yl'lll will be' llotin~11 w'ht!n we I'ilve LumplClcd aninll lind. if apprjlJlri~il.C. ~1\lr notk~

will II1c1udc: Illlli.:" til" right Ii) sue und!;r the AIWA.

c : J f.rA: Wh.iI~ 'l'ill~ VII tmd the ADA n;'luilC hEOC.: 11.1 i~suC' tl,l:-1 Nuti!,;\: uf Right 1.11 SUI: b\~nJrc you c,:I\TI bril\J:t a lal'o':>uil. y~1 already lu"..c th~ ril;~hl 1(.) ~1IC IJnil~r Li'tc Eqlla.ll\l), At:\ (E1.tA) (You iln: nul rt:quirll:llill,u CUI\1I'1Ia.lll ltl ilny cnforccmclll ,11';I1C), bct\lN hri".I!:.in~ au !':I'A ~uil ill CI")Ut1.). I\PA ::mil~ mll"~ I;l~ btuught willi;n 2 y<:,us. (.1 yC=lcr~ rill will rlll ....i~,hlli(lIH:) Mlile t1l1cp,cd EllA IJIlc.!crpH.ymcl1l.

11-30 -03
(1).'0)

t;n~hl.o!tlrcs
Jnfunn!.U.it~rl Shcol C()p), M O'lanf.(
CCj I-lC!,.,nll\lli,:nt(S) (fiorF...nI, ,,,,,.n(Ttt.,I

<:ii.llililit'lfl NMioll':'ll ItHilrCl.ld

EXHIBIT
D

U~ED coul Civil Cover Sheet Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1 Filed 02/18/2004 Page 23 of 24

/l \./\.,/
,-

STATES DISTRICT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

/

Civil CJ)ver Sbe_et

Page 1 of 1

TIli, automated J8·44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in SeptelJlber 1974. The data is requ ired for th~ usc::: of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the fillng and service of pleadings or other papers as rcquin::d by law, This form is authorized tor usc only in the Northern Districl of Illinois.

Ph\inliff(s): MELVIN BARNES and TRACY STEELE, on behuJr or themselves and all other black persons similarly situated,
Counly or Residence: Cook

Defendant(s):CANADIAN NATIONAL/ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD /akla ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
County ofResidence:

Plaintiff's Atty:

Robert M. Foole

Defendant's Ally:

F(lote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers,

LLC

416 S. Second St., Geneva, 1L 60134 630-232-6333

04C

1249

U. Basis of Juril;'diction:

4. Diversity (complete item III)

HI. CitizGnship ofPlinciRaJPartie.~

JUDGE ZAGE[

(Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:-l Citizen of This State

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MASul';

Defendant:- 4 IL corp or Principal place of Bus. in IL

.IV. Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

V~ Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.CiI.lIse of Action:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C,nOOO et seq. Charge or discrimination

VII. Reg1!';'sted in Gpmplaint

Class Action: Yes

. ·1

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIll. This case IS NOT a refiling 0 .
.,',.
", )
Sig

Date:

If ,my of Ihi~ iT~lhnlHlticll1 i~ incorrect, pll;:a~~ g

It) the Civil Cover Shel:llnp(11 fllrr'll IIsillS the Back button in your browsel' and change it. Once comr,;l, prilL\. thi.~ fnrm,

;;iJ:,I' ~I\rl date it and submit it with your Ilew civil action. Note: You may need to adjust the font size in your hrowser display to make the

fO"-1II print properly.

RevIsed: 06n1~JOO

/-;2-

hllp://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forrns/autojs44.cfm

211 7/0,

• Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 1

• Filed 02/18/2004 Page 24 of 24

UNITED STATES orSTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In the Mauer of

EASTERN DIVISION

MELVIN BARNES and TRACY STEELE, on behalf of themselves and all other black persons similarly ~ituatcd! v. CANADIAN NATIONAL/ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD alkJ. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

1249

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORN EY(Sl FOR:

Melvinl3arnes and Tracy Steele, on behalf ofthemsclves and all other black persons similarly situated

/J~

t---::?_----- SI(iN,\TURC

,/

? - - NAMe Robert M. Foote

FIKM FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWER

srk[[!T ADDI~~~:; 416 S. Second Street

( 'I'rV/STi\TE,'!II'
Geneva,IL
TELl:.I'H()Nl, ~UM[I[R
630-232-6333

I 60134 [lAX ;-.IUMI'lER 630-845-8982

1':-MAll ADDRI;.SS rmf@foote-meyers.eom

Inr'NTIFll."ATION NUMBEr.: (s12E ITEM 4 ON tl.EVr-:i{SC)
3124325

MI·MLHIR OF TRIAL HAR"!

YE!:> [:tJ

NO

0

JUDGE ZAGEI

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MASOt-i

--- / --~ ~1(jNm.!RE

~

/ - - - - :..,,?" ~

{JS)

NAM}<'Kj ath;le"e_n C. Cha, v ~

/

FIRM CHAVEZ LA vv 'jJ""V> ]

151 :;T~j·.ET ADDRESS P.O. Box

/

(lTY/sTATE/zlr

_"--:

I Geneva,IL 60134

TELErHONJ.! NUMBER

~'AX NlJMDIiR

630-232-4480

630-232-8265

1:._MAII.IIDDRESS
gkeg4@aol.com

lDENTrFI(:AfION NUMBER (!:>~.~ ITEM 4 O:-l"RcVE~.':U-:)
6255735

M11MDCR OF TRIAL I-lAR"!

YJ:::!j

0

0 N0

TRIAL.. ATTORNEY"

YE~ [:tJ

Jl,:O

0

Tll.rI\I.A"ITORNEY'/

YES I!'I NO 0

1)1·:Sl(iNATIiD AS LOCAl. nl[JNSEL'1

YES

0

0 }lO

SI(iNATURE

(Cl

!)l(iNAl'URIJ

(D)

NAM[

l~lkM

!)TIU,Er ADDRESS

Clr... /STA TIlIZIP

I I!L12PIIO"'·E NliMIll-.K li·MII1L-I\DDr.:l!.SS

Il-'AX NlIMDER

IDE'nl~·WAT10N NUM13cl/. (sr.E.ITIlM ~ ON RE"'I~.k~E)

NA:vi1l

I'!ItM

---

")

SH I::ET ADDR.IlSS (:lTv/sT ATI1IZlr

-I

..

-

:

·1·ELI!PIlONE NUMI-lEr.: c-MAII. AllDR.ESS

.~.. ::.Il-'AX NU\mER

,

,'"'',

-,, .

1l)r-;N·fIF!CATlON NUMHJ-iR (SI:!E [TEM 4- UN RII.VERSE)

M1:,Mll1'.R UF Hl!AL BAR'J i"ltIAL ATTORNEY'! DI3S1(]NATI·: L1 AS LOCAL ("( llJNS£1L'!

YES 0

NO

0

Yi?!S

0

NO

0

0 YES

N0

0

MEMI:!Hl OF T~rA1. HAR'! TRIAL A-TmRNCY? DESll;NA Tl:D AS 1I.X:AL (:OUNSEL 7

YES

0

0 NO

YES

0

NO 0

v!!:S

0

0 NO

{-<3

 
 FILED Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 47

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

JUNE 8, 2007
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MELVIN BARNES, TRACY STEELE, )

and JEREMY WILLIAMS on

)

behalf of themselves and all other black )

persons similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY )

COMPANY, GRAND TRUNK

)

CORPORATION, GRAND TRUNK )

WESTERN RAILROAD, INC.,

)

ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION )

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD

)

COMPANY, WISCONSIN CENTRAL )

TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, )

WISCONSIN CENTRAL LIMITED )

)

)

Defendants.

)

Court No. 04 C 1249 Judge James B. Zagel Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, MELVIN BARNES, TRACEY STEELE, and JEREMY

WILLIAMS, both on behalf of themselves and all other black persons similarly situated, by and

through their undersigned Counsel of Record, and Complain against Defendants CANADIAN

NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION, GRAND TRUNK

WESTERN RAILROAD, INC., ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION, ILLINOIS

CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, WISCONSIN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION

CORPORATION, and WISCONSIN CENTRAL LIMITED (collectively referred to herein as

the “CN Defendants”), and in so doing state as follows:

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 2 of 47
NATURE OF THIS ACTION 1. This action is brought by Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele and Jeremy Williams (hereinafter “Barnes,” “Steele,” and “Williams” or “Plaintiffs”), three African-American employees of CN Defendants. Barnes, Steele, and Williams are three African-Americans who were employees of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, one of the subsidiaries of CN. Barnes, Steele, and Williams bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to them against all named CN Defendants. 2. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the CN Defendants have engaged in company-wide systemic racial discrimination throughout Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) and each and every one of its subsidiaries, including but not limited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and practices having unlawful disparate impact on their employment opportunities and that such conduct is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 & § 1981(A). The Plaintiffs further seek a permanent injunction and other equitable relief necessary to eliminate the effects of the CN Defendants’ past and present racial discrimination and prevent such discrimination from continuing to adversely affect their lives and careers in the future, including but not limited to, affirmative restructuring of the CN Defendants’ selection and training procedures, elimination of the hostile work environment in which they have been forced to work, implementation of equitable relief to include declaratory and injunctive relief, reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, and attorneys’ fees. The Plaintiffs further seek back-pay, other equitable remedies and damages necessary to make them and the members of the class whole. 3. On March 26, 2004, Plaintiff Melvin Barnes was unlawfully terminated by CN

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 3 of 47
Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Illinois Central Corporation, and Illinois Central Railroad Company, in retaliation for his reporting race discrimination/hostile environment, filing a “Charge of Discrimination” alleging race discrimination/hostile environment, and filing a federal lawsuit alleging race discrimination/hostile environment , all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 & § 1981(A).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343(3) and (4), 1658 and 2201 and 2202. This is a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Act of Congress known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the “Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a). 5. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B) & (C) because CN has offices here, maintains personnel records here, and engages in or ratifies illegal conduct here adversely affecting the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO FILING SUIT UNDER TITLE VII AND 42 U.S.C. § 1981
6. Plaintiff Barnes has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action under the Act of Congress known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the “Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a). Barnes filed his charge of discrimination within 300-days of the last
3

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 4 of 47
discriminatory act. (See Ex. A, Barnes EEOC Charge). Barnes then filed this lawsuit within 90days of receiving his notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See Ex. B, Barnes’ Notice of Right to Sue). Barnes’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion and are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1658's four year statute of limitations.
7. Plaintiff Barnes timely filed a second “Charge of Discrimination” alleging unlawful race discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 & § 1981(A). (See Ex.C, Barnes Second EEOC Charge). Barnes then filed this Second Amended Complaint adding a claim for retaliation within 90-days of receiving his notice of right to sue from the EEOC. (See Ex. D, Barnes Second Notice of Right to Sue). Barnes’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion and are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1658's four year statute of limitations.
8. Plaintiff Steele has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action under the Act of Congress known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the “Civil Rights Act of 1991" and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a). Steele filed his charge of discrimination within 300-days of the last discriminatory act. (See Ex. E, Steele EEOC Charge). Steele then filed this lawsuit within 90days of receiving his notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See Ex. F, Steele Notice of Right to Sue). Steele’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion and are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1658's four year statute of limitations.
4

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 5 of 47
9. Plaintiff Williams has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action under the Act of Congress known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended by the “Civil Rights Act of 1991,” and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a). Williams filed his charge of discrimination within 300-days of the last discriminatory act. (See Ex. G, Williams EEOC Charge). Williams received his notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on or about September 20, 2004, after this suit had been filed on February 18, 2004. (See Ex. H, Williams Notice of Right to Sue). Williams’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not require administrative exhaustion and are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1658's four year statute of limitations.
PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 10. Plaintiff Barnes is an African-American citizen of the United States and a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Barnes was initially employed by Illinois Central Railroad Company (“ICRR”), a subsidiary of CN, in 1970. He remained employed by ICRR as a Carman until March 2004. At all times material to this action, Barnes has been employed at the ICRR’s facility in Markham, Illinois. 11. Steele is an African-American citizen of the United States and a resident of Cook County Illinois. Steel has worked for CN Defendants from 1997 to the present. Steele is currently employed as a Carman. At all times material to this action, Steele has been employed at the CN Defendants’ facility in Chicago, Illinois. 12. Williams is an African-American citizen of the United States and a resident of Cook County Illinois. Williams has worked for CN Defendants from 1997 to the present.
5

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 6 of 47
Williams is currently employed as a Journeyman in the Skilled Trades. At all times material to this action, Williams has been employed at the CN Defendants facility in Chicago, Illinois.
B. Defendants 13. Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) is a corporation that is organized under the laws of Canada. CN’s registered and head office is located at 935 de La Gauchetiere Street West, Montreal Quebec, H3B 2M9, Canada. CN operates in Canada and the United States, with U.S. hubs in Buffalo, NY; Detroit, MI; Duluth, MN; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; Chicago, IL; St. Louis, MO; Jackson, MS; Memphis, TN; New Orleans, LA; Baton Rouge, LA; and Mobile, AL. CN is also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, symbol CNI. CN’s agent, for purposes of the SEC, is located in New York, New York. CN has several subsidiary entities that are incorporated in the United States, which include 1) Grand Trunk Corporation; 2) Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated; 3) Illinois Central Corporation; 4) Illinois Central Railroad Company; 5) Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation; and 6) Wisconsin Central Limited. CN is authorized to do business in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and at all times material to this action, has engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce. The CN Defendant is an entity subject to suit under Title VII of the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. At all times material to this action, the CN Defendant has employed fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII.
6

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 7 of 47
14. Grand Trunk Corporation (“GTC”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. GTC is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
15. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company (“GTW”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. GTW is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
16. Illinois Central Corporation (“ICC”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. ICC is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
17. Illinois Central Railroad Company (“ICRR”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. ICRR is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
18. Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation (“WCT”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. WCT is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
19. Wisconsin Central Limited (“WCL”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. WCL is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS A. CLASS DEFINITION 20. The named Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-American employees of CN Defendants. The named Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent. That class consists of current, former, and future AfricanAmerican employees of CN Defendants who, from approximately February 18, 2000 to the present, have been subjected to one or more aspects of the racial discrimination described in this Complaint.
B. COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT 7

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 8 of 47
21. The prosecution of the claims of the named Plaintiffs will require adjudication of questions common to the putative class, such as whether the CN Defendants have engaged in systemic racial discrimination including, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and practices having unlawful disparate impact in its selection procedures with regards to promotions, training, hostile work environment and other terms and conditions of employment in a manner made unlawful by the statutes under which this action is brought. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are embedded in common questions of law and fact because the CN Defendants have: (1) prevented them from learning about or competing for supervisory and/or managerial positions traditionally held by white employees; (2) precluded or delayed their selection for such jobs; (3) channeled and segregated them into jobs traditionally held by African-Americans; (4) denied them training that would have prepared them for these higher and better paying supervisory/managerial positions; and (5) required them to work in a hostile work environment.
22. The CN Defendants’ procedures challenged herein, as well as the other systemic Policies and practices that make up these procedures, are determined at the corporate level of the CN Defendants’ operations and do not vary significantly from one geographical location to another. The employment policies, practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint are not unique or limited to one geographical area, but rather affect the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class in the same way throughout the CN Defendants’ operations.
C. TYPICALITY OF CLAIMS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 23. The systemic racial discrimination challenged in this Complaint has affected, and continues to affect, both the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent in the same way as they have been forced to work in a hostile work environment and have been denied
8

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 9 of 47
promotions to supervisory and/or managerial positions, training, and other benefits which has, and continues, to affect their compensation. Moreover, the CN Defendants’ discriminatory selection policies, practices and procedures have deprived, and continues to deprive, AfricanAmerican employees of the opportunity to be supervised and work with people of their own race who would have been supervisors in the absence of such discrimination.
24. The CN Defendants have failed to create adequate incentives for its managerial/supervisory workforce to comply with equal employment opportunity laws regarding each of the policies, practices and procedures described in this Complaint and has failed to discipline adequately its managers and other supervisory employees for violation of these laws.
25. The claims of the named Plaintiffs and the relief necessary to remedy the claims of the named Plaintiffs are the same as the claims of the putative class members and the relief necessary to remedy these claims. The named Plaintiffs seek the following relief for their individual claims and the claims of the putative class: (1) a declaratory judgment that the s have engaged in systemic racial discrimination by requiring its African-American employees to work in a hostile work environment, limiting the employment opportunities of African-Americans to lower paying and less desirable positions, and providing them with unequal training opportunities; (2) a permanent injunction against such continuing systemic discrimination; (3) a restructuring of the CN Defendants’ selection and training procedures so that African-Americans are able to learn about, train for and fairly compete in the future for higher and better paying positions traditionally enjoyed by white employees; (4) a restructuring of the CN Defendants’ workforce so that African-Americans are assigned to the better and higher paying positions, locations and compensation levels that they would have held in the absence of the CN
9

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 10 of 47
Defendants’ past racial discrimination; (5) elimination of the hostile working environment; (6) the implementation of a non-discriminatory posting and bidding procedure; and (7) damages, backpay and other equitable remedies necessary to make the named Plaintiffs and putative class members whole from CN Defendants’ past discrimination.
D. NUMEROSITY AND IMPRACTICABILITY OF JOINDER 26. The class that the named Plaintiffs seek to represent is too numerous to make joinder practicable. The proposed class consists of hundreds of former, current, and future African-American employees who either have been, or will be, employed by CN Defendants. E. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 27. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as reflected in the preceding paragraphs. There are no conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class as each would benefit similarly from the imposition of a remedy for the discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures challenged in this Complaint. The named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in litigating major class actions in the field of employment discrimination, who are prepared and able to meet the time and fiscal demands of class action litigation of this size and complexity. The combined interests, experience, and resources of the named Plaintiffs and their counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claims of race-based employment discrimination at issue satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).
10

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 11 of 47
F. EFFICIENCY OF CLASS PROSECUTION OF COMMON CLAIMS 28. Certification of a class of similarly-situated African-Americans is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact that are common to the individual claims of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class. The individual claims of the named Plaintiffs and those of the putative class require resolution of the common question of whether CN Defendants have engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination and/or practices which have disparate impact against African-Americans. The named Plaintiffs seek for themselves and the putative class remedies to eliminate the adverse effects of such discrimination in their own and the putative class members’ lives, careers and working conditions to prevent continued racial discrimination in the future. The named Plaintiffs have standing to seek such relief. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to re-litigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations. Certification of the class of African-Americans adversely affected by the common questions of law and fact set forth in this Complaint is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments necessary to resolve such questions for the named Plaintiffs, the class and the CN Defendants. The named Plaintiffs' individual and class claims are premised upon the traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for disparate impact and systemic disparate treatment claims of the type at issue in this Complaint. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common issues. G. CERTIFICATION IS SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2) 29. The CN Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the named
11

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 12 of 47
Plaintiffs and the proposed class by adopting and following systemic practices and procedures that are racially discriminatory. Racial discrimination is the CN Defendants’ standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence. The CN Defendants have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by: (1) refusing to adopt or follow selection procedures for promotions and training which do not systemically discriminate against African-American individuals; and (2) refusing to provide a non-discriminatory work environment and other equal terms and conditions of work to African-American employees. The CN Defendants’ systemic discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are not racially discriminatory have made appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
30. Injunctive and declaratory relief is the predominate relief sought in this case because it is both the accumulation of the proof of the CN Defendants’ individual and class-wide liability at the end of Stage I of a bifurcated trial and the essential predicate for the named Plaintiffs' and class members' entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies at Stage II of such a trial. Declaratory and injunctive relief flows directly and automatically from proof of the common questions of law and fact regarding the existence of systemic racial discrimination against African-American employees. Such relief is the factual and legal predicate for the named Plaintiffs' and the class members' entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies for individual losses caused by such systemic discrimination.
H. CERTIFICATION IS SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) 31. The common issues of fact and law affecting the claims of the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members, including but not limited to, the common issues identified in paragraphs 1-30 above, predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims.
12

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 13 of 47
32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
33. The cost of proving the CN Defendants’ systemic of discrimination makes it impracticable for the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class to prosecute their claims individually.
34. The named Plaintiffs are unaware of any pending race discrimination class lawsuit brought against the CN Defendants, and the Northern District of Illinois is the most logical forum in which to litigate the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class in this case.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS Melvin Barnes 35. Plaintiff Melvin Barnes has been adversely affected by the systemic racial discrimination challenged in this case with regards to working in a hostile work environment and selection decisions for promotions, training and other terms and conditions of employment. This racial discrimination adversely affected Barnes by requiring him to work in a hostile work environment; by denying him the opportunity to work in an integrated environment in which African-American employees held supervisory/managerial positions; by not being considered for job classifications traditionally held by white employees at CN Defendants; and by being denied training regularly provided to white employees. 36. On February 18, 2004 Plaintiff Melvin Barnes filed this federal class action lawsuit seeking redress for a class of African-American employees of CN Defendants that were
13

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 14 of 47
victims of CN Defendants’ racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment, including but not limited to, discrimination and retaliation in appointments, selection decisions, job assignments, promotions, training, discipline, testing, compensation benefits, evaluations, service ratings, and other terms and conditions of employment.
37. On March 26, 2004, Plaintiff Melvin Barnes was unlawfully terminated from his employment by ICRR in retaliation for filing his reporting race discrimination/hostile environment, filing a “Charge of Discrimination” alleging race discrimination/hostile environment, and filing a federal lawsuit alleging race discrimination/hostile environment , all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 & § 1981(A).
38. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory reason from Plaintiff Melvin Barnes’ termination from ICRR on March 26, 2004.
39. CN Defendants have continually failed to notify, post or make readily accessible to its African-American employees, job announcements for all positions that might lead to promotions and/or advancement to higher and better paying positions.
40. In mid-2002, Ron Haney, a white employee with less seniority and qualifications than Barnes was given a Relief Foreman position without any notice being given to Barnes or any other African-American employee. Barnes was better qualified than Haney for this position and had he known of its existence, he would have applied for it. Similarly, in September of 2003, Mike Smith, another less senior and less qualified white employee, was given a Foreman’s position without notice being given to Barnes or any other African-American employee. Barnes was also better qualified than Smith for this position and had he known of its existence he would
14

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 15 of 47
have applied for it. This second position was located in the ICRR’s Champagne/Decatur yards which has very few, if any, African-Americans in supervisory positions.
41. Despite over thirty years of experience, Barnes was not considered for temporary assignments to supervisory positions at ICRR. In September of 2003, Barnes’ foreman was assigned to train Mike Smith, a white employee, for seven weeks at ICRR’s Champagne, Illinois yard. This created a vacant foreman position at ICRR’s Markham, Illinois yard, where Barnes worked. The general foreman, who is white, placed Greg Pazour, another white male employee, into the position without posting it for bid. Pazour is less senior and less qualified than Barnes. Notice of this temporary vacancy was not given to Barnes or any other African-American employee of CN Defendants. Had this position been posted, Barnes would have applied for it, as it would have enhanced his experience and added to his qualifications.
42. CN Defendants have additionally denied Barnes and other African-American employees training opportunities regularly afforded to similarly situated white employees. These training opportunities enhance an employee’s ability to be considered for positions of greater pay, responsibility and authority.
43. In September of 2003, Tony Switzer, a white supervisor, selected only white employees to attend a training session regarding a new air-brake system. The denial of opportunities to train on all aspects of equipment is detrimental to an employee’s prospects for promotion in that an employee must be knowledgeable regarding all equipment in his department to be considered for any supervisory positions that could become available.
44. Barnes has continually experienced racial harassment and/or racial intimidation at ICRR. During the course of his employment he has heard the words “nigger”, “porch monkey”
15

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 16 of 47
and other racially demeaning language. Barnes has also witnessed other African-Americans being subjected to racial slurs.
45. As a result of CN Defendants’ discriminatory practices, Barnes has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme harm.
Tracy Steele 46. Plaintiff Tracy Steele has been, and continues to be, adversely affected by the systemic of racial discrimination challenged in this case with regards to working in a hostile work environment and selection decisions for promotions, training and other terms and conditions of employment. This racial discrimination has adversely affected Steele by requiring him to work in a hostile environment; by denying him the opportunity to work in an integrated environment in which African-American employees hold supervisory/managerial positions; by not being considered for job classifications traditionally held by white employees at CN Defendants; and by being denied training regularly provided to white employees. 47. CN Defendants have continually failed to notify, post or make readily accessible to its African-American employees job announcements for all positions that might lead to promotions and/or advancement to higher and better paying positions. 48. In mid-2000, the general foreman of the mechanical department resigned his position and Steele was asked if he was interested in temporarily filling this vacancy. Steele accepted the position and was trained for approximately one-day. Steele performed the duties of this position until he was replaced by Johnny Kovaleski, a white male, who was given the position on a permanent basis. Kovaleski is less senior and less qualified than Steele. Neither Steel nor any other African-American employees were given notice that CN Defendants were
16

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 17 of 47
looking to fill this position on a permanent basis. 49. In mid-2001, Johnny Kovaleski was demoted and, again without notice being
given, Tony Switzer, another white employee, was given the general foreman’s position. Prior to Switzer receiving this position, Steele had expressed a desire to be made aware of any such vacancies in his department on several occasions. Moreover, when Switzer became general foreman, he immediately awarded the mechanical foreman’s position to Billy Baisden, another white employee with less seniority and less qualifications than Steele.
50. Steel complained to management about the abovementioned incidents and was subsequently assigned to another location where he received some foreman’s training. In September 2003, Steele was working as a relief foreman, when a foreman’s position again became available. The position was not posted. Steele became aware of its existence anyway because he had worked as a relief foreman under the incumbent who was leaving. Steele applied for the position by submitting a resume and speaking with senior management about the position. Steele was informed by senior management that the position would be awarded based on qualifications and not seniority. The position was awarded to Roy Talman, a white employee with no experience as a foreman. Steele was better qualified and had more experience as a foreman than Talman when Talman was awarded this position. In late September or early October 2003, Talman was demoted from foreman because of poor performance.
51. In September of 2003, Tony Switzer, a white supervisor, selected only white employees to attend a training session regarding a new air-brake system. The denial of opportunities to train on all aspects of equipment is detrimental to an employee’s prospects for promotion in that an employee must be knowledgeable regarding all equipment in his department
17

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 18 of 47
to be considered for any supervisory positions that could become available. 52. Steele has continually experienced racial harassment and/or racial intimidation
while working at CN Defendants. During the course of his employment he has heard the word “nigger” and other racially demeaning language. Steele has also witnessed other AfricanAmericans being subjected to racial slurs.
53. As a result of CN Defendants’ discriminatory practices, Steele has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme harm.
Jeremy Williams 54. Plaintiff Jeremy Williams has been, and continues to be, adversely affected by the systemic racial discrimination challenged in this case with regards to working in a hostile work environment and selection decisions for promotions, training and other terms and conditions of employment. This racial discrimination adversely affected Williams by requiring him to work in a hostile environment; by denying him the opportunity to work in an integrated environment in which African-American employees hold supervisory/managerial positions; by not being considered for job classifications traditionally held by white employees at CN Defendants; and by being denied training regularly provided to white employees. 55. CN Defendants have continually failed to notify, post or make readily accessible to its African-American employees job announcements for all positions that might lead to promotions and/or advancement to higher and better paying positions. 56. Shortly after gaining employment with CN Defendants, Williams expressed an interest in advancing to higher paying positions of increased responsibility. In August of 2003, Williams learned of a vacant foreman’s position within the Mechanical Department and expressed
18

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 19 of 47
an interest in applying for it. Williams’ inquiry was ignored, as were the inquiries of other African-American employees. The position has since been “temporarily” filled by an equally or less qualified white employee.
57. CN Defendants have additionally denied Williams and other African-American employees training opportunities regularly afforded to similarly situated white employees. These training opportunities enhance an employee’s ability to be considered for positions of greater pay, responsibility and authority.
58. Since September of 2003, Tony Switzer, a white general foreman, has ignored Williams’ repeated requests for training in the Mechanical Department. Switzer subjectively selects white employees for this training and rarely considers African-American candidates. The denial of an opportunity to train on all aspects of the Mechanical Department is detrimental to any promotion Williams could bid on because in order to be considered for foreman positions and above, one must have a working knowledge of all machinery within the department.
59. Williams has continually experienced racial harassment and/or racial intimidation at CN Defendants. During the course of his employment he has heard racially demeaning language and racial slurs. Williams has also witnessed other African-Americans being subjected to racial slurs.
60. As a result of CN Defendants’ discriminatory practices, Williams has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme harm.
19

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 20 of 47
COUNT ONE TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
(All Plaintiffs v. All CN Defendants) 61. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60, above as part of this Count of the Complaint. 62. Plaintiffs bring Count One claims against all of the CN Defendants. 63. CN Defendants have discriminated against the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent with regards to a hostile work environment, promotions, training, and other terms and conditions of employment because of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 64. The named Plaintiffs and putative class they seek to represent have been subjected to systemic racial discrimination, including but not limited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and practices having unlawful disparate impact on their employment opportunities. The CN Defendants follow a policy and practice of restricting African-Americans’ employment opportunities to the lower positions and compensation levels. CN Defendants deny AfricanAmericans comparable training provided to white employees and channels African-Americans away from management and other traditionally white positions and compensation levels. The systemic means of accomplishing such racial discrimination include, but are not limited to, the CN Defendants’ selection and training and policies, practices and procedures. 65. The CN Defendants’ selection and training procedures incorporate the following racially discriminatory policies and practices: (a) reliance upon subjective procedures and criteria
20

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 21 of 47
which permit and encourage the incorporation of racial stereotypes and bias of the CN Defendants’ predominantly white managerial staff; (b) refusal to establish or follow policies, practices, procedures, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact and/or intentional racial bias or stereotypes in the CN Defendants’ decision-making processes; (c) refusal to consistently post or announce vacancies or employment opportunities in a manner which allows AfricanAmericans to learn about such opportunities and compete for them before they are filled by white employees or applicants; (d) use of an informal selection process that does not rely upon formal applications or other safeguards which open the process to competition by African-Americans; (e) pre-selection of white individuals before vacancies or opportunities become known; (f) the use of subjective devices in the selection and training processes which have a disparate impact and/or intentional racial bias against African-American employees; (g) the use of selection and training policies, practices and procedures which have a chilling effect on the expressions of interest by African-Americans; (h) the use of subjective selection processes for determining which employees are to receive training; and (i) the use of subjective selection processes for determining the compensation to be paid to its employees.
66. The CN Defendants’ selection and training policies, practices and procedures, intentional discrimination, and/or have a disparate impact against the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. Such policies, practices and procedures are not valid, job related or justified by business necessity. There are objective and structured selection and training procedures available to the CN Defendants which would have less disparate impact on AfricanAmericans and equal or greater validity and job relatedness, but the CN Defendants have refused to consider or to use such policies, practices, or procedures.
21

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 22 of 47
67. The Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have been directly affected by the discriminatory policies, practices and procedures set forth above by, among other things, being deprived of the opportunity to work in an environment free of racial discrimination and to be supervised by and work with persons of their own race who would have been selected in the absence of racial discrimination. Such discrimination also denies the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent the opportunity of working in a fully, racially integrated work environment and otherwise adversely affects their opportunity for enjoyment of work as compared with white employees who do not have to work in situations in which members of their race are victims of racial discrimination.
68. The systemic discrimination set forth herein further adversely affects the named Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ status as employees by promoting and reinforcing racial stereotypes and bias in selection, training and other terms and condition of employment. In the absence of such racial discrimination, the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent would have had a greater opportunity of supervising and being supervised by persons of their same race and having persons of their same race integrated into the decision-making processes as they relate to selection and training and other terms and conditions of employment. By having members of their own race integrated into such processes, their employment opportunities in all of the foregoing respects would have been significantly improved and they would have been less likely to have been subjected to racial bias in such decisions.
69. The named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are attempting to redress the wrongs alleged in this suit through equitable relief, including backpay and other equitable remedies. An equitable judgment is the only means of securing adequate relief for the named
22

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 23 of 47
Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. The Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from the CN Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.
70. By reason of CN Defendants’ discriminatory employment practices, the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have experienced extreme harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other employment benefits, and as such, are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
71. CN Defendants engaged in the conduct complained of herein with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.
COUNT TWO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (All Plaintiffs v. All CN Defendants)
72. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 71, above as part of this Count of the Complaint.
73. Plaintiffs bring Count Two claims against all of the CN Defendants. 74. CN Defendants have discriminated against the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent with regards to a hostile work environment, promotions, training, and other terms and conditions of employment because of their race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a). 75. CN Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted
23

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 24 of 47
with disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. 76. By reason of CN Defendants’ pattern and practice of discriminating employment
practices, the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have experienced extreme harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other employment benefits, and as such, are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
COUNT THREE UNLAWFUL RETALIATION AND TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Plaintiff Melvin Barnes, on behalf of himself, v. Defendants Canadian National Railway
Company, Illinois Central Corporation, and Illinois Central Railroad Company) 77. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 76 above as part of this Count of the Complaint. 78. This Count is brought by Melvin Barnes in his individual capacity against Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Illinois Central Corporation, and Illinois Central Railroad Company. 79. These Defendants unlawfully retaliated against and terminated Plaintiff Melvin Barnes for complaining about race discrimination/ hostile environment, filing a “Charge of Discrimination” with the EEOC alleging race discrimination/hostile environment and for filing a federal lawsuit on February 18, 2004 alleging race discrimination/hostile environment all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 80. Immediately following his complaints of race discrimination, filing of a “Charge
24

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 25 of 47
of Discrimination” with the EEOC, and the filing of the federal class action lawsuit against Defendants on February 18, 2004, Defendants began egregious retaliation against Plaintiff Melvin Barnes, including but not limited to, excessive job scrutiny and unlawful termination on March 26, 2004.
81. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory basis for the March 26, 2004 termination of Plaintiff Melvin Barnes from his employment at Defendants.
82. In filing the federal class action lawsuit on February 18, 2004, Plaintiff Melvin Barnes was exercising his right to complain about unlawful race discrimination.
83. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff Melvin Barnes.
84. Plaintiff Melvin Barnes has experienced extreme harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other employment benefits as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ unlawful retaliation/discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 & § 1981(A).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class they seek to represent, request the following relief: 1. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; 2. Certification of the case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3) on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff class, and
25

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 26 of 47
designation of the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class and their counsel of record as class counsel;
3. A declaratory judgment that the employment practices challenged herein are illegal and violative of the rights secured to named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class;
4. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and their partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, and racial discrimination as set forth herein;
5. An Order requiring the Defendants to initiate and implement programs that: (i) provide equal employment opportunities and a non-hostile work environment for AfricanAmerican employees; (ii) remedy the effects of the Defendants’ past and present unlawful employment practices; and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory practices described herein above;
6. An Order requiring the Defendants to initiate and implement systems for the posting and bidding of jobs and for the assigning, training, transferring, and promoting of African American employees to higher and better paying positions in a non-discriminatory manner;
7. An Order placing or restoring the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent into those jobs they should now be occupying but for the Defendants’ discriminatory practices;
8. An Order directing the Defendants to adjust the wage rates and benefits for the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent to the level that they should be enjoying but for the Defendants’ discriminatory practices;
26

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 27 of 47
9. An award of back pay; front pay; lost benefits; preferential rights to jobs; damages
for lost compensation and job benefits suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to
represent;
10. An Order requiring the Defendants to make the named Plaintiffs and the class they
seek to represent, whole by awarding them back pay (plus interest), compensatory, punitive,
liquidated, and/or nominal damages;
11. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to
the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members;
12. Prejudgment interest; and
13. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
/s/ Robert M. Foote Robert Foote, Esq. #03214325 Stephen W. Fung Foote Meyers Meilke & Flowers, LLC 28 North First St. Suite 2 Geneva, IL 60134 630-232-6333
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. #6255735 Chavez Law Firm, P.C. 28 North First St. Suite 2 Geneva, IL 60134 630-232-4480
William E. Ready Ready & Associates P.O. Box 827 517 23rd Ave. Meridian, MS 39302-0827 (601) 693-8678 (601) 693-1485 FAX 27

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 28 of 47
Robert F. Childs Roderick T. Cooks Ben Degweck Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 328-0640 (205) 254-1500 FAX Peter L. Currie 06281711 The Law Firm of Peter L. Currie, PC 536 Wing Lane Saint Charles, IL 60174 630-862-1130
28

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 29 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 30 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 31 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 32 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 33 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 34 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 35 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 36 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 37 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 38 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 39 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 40 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 41 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 42 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 43 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 44 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 45 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 46 of 47

Case 1:04-cv-01249 Document 49 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 47 of 47

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 1 of 30 PageID #:693

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

)

MELVIN BARNES, TRACY STEELE, and JEREMY

)

WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all other

black persons similarly situated,

)

)

)
Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

Court No. 04 C 1249

)

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION, GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD, INC., ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION, ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, WISCONSIN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, WISCONSIN CENTRAL LIMITED,

) Judge James B. Zagel
)
) Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason
)

Defendants. )

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

I. Purposes of the Consent Decree

The Parties have entered into this Consent Decree for the following purposes:

a. to assure equal employment opportunities for all Railroad employees;

b. to promote and ensure continuing compliance with Railroad’s equal employment policies;

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 2 of 30 PageID #:694
c. to establish an efficient procedure for providing monetary relief to members of the Settlement Class;
d. to avoid further expensive and time-consuming litigation; and
e. to provide finality of claims and decisions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Consent Decree is not intended to alter the terms and conditions established by any current or future collective bargaining agreement; if any such conflict exists, the terms of the collective bargaining agreement shall govern. Further, this Consent Decree is not intended to alter the right of any employee to file a grievance pursuant to any applicable collective bargaining agreement or any charge or complaint of discrimination or retaliation under any applicable local, state, or federal law, or with the EEOC or any state or local agency; and shall not be interpreted to: (i) alter any applicable time limitations for the filing of any such grievance, charge or complaint or (ii) add to, detract from, or otherwise modify any defenses thereto.
II. Definitions
The following terms when used in this Consent Decree, in addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Decree, shall have the following meanings:
A. "African American"
"African American" for class membership purposes means all persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa, individuals who identify themselves as Black or African American, and individuals who identify themselves as more than one race so long as at least one of the races identified is Black or African American.
B. "Best Efforts"
"Best Efforts" means taking steps in good faith and reasonably designed to achieve compliance with specified objectives to which the best efforts are directed.
C. "Class" and "Class Counsel"
"Class" means all current, former and future African American employees of the Railroad who were employed any time from February 18, 2000 until the date of the Preliminary Approval of this Consent Decree. “Class Counsel” means counsel appointed by the Court to represent the Class, who are Robert F. Childs Jr. of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, L.L.C., Robert M. Foote of Foote, Myers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC, William Ready Sr. of Ready and Associates, Kathleen Chavez of Law Office of Kathleen Chavez, and Peter Currie of Law Office of Peter Currie.
D. "Class Member"
"Class Member" means any individual member of the Class.
2

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 3 of 30 PageID #:695

E. “Covered Complaint”

“Covered Complaint” means any complaint by an African American made pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure asserting that: (a) any provision of this Consent Decree has been violated with respect to his or her employment with the Railroad; (b) he or she has been the subject of race discrimination with respect to promotions to Covered Positions or training; or (c) he or she has been subject to racial harassment.

F. “Covered Position”

“Covered Position” means the following entry-level management positions: Trainmaster; Assistant Trainmaster; Chief Train Dispatcher; Supervisor, Locomotive Engineers; Production Supervisor; Supervisor, Work Equipment; Supervisor, Rail Grinding; Operator, Rail Flaw Detector; Assistant Operator, Rail Flaw Detector; Supervisor, Signals & Communications; Assistant Supervisor, Signals & Communication; Bridge Supervisor; Track Supervisor; Assistant Track Supervisor, Mechanical Supervisor; Manager, Transportation Services; Terminal Coordinator; Manager, Rules & Operating Practices; Supervisor Railroad Trainee (“RRTP”); Mechanical Services Representative; Coordinator ROC; Signal & Communications Operations Officer; Supervisor, Rail Maintenance; Bridge Inspector.

G. "Counsel of Record"

"Counsel of Record" means all counsel of record for the Parties and who are signatories to this Consent Decree.

H. "Court"

"Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the Judge thereof having been assigned to preside over the Litigation or proceedings relevant to the Litigation.

I.

"Day"

"Day" means a calendar day, unless otherwise noted to be a business day (i.e., Monday through Friday, exclusive of any Federal or State holiday).

J. “Defendants”

The “Defendants” are Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated, Illinois Central Railroad Company, and Wisconsin Central Ltd. Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Illinois Central Corporation and Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation, being holding companies and not operating, policy-setting or employer companies, were not served with the Third Amended Complaint and were dismissed from this case, without prejudice, by stipulation of the Parties on May 21, 2008.

K. "Effective Date"

"Effective Date" means the latest of:

(a) if an appeal is filed, (i) the date of final affirmance on an appeal of a judgment

3

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 4 of 30 PageID #:696
approving this Consent Decree ("Judgment"), (ii) the expiration of the time to file a petition for, or a denial of, a writ of certiorari to review a Judgment, (iii) if certiorari is granted, the date of final affirmance of a Judgment following review pursuant to that grant, or (iv) the date of final dismissal of any appeal from a Judgment or the final dismissal of any proceeding on certiorari to review a Judgment; or
(b) if no appeal is filed, the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from a Judgment.
L. "Eligible Claimant" and/or "Eligible Class Member"
"Eligible Claimant" and "Eligible Class Member" means any Class Member who receives the benefit of any injunctive relief pursuant to this Consent Decree and/or a monetary award from the Settlement Fund under the terms of a Distribution Formula approved by the Court. "Eligible Claimant" and "Eligible Class Member" specifically exclude any Class Member who previously executed a valid and enforceable release of his/her Eligible Claims, unless such release specifically provides for recovery under this Consent Decree.
M. “Fairness Hearing”
Fairness Hearing means the date set by the Court to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement in this Litigation.
N. "Litigation"
"Litigation" means all proceedings relating to or arising from Civil No. 04 C 1249, currently pending before Judge James B. Zagel.
O. "Named Plaintiffs"
"Named Plaintiffs" means the three individual plaintiffs who brought this Litigation: Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, and Jeremy Williams.
P. "Notice"
"Notice" means the notice of the proposed class settlement that is sent to Class Members pursuant to order of the Court.
Q. "Parties"
"Parties" means the Named Plaintiffs and “Defendants” in this Litigation.
R. “Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel”
“Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel” means Robert F. Childs Jr. of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, L.L.C.
S. "Preliminary Approval"
"Preliminary Approval" means the entry of the Court's Order granting preliminary
4

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 5 of 30 PageID #:697
approval of this Consent Decree, which reflects that the Court concludes that the terms of this Consent Decree appear sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, as a whole, to warrant notice to the Class, an opportunity for Class Members to object or opt out, and a Fairness Hearing to consider final approval of the Consent Decree. (A Proposed Preliminary Approval Order is attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit G.)
T. “Railroad”
“Railroad” as used herein collectively refers to all U.S. operating railroad subsidiaries of Canadian National Railway Company, including Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company, Cedar River Railroad Company, Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company, Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company, Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, Illinois Central Railroad Company, The Pittsburgh and Conneaut Dock Company, Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company, and Wisconsin Central Ltd.
U. "Settlement"
"Settlement" means the settlement terms embodied in this Consent Decree.
V. "Settlement Administrator"
"Settlement Administrator" means Administar Services Group, Inc., or any person subsequently appointed by the Court to implement the duties and responsibilities required to administer the Settlement in this Litigation, as set forth in this Consent Decree. The Settlement Administrator shall also serve as the Trustee of the Settlement Fund.
W. “Settlement Fund”
“Settlement Fund” means the gross amount of 3.0 Million Dollars ($3,000,000) to be paid by Railroad for the purpose of providing individual awards to the Named Plaintiffs, monetary awards to the Eligible Members, and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, to be distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.
X. “Settlement Trustee”
“Settlement Trustee” means Administar Services Group, Inc., or any person subsequently appointed by the Court to serve as the Trustee of the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Trustee shall also undertake the duties and responsibilities of the administration of the Settlement in this Litigation, as set forth in this Consent Decree.
III. Jurisdiction
A. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties, the Railroad and the subject matter of the Litigation. The Litigation asserts claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the monetary and equitable relief set forth in this Consent Decree.
B. Venue is proper in this district. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of the Litigation during the term of this Consent Decree for the purpose of entering all orders, judgments and
5

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 6 of 30 PageID #:698

decrees that may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein. The procedures described below are not intended to diminish this Court's inherent power to enforce any provision of this Consent Decree.

IV. Conditional Class Certification

The Court shall conditionally certify a class for settlement purposes consisting of all current, former, and future African American employees of Railroad who were employed at any time by the Railroad from February 18, 2000 until the Preliminary Approval of this Consent Decree.

In the event that the Consent Decree is not finally approved by the Court, the conditional certification shall be null and void and shall not be used or referred to for any further purpose in this Litigation or any other action or proceeding. In such event, no Party shall have waived the right to seek approval of, or challenge/contest, class certification.

V. Effective Date and Duration of Consent Decree

The provisions of this Consent Decree and the agreements contained herein shall become effective on the Effective Date and remain in effect for three (3) years from said date. During the first year of the Consent Decree, Railroad shall be permitted to correct any programmatic compliance violations without penalty. The Agreement shall expire without further action of the Parties on the third anniversary of the Effective Date.

Within twenty (20) days of the Effective Date, the Parties agree that they will collectively seek the dismissal of Plaintiffs' class action claims and any remaining individual claims in the Litigation against Defendants with prejudice, and without costs to any Party.

VI. No Admission of Liability

A.

No Admission of Liability

This Consent Decree does not and is not intended to constitute and shall not be deemed to constitute an admission by Railroad as to the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations or claims in the Litigation, nor shall it be used as a means to require the continuation of any program or action beyond the term of this Consent Decree, except as may be necessary to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. By entering into this Consent Decree, Railroad does not admit or concede, expressly or impliedly, but instead denies, that it has in any way violated Title VII or Section 1981, the common law of any jurisdiction, any federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or executive order, or any obligation or duty at law or in equity.

B. No Court Findings As To Liability

In agreeing to the terms of this Consent Decree, the Parties acknowledge that neither this Court nor any other court has made any findings or expressed any opinion concerning the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses in the Litigation.

6

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 7 of 30 PageID #:699

C. The Consent Decree Is Not Admissible In Any Other Proceeding

Nothing in this Consent Decree, nor any action taken in implementation thereof, nor any statements, discussions, or communications, nor any materials prepared, exchanged, issued, or used during the course of the Litigation or in negotiations leading to this Consent Decree, are intended by the Parties to, nor shall any of the foregoing constitute, be introduced, be used, or be admissible in any way in the Litigation or in any other judicial, arbitral, administrative, investigative, or other proceeding of whatsoever kind or nature as evidence of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation on the basis of race, or as evidence of any violation of: Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the common law of any jurisdiction; any federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or executive order; or any obligation or duty at law or in equity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consent Decree may be used by the Named Plaintiffs, or Railroad, to enforce or implement the terms of the Consent Decree or any orders or judgments of this Court entered in connection with the Consent Decree.

D. Termination of Consent Decree

If this Consent Decree does not become final or effective in its current form (for whatever reason), the entire Consent Decree shall be vacated, and all provisions contained within the Consent Decree shall become null and void. Further, the Parties agree that, in the event the Court does not grant Preliminary Approval or final approval of the Consent Decree, or Railroad lawfully exercises its option to void the Consent Decree, Railroad’s agreement to this settlement in principle will not preclude it from contesting and opposing any future pleadings, including opposing any future motion for class certification under Rule 23 on any basis.

VII. Release of Claims

A.

Class Release

Railroad, including its officers, directors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors, shall be, and shall be deemed to be, fully, finally, and irrevocably released and discharged by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf of all Class Members who do not opt out of the Litigation in the manner specified by the Court in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval from any and all allegations and causes of action of employment discrimination based on race that were made in the Third Amended Complaint. This release includes all claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment, including those alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, and including but not limited to discrimination and retaliation in appointments, selection decisions, job assignments, promotions, training, discipline, testing, compensation, benefits, evaluations, service ratings, other terms and conditions of employment, and termination, racial harassment, and intimidation. The Class Release shall release claims which accrued up to and including the date the class members submitted a claim form, or, if no claim form was submitted, up to and including December 15, 2009.

B. Named Plaintiffs' Release

On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicable thereafter, each of the Named Plaintiffs shall sign a General Release in the form attached as Exhibit A to this Consent Decree as a condition precedent to receipt of payment. Upon signing such Release, each such individual shall be deemed to have thereby waived, and released Railroad, including its officers, directors,

7

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 8 of 30 PageID #:700
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors, from, any and all claims related to their employment arising at any time up to and including the date such individual signs said Release, including but not limited to any claims for monetary and injunctive relief of any type and attorneys' fees and costs that he or she asserted in the Litigation, or that he or she might have asserted or could in the future assert against Railroad arising out of his or her employment or application for employment with Railroad, including, but not limited to, any claim under any federal, state, or local statute relating to his or her employment relationship with Railroad, including but not limited to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and analogous provisions of State laws. This Release shall survive the termination of this Decree. However, this Release shall not extend to claims based on incidents occurring after the date each Named Plaintiff signs such Release.
The Settlement Administrator shall provide to Railroad the original of each Named Plaintiff's Release within seven (7) days of receipt and will retain a copy for the Settlement Administrator's records.
VIII. Injunctive Relief
A. General Injunctive Provisions
1. Railroad reaffirms its commitment and acknowledges its legal obligation not to: (a) engage in any employment practice pertaining to the employees encompassed within the Class definition that has the purpose or the effect of violating the terms of this Consent Decree; and (b) retaliate against any employee, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a), for his/her participation in this Litigation and Consent Decree.
2. Railroad reaffirms its commitment and acknowledges its legal obligation not to engage in: (a) any act, policy, or practice with the purpose of discriminating against any Named Plaintiff or Class Member on the basis of race; and (b) racial harassment against any Named Plaintiff or Class Member on the basis of their race.
3. Railroad will continue to maintain non-discrimination and non-retaliation policies and an Internal Complaint Procedure designed to assure equal employment opportunity. Railroad shall publish or post at the locations at which it customarily posts notices to employees, the EEOC notice of rights poster and notice of Railroad’s policies against racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and Internal Complaint Procedure. These notices shall advise employees regarding the law prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment, as well as retaliation, and Railroad’s policies against racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The Railroad notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B in a form acceptable to Class Counsel and Railroad.
B. Specific Injunctive Provisions
Upon the Effective Date, Railroad shall implement the policies, practices, and procedures described in this Section in a non-discriminatory manner. These policies, practices, and procedures shall be implemented for the term of the Consent Decree unless a different time period is specified herein.
8

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 9 of 30 PageID #:701
1. TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a). Railroad will ensure that access to any training that is or may be provided or sponsored by the Railroad to employees seeking Covered Positions is provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. Railroad will continue to make available electronically a Training Catalog, together with instructions on how employees may obtain the training needed to enhance their abilities and qualifications for Covered Positions.
(b). Railroad shall make available, through Railroad’s intranet, on-line courses in the subjects of basic computer software skills, supervisory skills, and railroad-related topics.
(c). Railroad shall make available to employees educational financial assistance, consistent with the terms of its current policy (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Educational financial assistance may include, but is not necessarily limited to, reimbursement for education relating to craft, technical, and vocational skills reasonably related to the railroad environment, and the duties and responsibilities of Covered Positions. Railroad may place a budgetary cap on its Educational Financial Assistance Policy. Railroad will notify Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel prior to implementing its decision to place such a budgetary cap and provide Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel with its business reason for the budgetary cap. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel may challenge Railroad’s implementation of a budgetary cap pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in Section IX of this Consent Decree if Lead Counsel reasonably believes that the decision to implement a budgetary cap was made with discriminatory intent towards African Americans or that such action has an adverse impact on African Americans.
(d). Railroad shall document each employee who requests financial assistance, the decision made with respect to such request, the person making such decision, and the reason for the decision. Railroad shall make such information available to the Special Master upon his/her or Class Counsel’s request.
(e). Railroad shall provide notice of the Educational Financial Assistance Policy through the People section of its intranet site.
2. EEO TRAINING.
(a). Training to Human Resources Personnel.
(i). Within six (6) months after the Effective Date, Railroad will develop and present training for members of its Human Resources staff who have substantive responsibilities related to compliance with the fair employment practice laws and/or the application of consistency and objectivity in the selection processes for Covered Positions and the selection procedures for training opportunities for Covered Positions at Railroad. Each training program will be re-administered yearly thereafter during the term of the Decree. Annual training may be in a more abbreviated format than the initial training. Railroad shall use its Best Efforts to provide new Human Resources staff members with such responsibilities with such training within ninety (90) days of their date of entry into such position.
9

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 10 of 30 PageID #:702
(ii). Training for Human Resources staff shall include, but not be limited to: Federal and State equal employment opportunity laws; the application of equal employment opportunity laws to typical employment situations; compliance with the Consent Decree; the role and responsibility of the Human Resources staff; diversity; and the investigation of complaints of race discrimination or retaliation.
(b). Training to Supervisors and Managers.
(i). Beginning within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, and to be completed within nine (9) months of the Effective Date, supervisors and managers shall receive training on equal employment opportunity, to include the following: compliance with the Decree; federal and state equal employment opportunity laws; Railroad prohibitions of workplace racial discrimination, including harassment and retaliation; and any other topics that may encourage diversity and equal employment in training, promoting, qualifying, and retaining African American employees. Such training may, but is not required to, be delivered in live “discussion” format. Railroad will use its Best Efforts to ensure that new supervisors or managers receive such training within nine (9) months of their entry into a supervisory or management position. Thereafter, during the term of the Decree, Railroad will provide equal employment opportunity training to supervisors and managers on an annual basis during each calendar year. Completion of such training shall be mandatory.
(ii). At Railroad’s discretion, the training described above may be held in conjunction with other Railroad business and may be organized in such fashion as Railroad deems appropriate.
(c). Training to All Employees.
(i). Within nine (9) months of the Effective Date, Railroad shall provide to all employees not otherwise covered by Paragraphs B.2.(a) and B.2.(b) above a training/informational video or DVD that they may review and have available for reference. Such training shall include information covering the following subjects: (i) federal and state equal employment opportunity laws; (ii) Railroad prohibitions of workplace Racial Discrimination, including harassment and retaliation; and (iii) any other topics that may encourage diversity and equal employment in training, promoting, qualifying, and retaining African American employees. Railroad shall use its Best Efforts to ensure that new employees receive the training/informational video within three (3) months of their date of hire.
(ii). In addition, Railroad agrees to address with employees not otherwise covered by Paragraphs B.2.(a) and B.2.(b) at least once per year Railroad’s Non Discrimination Policy, which will include an explanation of Railroad’s prohibitions of workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and Railroad’s Internal Complaint Procedure. At Railroad’s discretion, the information described herein may be provided in conjunction with other Railroad business and may be organized in such fashion as Railroad deems appropriate.
3. POSTING OF COVERED POSITIONS.
(a). Railroad shall ensure that employees have reasonable access to information regarding vacant Covered Positions that Railroad intends to fill, the intent being to maintain a
10

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 11 of 30 PageID #:703
process that is reasonably transparent, generally accessible, and provides employees with the ability to express an interest in and timely apply for vacant Covered Positions Railroad intends to fill.
(b). Within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date, Railroad shall establish a procedure for posting vacant Covered Positions that Railroad intends to fill. This procedure will provide appropriate notice of the posted Covered Position by use of the Railroad intranet or internet sites, the current electronic posting system, or any new posting system. Employees will be responsible for using these resources to learn of posted vacancies. Railroad will ensure that employees have reasonable access to a computer, at its Transportation on-duty locations, on which employees can obtain information about, and express an interest in, vacant Covered Positions that Railroad intends to fill.
(c). Nothing in this Paragraph obligates Railroad to fill vacant Covered Positions or prohibits Railroad from abolishing Covered Positions for legitimate business reasons.
4. SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR COVERED POSITIONS.
(a). Railroad shall utilize the selection procedure specified herein to fill all vacant Covered Positions during the term of this Consent Decree.
(b). Employees may express their interest in any Covered Position via Railroad’s currently existing on-line career management tool (currently referred to as Career Track) or such other tool Railroad develops for career management. Individuals who so indicate their interest will be invited to formally apply for the particular Covered Position and must do so to be considered as an applicant.
(c). Railroad shall ensure that there is a structured selection procedure so that the best qualified applicants are selected for the Covered Positions. As a part of these procedures, all qualified candidates will be interviewed and selected by a group of at least two (2) individuals, one of who shall be a member of Human Resources. Additionally, Railroad agrees to document the reasons for its selection or non-selection of each qualified applicant. Nothing herein is meant to suggest that Railroad is required to select an internal candidate for a Covered Position. In addition, nothing herein prohibits Railroad from effecting lateral movements of managers currently holding Covered Positions for legitimate business reasons.
5. ADVERSE IMPACT ANALYSES
(a) Railroad agrees to conduct adverse impact analyses every six (6) months throughout the duration of this Consent Decree. If, during any two consecutive reporting periods, a selection rate for African Americans hired (which includes promotions) into Covered Positions is less than eighty percent (80%) of the selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate into Covered Positions, or results in a statistically significant disparity, Railroad will investigate to determine the cause and take corrective action, if necessary, following the first year’s analysis. In calculating the selection rate, and determining whether alternative measures should be considered, Railroad may consider neutral factors, including but not limited to, the number of selections during the reporting period, the precise Covered Positions for which selections were made, the statistical significance of any disparities in selection rates, and the
11

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 12 of 30 PageID #:704
racial composition of employment in those positions from which the selections in question generally are made.
(b) Railroad shall report the results of the adverse impact analyses as part of its Compliance Report (as set forth in Section VIII. C. 3), and, where disparities, if any, cannot be explained by race-neutral factors or legitimate business reasons, Railroad shall at the same time present its proposal to use specific Best Efforts to eliminate the disparities or state the reasons why, consistent with the purposes of the Decree, no such corrective steps are appropriate or necessary. In the event that Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel considers Railroad’s response to be inadequate, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel may initiate the Dispute Resolution Procedures provided for in Section IX. If the Special Master concludes that Railroad should take certain action, the Special Master shall have the authority to recommend the action Railroad should take, which may include validation of its selection procedures. With respect to this issue, the parties shall comply with all requirements and processes of the Dispute Resolution Procedures. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to modify the terms, requirements, or process of the Dispute Resolution Procedures, including the time limitations in which to dispute an issue and the parties’ appeal rights.
(c) The Parties understand that the analysis applied herein is intended as a practical means of keeping attention on hiring decisions related to Covered Positions. However, a selection rate of less than 80% for African Americans, or a statistically significant disparity, are not, standing alone, evidence of discrimination or a basis for further action under this Decree.
6. DIVERSITY COUNCIL.
Railroad agrees to maintain a Diversity Council, which shall include employees representing diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to diversity in race and levels of management. The Diversity Council will meet with the Railroad’s CEO shortly after its creation to discuss its role and will thereafter report to the CEO quarterly during the first year of this Consent Decree and semi-annually thereafter concerning Railroad’s efforts to achieve a diverse, non-discriminatory workforce. The Diversity Council's duties shall include:
(a). Developing criteria for interfacing with community groups and referral sources to spread the message that Railroad is committed to a diverse, non-discriminatory workforce;
(b). Making recommendations to Railroad management of ways in which the company can further diversity within the organization; and
(c). Reporting on its efforts and activities to all employees at least annually.
7. RULES, POLICIES, PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES.
Railroad will implement rules, policies, practices, or procedures that are reasonably necessary to comply with this Consent Decree. Railroad will notify its supervisory and managerial workforce about, and monitor the implementation, of these new rules, policies, practices, and procedures to assure compliance with them.
12

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 13 of 30 PageID #:705
C. Implementation of Injunctive Relief
1. RAILROAD’S INTERNAL MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.
(a). Railroad’s Internal Monitor.
(i). Selection of the Internal Monitor.
Railroad shall appoint an Internal Monitor who shall be charged with overall responsibility for monitoring Railroad’s compliance with the terms of the Injunctive Relief and shall report directly to the Senior Vice President, Southern Region with respect to Railroad’s compliance with the Injunctive Relief. The Internal Monitor may delegate such duties as he/she deems appropriate. Whenever the Internal Monitor is referred to in this Decree, such term shall mean the Internal Monitor or his/her designee; however, the Internal Monitor shall at all times maintain overall responsibility for monitoring Railroad’s compliance with the terms of the Injunctive Relief. Railroad shall use its Best Efforts to designate a qualified individual to this position to carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth below. Before the Effective Date, Railroad shall provide Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel with the individual’s resume that includes his/her identity, background, experience, and qualifications. The selection of the Internal Monitor shall be solely that of Railroad.
(ii). Procedure for Replacement of Internal Monitor
a. The Internal Monitor shall commence the duties and responsibilities of the Internal Monitor on the Effective Date. If the Internal Monitor ceases to function in that role for any reason, Railroad shall appoint a successor Internal Monitor as soon as practicable, but no later than thirty (30) days after the Internal Monitor provides notice of his/her intent to cease to function as the Internal Monitor, or where the circumstances do not permit such advance notice, no later than thirty (30) days after the Internal Monitor ceases to function in that role. The terms set forth in this paragraph shall apply to any successor Internal Monitor. Before appointing a successor Internal Monitor, Railroad shall provide Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel with the individual’s resume that includes his/her identity, background, experience, and qualifications. The selection of the successor Internal Monitor shall be solely that of Railroad.
b. If the Railroad fails to appoint a successor Internal Monitor within sixty (60) days after the position becomes vacant, the Special Master shall nominate a successor Internal Monitor. The person so nominated will not be appointed to the position unless and until the parties obtain Court approval. Railroad and Class Counsel may suggest persons for the Special Master’s consideration. Railroad and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel shall have the right to interview any person that the Special Master nominates before the person’s nomination is reviewed by the Court and to present evidence and argument to the Court regarding the successor nominee(s) for the Internal Monitor position.
c. In the event the Railroad replaces an Internal Monitor who was appointed pursuant to paragraph VIII.C.1.(a)(ii).b., the provisions set forth in paragraph VIII.C.1.(a)(ii).a. shall apply.
13

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 14 of 30 PageID #:706

(iii). Request To Remove Internal Monitor.

a. If the Internal Monitor has failed to use his/her Best Efforts to implement and/or comply with one or more provisions of this Consent Decree, Class Counsel may request the removal of that Internal Monitor, pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in Section IX.

b. Prior to seeking relief through the Dispute Resolution Procedure, if Class Counsel requests the removal of an individual as Internal Monitor, Class Counsel shall provide the grounds and factual support in writing to Railroad. Within fourteen (14) days of receiving Class Counsel’s written statement, Railroad may dispute Class Counsel’s position by setting forth in writing its reasons and any facts or circumstances it believes Class Counsel should consider. The Parties shall resolve any continuing dispute regarding the selection or retention of the Internal Monitor pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in section IX. of this Consent Decree. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement through the Informal Dispute Resolution Process set forth in Section IX.B., and the dispute is referred to the Special Master, the Special Master shall resolve the dispute. If the Special Master determines that the Internal Monitor should be removed, then the Procedure for Replacement of Internal Monitor set forth in section (ii) above shall apply. The parties may appeal the Special Master’s decision pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section IX.D.

(iv). Duties and Responsibilities of the Internal Monitor.

The Internal Monitor shall use his/her Best Efforts to fairly assure Railroad’s implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of the Injunctive Relief. Such Best Efforts shall include, but not be limited to:

a. Overseeing and monitoring the development, establishment, and/or implementation of the Injunctive Relief terms;

b. completion;

Reviewing all Covered Complaints and monitoring the procedure through

c. Submitting the Compliance Reports and other documents and information to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and the Special Master.

d. Meeting with Class Members who file Covered Complaints to review said Complaints with them, as requested by such Class Member, pursuant to VIII.C.2.(c).

(v). Internal Monitor’s Authority to Recommend Individual Relief

The Internal Monitor shall have the authority to recommend appropriate relief for any Class Member who he/she concludes has been subjected to: (a) a violation of the Consent Decree; (b) race discrimination with respect to his or her promotion into, or a training opportunity for, a Covered Position; (c) racial harassment; or (d) an improper decision by Railroad regarding a Covered Complaint filed pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure. The Internal Monitor’s recommended relief may include promoting or reassigning the employee, or providing the employee with other appropriate relief, including monetary relief. Should

14

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 15 of 30 PageID #:707
Railroad fail to adopt and carry out the Internal Monitor’s recommendation, the Internal Monitor shall include in his/her Compliance Report a description of his/her recommendation and Railroad’s explanation of the specific reasons for its decision not to follow that recommendation. The Parties shall resolve any continuing dispute regarding the Internal Monitor’s remedial recommendation pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in Section IX.
(b). Announcement of the Internal Monitor.
Within fourteen (14) days of Railroad’s appointment of the Internal Monitor, or any successor Internal Monitor as provided for above, Railroad shall provide notice to all of its employees of the Internal Monitor’s or successor Internal Monitor’s appointment, including his/her name, title, and background, and a description of the Internal Monitor’s job duties and responsibilities.
(c). Provision of Adequate Resources to the Internal Monitor.
Railroad shall provide the Internal Monitor with such support staff and funds as may be necessary to fully and effectively discharge Railroad’s and the Internal Monitor’s obligations under this Consent Decree.
2. INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE.
(a). As described herein, Railroad shall continue to maintain an Internal Complaint Procedure for the purpose of resolving Covered Complaints. At its election, Railroad may extend the operation of the Internal Complaint Procedure to other types of complaints without broadening its obligations under this Consent Decree, which are strictly limited to Covered Complaints.
(b). At a minimum, Railroad’s Internal Complaint Procedure shall contain the following components or provisions: (i) a toll-free number for employees to make verbal complaints that Railroad will document in written format; (ii) appropriate and effective investigation techniques and procedures; (iii) appropriate levels of trained staff to implement the Internal Complaint Procedure; (iv) prohibition against any individual who is the subject of a Covered Complaint playing a role in the decision-making process with respect to the resolution of such Covered Complaint; (v) notification to the complainant of the results of the investigation and any proposed remedial measures pertaining to the complainant; (vi) a system for providing appropriate corrective measures or remedial actions, including, but not limited to, awarding a promotion, eliminating discipline, and/or awarding lost back pay, as well as preventive measures for discriminatory conduct found to have occurred; and (vii) follow up measures to ensure that the corrective measures or remedial actions are implemented and to ensure that no retaliation against the complainant occurs.
(c). After Railroad concludes investigating a Covered Complaint made pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure, complainant shall have the right to review his or her complaint, and Railroad’s response thereto, with the Internal Monitor, if complainant so requests. The Internal Monitor shall have the right to change or affirm the Railroad’s decision regarding the Covered Complaint.
15

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 16 of 30 PageID #:708

3. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING.

(a). Document Retention

Railroad shall retain the following employment-related records for the duration this Consent Decree or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

(i). All Covered Complaints filed pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure, and the written findings of the investigations.

(ii). All notices required by this Decree, and a record of the date(s) on which Railroad distributed or posted such notice.

(iii). All policies, procedures, and programs related to, or designed to implement, the various provisions of this Decree.

(iv). Documentation regarding the reasons for Railroad’s selection or non-selection of each employee interviewed for a Covered Position.

(b). Access to Retained Documents

(i). The records and information Railroad is required to retain under section 3.(a). above shall be made available to the Internal Monitor. The Internal Monitor will produce such records to the Special Master and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel upon request and on reasonable notice and terms, but only if necessary and/or incidental to the performance of their obligations under this Consent Decree.

(ii). If Railroad objects to the production of a requested document or other information on the ground that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine (“privileged documents”), Railroad shall provide a privilege log describing the following:

a. The date of the document;

b. The type of document, e.g., letter, memorandum, report, or handwritten note;

c. The author of the document;

d. The recipient of the document;

e. Individuals who received copies of the document; and

f.

The privilege that is being claimed.

(iii). The Parties agree that Railroad may claim as privileged and need not produce documents that are prepared by Railroad’s attorneys or communications between Railroad’s attorneys and Railroad for the purpose of seeking legal advice, providing legal advice, or otherwise monitoring Railroad’s compliance with the terms of the Decree.

16

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 17 of 30 PageID #:709
(iv). All documents Railroad is required to maintain by the express terms of the Consent Decree, and all documents that are provided to the Internal Monitor, the Special Master, and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel under the terms of the Consent Decree, are, and shall be treated as, confidential business records. The Internal Monitor, Special Master, and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel shall not divulge any such documents to any third party without Railroad’s written consent to such disclosure, unless so ordered by the Court after notice to Railroad and an opportunity for Railroad to object to such disclosure and be heard.
(c). Compliance Reports (i). Contents of Compliance Report The Internal Monitor, through Railroad’s counsel, shall produce to the Special
Master and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel the Compliance Report required by this Section on the oneyear anniversary of the Effective Date and every six months thereafter during the term of this Consent Decree. Railroad’s Compliance Reports shall provide information showing:
a. a summary of all EEO training activities, including the dates, subjects, and duration of each such training activity;
b. a summary of the information regarding Covered Complaints as referenced in Section VIII. C. 2. This shall include a description of all Covered Complaints filed pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure, including: the name, race, and job position of the complainant; a brief summary of the nature of the complaint; the name, race, job position, and locations of the subject(s) of the complaint; a brief summary of the status and nature of the investigation conducted; the final disposition of the investigation; and any corrective or remedial action taken. In addition, the annual reports of Covered Complaints should include review for any patterns, such as substantiated multiple complaints against a particular manager, or involving a particular employment practice or procedure. If such patterns are found, the Internal Monitor, shall, in consultation with the Human Resources Department or its designee, develop a plan to address and correct such patterns, and such plan will be included as part of the summary provided in the Compliance Report;
c. a summary of the number of internal African American applicants and the number of internal African American promotions into Covered Positions during the preceding twelve (12) month period.
d. a summary of any individual relief recommended by the Internal Monitor that Railroad declined to follow, along with Railroad’s explanation of its reasons for the declination;
e. the results of Railroad’s adverse impact analyses and other information required by Section VIII. B.5.b.; and
f. any additional information Railroad wishes to provide to demonstrate its overall compliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.
17

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 18 of 30 PageID #:710
(ii). Review of Compliance Reports
The Special Master and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel shall review the Compliance Reports to ensure Railroad’s compliance with the terms of the Decree.
4. It is understood and agreed that Railroad's operation undergoes constant change and requires flexibility to adapt to such change. It is further understood and agreed that in every instance where Railroad agrees to implement a specific system or process hereunder, Railroad shall be permitted to substitute an alternative system or process that provides equal or greater benefits to the Class, provided that if Railroad wishes to make any such substitution, it shall provide at least thirty (30) days advance notice to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel. If there is any objection to the proposed substitution, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel must initiate the Dispute Resolution Procedures outlined in Section IX. within seven (7) days of notice. In the event that the Dispute Resolution Procedure is timely initiated, no substitution shall be implemented until such Procedure has concluded.
IX. Dispute Resolution Procedures: Informal Dispute Resolution Process and Enforcement of the Consent Decree Before the Special Master and the Court
A. Appointment of the Special Master
1. Railroad and Class Counsel agree to the appointment of Hunter Hughes as Special Master to serve as a mediator in connection with the Dispute Resolution Procedures contained in this Section IX. and to review Railroad’s compliance with this Consent Decree as described in Section VII. The Special Master may be replaced or removed: (a) at the Special Master’s written request; (b) at Class Counsel’s and Railroad’s joint written request; or (c) by order of the Court upon motion by either Railroad or Class Counsel demonstrating that good cause exists for removal of the Special Master.
2. In the event that the Special Master or his/her successor ceases to function as Special Master for any reason, including death, disability, voluntary resignation, the joint written request of Class Counsel and Railroad, or an order of the Court, Class Counsel and Railroad shall make a good faith effort to select a new Special Master by mutual agreement.
3. If Class Counsel and Railroad are unable to reach agreement as to a successor Special Master within forty-five (45) days following the date the designated Special Master ceases to function in that capacity, the Court, upon motion by either Class Counsel or Railroad, shall appoint a successor Special Master. Class Counsel or Railroad may nominate to the Court persons for consideration as the successor Special Master. Both Class Counsel and Railroad shall have the right to interview any nominated person and to present argument and evidence to the Court regarding the selection of a successor Special Master.
B. Informal Dispute Resolution Process
The Parties agree to the use of an informal resolution process for disputes involving the interpretation or implementation of this Consent Decree. Class Counsel and Counsel for Railroad shall confer as necessary and use their best efforts to attempt to resolve promptly any disputes regarding the interpretation or implementation of the Consent Decree,
18

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 19 of 30 PageID #:711
including Railroad’s compliance with any of its provisions, according to the procedures set forth below:
1. If Class Counsel or Counsel for Railroad has good reason to believe that a legitimate dispute exists as to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of any provision of this Consent Decree, said party shall promptly (i.e., within seven (7) days of the identification of the dispute) give written notice to the other party, including: (a) a reference to all specific provisions of the Consent Decree that are involved; (b) a statement of the issue(s); (c) a statement of the remedial action(s) sought; and (d) a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances, and any other arguments supporting the initiating party’s position.
2. Within ten (10) days after receiving such notice, the non-initiating party shall provide its written position, including the facts and arguments upon which it relies in support of its position.
3. Within ten (10) days thereafter, Class Counsel and Counsel for Railroad shall undertake good-faith negotiations, which shall include a meeting or meetings by telephone or in person and the exchange of relevant documents and/or other information, to attempt to resolve the issue(s) in dispute or alleged non-compliance. The Parties shall use Best Efforts to resolve the disputed matter(s) within twenty (20) days after the initiating party’s receipt of the noninitiating party’s response required by subsection B.2. above.
C. Referral of Disputes to the Special Master
1. If Class Counsel and Railroad fail to resolve their differences or disputes regarding the interpretation or implementation of this Consent Decree pursuant to the Informal Dispute Resolution Process set forth in section IX.B. above, Class Counsel or Railroad may submit a motion to the Special Master, with a supporting brief, seeking resolution of the dispute or the issue of alleged non-compliance, provided, however, that: (a) the moving party has complied with and made a “good faith” effort to resolve the matter through the Informal Dispute Resolution Process; (b) the initiating party has served a written notice of “impasse” upon the other party within seven (7) days after being unable to resolve their differences; (c) the motion shall not be submitted until no less than seven (7) days has passed from the date the initiating party served the written notice of “impasse” upon the other party; (d) the motion is submitted within seven (7) days after service of the written notice of “impasse”; and (e) such motion shall be limited to the dispute(s) and/or issue(s) as to which the Informal Dispute Resolution Process was exhausted.
2. The non-moving party will have ten (10) days to respond to any such motion by submitting a brief to the Special Master and serving it on the moving party.
3. The Special Master shall attempt, within twenty (20) days after receiving the non-moving party’s brief, to resolve the dispute. The Special Master may within that period schedule a telephonic or in-person hearing or other proceeding to resolve the matter by consent of the Parties or to provide them with an opportunity to present such evidence or argument as deemed appropriate by the Special Master in the absence of a consensual resolution. If the parties fail to resolve the matter within the twenty (20) day period, the Special Master shall, within thirty (30) additional days after such hearing, issue a written decision, which shall state:
19

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 20 of 30 PageID #:712
(a) the issue(s) to be determined; (b) the decision of the Special Master; and (c) a summary of the facts and the Consent Decree provisions upon which the Special Master relied. The Special Master’s jurisdiction and authority shall be limited to the enforcement of the terms of the Consent Decree. The Special Master shall not add to, detract from, or otherwise modify the terms of the Consent Decree. The Special Master shall not have the authority to issue penalties or sanctions against any party or their counsel.
D. Appeal from the Special Master’s Decision
Either Class Counsel or Railroad may appeal the Special Master’s written decision to the District Court, provided that such an appeal is filed within fourteen (14) days of the Special Master's written decision. Any such appeal shall be brought by motion pursuant to the Local Rules of the Court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision rendered by the Special Master shall be affirmed unless the District Court finds that the Special Master abused his/her discretion or disregarded the law or the terms of the Consent Decree.
E. Payment of the Costs of the Special Master
Railroad shall pay for the fees and expenses of the Special Master.
F. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred in Utilizing the Dispute Resolution Procedures
The Parties shall bear their own fees and costs (including attorneys’ fees) incurred in using the Dispute Resolution Procedures, except that if an appeal is filed with the court on a particular issue, counsel for the “prevailing party” in the appeal shall be paid their reasonable fees and costs incurred pursuant to section IX.D (which may, at the court’s discretion, include reasonable costs or fees incurred beginning with the initiation of the Dispute Resolution Process for that issue and ending with the resolution of the appeal on that issue).
X. Designation of Settlement Administrator
Subject to Court approval, the parties agree to retain Administar Services Group, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator's duties and responsibilities are set forth in this Consent Decree.
XI. Monetary Relief
A. Establishment of Settlement Fund
Railroad shall establish a settlement fund (the "Settlement Fund") in the gross amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) for the purpose of providing individual awards to the Named Plaintiffs, monetary awards to the eligible members of the Settlement Class, and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, to be distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.
20

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 21 of 30 PageID #:713
B. Administration of Settlement Fund
Within three (3) days of the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, the Settlement Administrator will open an interest-bearing account (“Settlement Fund Account”) with a unique Taxpayer Identification Number. Within 30 days of the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, Railroad shall transfer Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) to the Settlement Fund Account established by the Settlement Administrator.
1. This account will accrue interest at the prevailing market rate for such an account at the banks in the town where the Settlement Administrator is located until all of the Settlement Funds have been paid out of the account, with interest to inure to the benefit of the Settlement Fund. At all times, however, Railroad shall be responsible for the payment of its portion of employer taxes and such payment shall not be made from the principal of the Settlement Fund. Only withdrawals authorized by this Consent Decree may be made from this account. Except as noted herein, each Class Member and Named Plaintiff shall take full and complete responsibility for all tax liability which might be incurred as a result of their receipt of any sum from the Settlement Fund. The payments to the Class Members and Named Plaintiffs will be allocated 80% to compensatory damages, interest, and fringe benefits and 20% to wages. The Settlement Fund shall be administered by the Settlement Administrator under the Court's supervision.
2. If there is no Final Approval of the Consent Decree, or if Railroad rescinds the Consent Decree pursuant to Section XII.F., the Settlement Administrator shall immediately return to Railroad all funds transferred by Railroad to the Settlement Account Fund, including any interest accrued thereon.
C. Payment to Settlement Class
1. The Settlement Administrator shall distribute $1,500,000 of the Settlement Fund, plus interest (but less the amounts set forth in Section C.2. below) to eligible Class Members who file timely and valid claim forms, as set forth in Section D below. The distribution of the Settlement Fund according to the procedures set forth herein will be the Settlement Administrator's responsibility. The Settlement Administrator shall complete this distribution as soon as practicable, but in no event shall any distributions to the Class Members be made prior to thirty five (35) days after the Effective Date.
2. Prior to allocating any portion of the money from the Settlement Fund to Class Members, the Settlement Fund shall be reduced by the following amounts, which are to be paid to each Named Plaintiff as an Individual Award as described below:
Melvin Barnes: One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for giving up the right to be employed by Railroad in the future and for his assistance throughout the preparation, filing, litigation, and settlement of this Litigation.
Tracy Steele and Jeremy Williams: Ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) for their assistance throughout the preparation, filing, litigation, and settlement of this Litigation.
21

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 22 of 30 PageID #:714

D. Procedure for Distribution of the Settlement Fund

The Parties agree that payments shall be made only to those Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms. The determination of whether a claim form has been validly and timely submitted shall be made by the Settlement Administrator, in conjunction with Class Counsel and Railroad’s Counsel. The Settlement Administrator will make the monetary calculation for each Class Member returning valid and timely claim forms. A sample claim form is attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit D.

The amount from the Settlement Fund to be paid to each Class Member shall be calculated based on the total number of days each Class Member was employed by Railroad between February 18, 2000 and Preliminary Approval Date (or such other time period for which Railroad has employment tenure data to be agreed upon by the Parties). Payments will only be made to eligible Class Members or, in the event a Class Member is deceased, to his/her estate.

1.

CALCULATIONS

Within 30 days after it is determined that the claim forms submitted by Class Members are timely and valid, the Settlement Administrator will determine the gross and net payments actually to be made to these Class Members.

2.

NOTICE

Railroad shall provide to the Settlement Administrator the names, social security numbers, and last known addresses for all Class Members, within four (4) business days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

No more than seven (7) days after the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator will mail, via USPS first class mail, Notice to all Class Members in the form approved by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order.

For those Class Members whose notices are returned by the USPS as undeliverable within thirty (30) days of the initial mailing of the notices, the Settlement Administrator will perform an address search and re-mail the notice to those for whom a potential new address can be found. The postmark filing deadline for claim forms is December 9, 2009.

The Notice, as approved by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will set forth the total amount of the Settlement Fund, the date for the Fairness Hearing, the Individual Award to be paid to the Named Plaintiffs, a description of the method by which the payment to Class Members from the Settlement Fund will be computed, the amounts of attorneys' fees and costs payable to Class Counsel, the process for opting out of the Settlement, the process for objecting to the settlement, , and a description of the procedure and timetable for completing computation of the amounts to be distributed to each Class Member and for the issuance of payment. A copy of the Consent Decree shall be included in the Notice. The Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

22

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 23 of 30 PageID #:715
E. Fairness Hearing
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to consider whether, after hearing any objections, the Settlement terms are fair and reasonable to the Class Members as a whole. In the event the Court approves the Settlement as fair and reasonable, upon the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will complete computation of the amounts to be distributed as described below and thereafter will issue and mail checks to Eligible Class Members through the process described herein.
1. All Class Members who wish to receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund must complete, return, and postmark their claim forms to the Settlement Administrator on or before December 9, 2009. Only if the Notice and Claim Form is completed, returned, and postmarked on or before that date will the Class Member be considered eligible for a distribution from the Settlement Fund.
2. Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator, in conjunction with Class Counsel and Railroad’s Counsel, will determine the Class Members who submitted timely and valid claim forms from the Settlement Fund and are therefore eligible to receive payments from the Settlement Fund.
F. Payment to Eligible Class Members
Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will mail each eligible Class Member a check representing their respective share of the Settlement Fund. Each check will state that the check will be void on a date one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of issuance. Each payment shall be allocated 80% to compensatory damages, interest, and fringe benefits and 20% to wages.
Any Class Member endorsing a settlement check will be deemed to have released their claims, as set forth in Section VII.A.
G. Tax Withholdings and Reporting
The Settlement Administrator will inform Railroad of the amount of the employer's share of all taxes or contributions (e.g., matching social security, RRB, Medicare or other required withholding or payroll taxes) required to be paid. Any employer's share of taxes or contributions (e.g., matching social security, RRB, Medicare or other required withholding or payroll taxes) shall be paid by Railroad. The Settlement Administrator will be responsible for preparing, reporting and remitting all appropriate tax filings and reports for all Class Members and Named Plaintiffs in a timely fashion after receipt of the Settlement Funds, including, but not limited to, W-2 and 1099 forms for all Named Plaintiffs and Class Members for their payments from the Settlement Fund, as well as any filings and/or reports required for the Settlement Fund itself. The Settlement Administrator will also be responsible for reporting and remitting to the appropriate taxing authorities the employer's share of taxes or contributions required to be paid by Railroad in a timely manner after receipt of the amount due for those payments from Railroad. In determining the amount of each payment, the Settlement Administrator will calculate the gross amount of distribution and then deduct all applicable withholding for federal, state, local, Social Security, RRB, or other applicable deductions. Each Class Member shall take full and complete responsibility for any and all personal tax liability which s/he may incur as a
23

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 24 of 30 PageID #:716
result of their receipt of any sum from the Settlement Fund.
H. Remaining Monies In Settlement Fund
Any monies remaining in the Settlement Fund for three hundred (300) days after the Effective Date shall, at Class Counsel’s sole discretion, be used to make additional payments to Class Members, or be paid to any nonprofit 501(c) organizations eligible to receive cy pres distributions. Class Counsel represent that they shall derive no financial or other benefit from any transfer of funds to any such organization.
I. Undeliverable Checks
Any checks returned as undeliverable shall be voided and the amount of the check shall be returned to the Settlement Fund, to be distributed as per Section H above.
J. Deceased Settlement Class Members
Any allocation paid to a deceased Class Member shall be made payable to the estate of the deceased Class Member upon timely receipt by the Settlement Administrator of proper written proof of the estate's entitlement to receive the deceased Class Member's assets.
K. Periodic Statements from Settlement Administrator
Within thirty (30) days of the final distribution of the monies from the Settlement Fund, the Settlement Administrator shall furnish an accounting of all distributions from the Settlement Fund to the Court, with copies to counsel for Railroad and Class Counsel.
XII. Notice of Objections and Limited Right To Opt-Out
Class Members may object to, or opt out of, the Settlement.
A. Objections
Class Members objecting to the terms of the Settlement must do so in writing by sending a written objection to the Settlement Administrator, which must be postmarked on or before December 9, 2009. The Settlement Administrator shall date stamp the original of the objection and forward a copy of the objection to both counsel for Railroad and Class Counsel within two (2) business days following receipt. The Settlement Administrator will file the original objections with the Clerk of the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the scheduled Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator shall retain copies of all written objections until such time as it has completed its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
B. Right to Opt-Out
Class Members have a right to exclude themselves (or opt-out) from this Consent Decree. If the request for exclusion is exercised, the right to share in the monetary benefits of this Consent Decree will be forever lost. All Class Members who are presently employed by Railroad shall, however, be beneficiaries of any injunctive relief agreed to in the Consent Decree, and may not opt-out of those provisions of the Settlement.
24

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 25 of 30 PageID #:717
Any request for exclusion must be in the form of a written Opt-out statement sent to the Settlement Administrator. Information on how to opt-out of the settlement shall be made available to Class Members in the Notice and by the Settlement Administrator upon request. A person wishing to opt-out must sign a statement that includes the following language:
"I understand that I am requesting to be excluded from the class monetary settlement and that I will receive no money from the settlement fund created under the Consent Decree entered into by Railroad. I understand that if I am excluded from the class monetary settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but may receive nothing or less than what I would have received under the class monetary settlement in this case. I also understand that I may not seek exclusion from the class for injunctive (non-monetary) relief and that I am bound by the injunctive provisions of the Consent Decree entered into by Railroad."
Class Members who do not properly or timely request exclusion (as to the monetary aspects of the Consent Decree only) will be barred and precluded from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating in (as a Class Member or otherwise) any other lawsuit or settlement based on or relating to the claims, causes of actions, or the facts and circumstances of this lawsuit and the claims released in Section VII above. Class Members who do not properly or timely request exclusion (as to the monetary relief aspects of the Consent Decree only) also will be barred and precluded from receiving any benefits from any other lawsuit, administrative, or regulatory proceeding or court order in any jurisdiction based on or relating to the claims, causes of actions, or the facts and circumstances of this lawsuit and the claims released in Section VII above.
Class Members who timely request exclusion (as to the monetary relief aspects of the Consent Decree only) will not be permitted to object to this Consent Decree or otherwise participate in any further proceedings in this case.
C. Submission of Opt-Out Statements
A Class Member submitting an Opt-out statement shall sign and date the statement and send it to the Settlement Administrator postmarked no later than December 9, 2009. The Settlement Administrator shall date stamp the original of any Opt-out statement and serve copies on both counsel for Railroad and Class Counsel within two (2) business days of receipt of such statement. The Settlement Administrator will file the original Opt-out statements with the Clerk of the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the scheduled Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator shall retain copies of all Opt-out statements until such time as it has completed its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
D. Rescission of Class Member Opt-Outs
The Parties recognize that some Class Members who initially submit Opt-out forms seeking exclusion may, upon further reflection, wish to withdraw or rescind such Opt-out statements. The Parties agree that Class Members shall be permitted to withdraw or rescind their Opt-out statements by submitting a "Rescission of Opt-out" statement to the Settlement Administrator. The Rescission of Opt-out statement shall include the following language:
25

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 26 of 30 PageID #:718
"I previously submitted an Opt-out statement seeking exclusion from the class monetary settlement. I have reconsidered and wish to withdraw my Opt-out statement. I understand that by rescinding my Opt-out statement I may be eligible to receive an award from the claims settlement fund and may not bring a separate legal action against Railroad seeking damages."
E. Submission of Rescission Statements.
A Class Member submitting such a rescission statement shall sign and date the statement and cause it to be delivered to the Settlement Administrator no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the date of the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator shall date stamp the original of any Rescission of Opt-out statement and immediately scan and send by e-mail or fax copies to counsel for Railroad and Class Counsel no later than the next business day after receipt thereof and shall file the date-stamped originals with the Clerk of the Court no later than one (1) business day prior to the date of the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator shall retain copies of all Rescissions of Opt-Out statements until such time as the Settlement Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
F. Defendant's Rescission of Agreement
If any of the Named Plaintiffs opt out, or if the number of Class Members who opt-out of the Settlement in the manner provided for in this Decree exceeds twenty-two (22), then Railroad, at its sole option, shall have the right to void this Settlement within seven (7) days after the date the Court allows the submission of rescissions of opt-outs. If Railroad exercises this option, all of Railroad's obligations under this Consent Decree shall cease to have any force or effect and any orders entered in connection therewith shall be vacated, rescinded, cancelled, and annulled, and the Parties shall return to the status quo in this Litigation as if the Parties had not entered into this Consent Decree. In addition, in such event, the Consent Decree and all negotiations, court orders and proceedings related thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of any and all Parties hereto, and evidence relating to the Consent Decree and all negotiations shall not be admissible or discoverable in this Litigation or otherwise.
XIII. Settlement Administrator's Duties and Responsibilities.
The Settlement Administrator shall: (1) receive from Railroad the names, social security numbers, last known addresses, and length of employment of all Class members by no later than four (4) business days after the Preliminary Approval Order; (2) prepare and mail the Notice to Class Members and the claim form to those Class Members who may are eligible to receive a monetary distribution no later than seven (7) days after the Preliminary Approval Order; (3) trace twice, if necessary, all Class Member addresses for undeliverable Notice and claim forms; (4) seek additional information from Railroad, when appropriate or necessary; (5) calculate the amounts due to each Class Member; (6) calculate, report and remit in a timely fashion to the appropriate state and federal taxing authorities the taxes due to be paid by each Class Member and Named Plaintiff based on the money they receive from the Settlement Fund; (7) report and remit in a timely fashion to the appropriate state and federal taxing authorities the employer’s share of taxes or contributions required to be paid by Railroad as a result of the payment of monetary sums to the Class Members and Named Plaintiffs; (8) receive and file optout statements, objections and rescissions of opt-out statements; (9) implement the
26

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 27 of 30 PageID #:719
Distribution Procedures required by the Consent Decree; (10) respond to questions from Class Members and Named Plaintiffs; and (11) perform any other duties necessary to carry out its responsibilities as set forth in this Decree.
XIV. Payment of the Settlement Administrator’s Fees and Costs
The Settlement Administrator's fees and costs will be paid by Railroad.
XV. Payment For Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses
Within seven (7) days of the Effective Date, Class Counsel shall be paid from the Settlement Fund One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) for work performed up to the Effective Date. If required by the Court, Class Counsel will provide support for its fees and expenses.
Railroad shall have no obligation under this Consent Decree to pay any money for attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, except as expressly set forth in this Consent Decree. Except as otherwise provided herein, Railroad shall not be liable for any of Named Plaintiffs' costs or attorneys' fees, statutory or otherwise, incurred in this Litigation or during the term of this Consent Decree.
XVI. Attorney’s Fees, Expenses and Costs During Term of Consent Decree
Within seven (7) days of the Effective Date, Railroad also agrees to pay to Class Counsel Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to be expended during the Term of the Consent Decree. This payment shall not be paid from the Settlement Fund.
XVII. Media and Confidentiality Obligations
The Parties have agreed to issue a joint media statement (attached as Exhibit F) after the filing of the Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement, and on the day of the Court's Final Approval of the Settlement. Prior to that time, the Parties agree to keep the terms of this Settlement confidential.
Any further statements to the media by either Party, the Named Plaintiffs, or any Class Counsel must be provided to, and approved by, the opposing party in advance of the issuance to the media. Therefore, the Parties agree that neither they, the Named Plaintiffs, nor any Class Counsel may issue or release statements to the media about the Decree without securing prior advance approval from the opposing Party.
Moreover, the Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, Railroad, and Railroad’s counsel agree not to discuss with any other person or entity other than their immediate family and tax or financial advisors, except as may be directed by the Court, any terms of the Settlement other than information as set forth in the agreed upon joint media statement. If a party makes a statement to the media or third parties in violation of its confidentiality obligations, the other party shall not be deemed to have violated its confidentiality obligations, or otherwise waived privilege or protection (including without limitation the reporter shield protection), by taking appropriate action in response to the statements made by the violating party, including
27

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 28 of 30 PageID #:720

responding to the media or third parties. If one Party alleges that another Party violated this provision, the Parties shall be subject to full discovery as to the alleged violation.

XVIII. Other Provisions

A. Where notice is required to be provided to Counsel or to the Settlement Administrator, or where materials are required to be sent to Counsel or to the Settlement Administrator, then such requirements shall be satisfied by providing such notice as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel: Robert F Childs, Jr., Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, (205) 314-0591.

Defendants’ counsel: Keith C. Hult, Littler Mendelson, P.C., 200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 372-5520.

Settlement Administrator: Administar Services Group, Inc., P.O. Box 36380, Jacksonville, Florida 32241-6380.

B. If any individual or entity objects to or appeals the approval of this Consent Decree, all Parties to this Decree shall support and defend the propriety of and approval of this Decree.

C.

If the Consent Decree is not finally approved, whether by reason of an order of

the Court or of any appellate court or for any other reason, then the Releases contained herein

shall be null and void; any and all further undertakings of the Parties under this Decree shall be

excused.

D. The Parties acknowledge that they are entering into this Consent Decree voluntarily and that it is his, her, its or their intent to consummate this Decree and agree to cooperate to the extent necessary to effectuate and implement all terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and exercise Best Efforts to establish the foregoing terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.

E. Upon execution of this Consent Decree, all proceedings in this action shall be stayed until further order of the Court, except such proceedings as may be necessary to implement the settlement or comply with or effectuate the terms of this Consent Decree.

F. This Consent Decree (along with the Exhibits thereto) constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements or understandings between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and any and all prior correspondence, conversations or memoranda between the Parties are merged herein and are replaced hereby. This Consent Decree may not be altered or amended except by a written instrument that has been approved by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

G. If any part, subpart, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence or clause of this Consent Decree or the application of same to any person or circumstance is, for any

28

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 29 of 30 PageID #:721

reason, judged by any court to be unenforceable or contrary to law, or if the enactment or amendment of any federal or state statute, order, ordinance, or regulation renders any provision of this Consent Decree unenforceable or contrary to law, such judgment, enactment, or amendment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Consent Decree, provided that such portion of this Consent Decree that has or may become unenforceable is not a material part or the essence of any Party's bargain hereunder.

H. This Consent Decree and the Exhibits hereto, and the rights and obligations of the Parties thereunder, shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois as to substance and procedure, including all questions of conflicts of laws.

I.

The undersigned counsel and persons are fully authorized to execute and enter

into the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree on behalf of their respective clients.

/s/ Robert F.Childs, Jr. Robert F. Childs, Jr.(ASB-2223-C60R)
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC. The Kress Building 301 19th Street, North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205) 314-0500

/s/ William Ready William Ready
READY AND ASSOCIATES 2105 5th Street Meridian, MS. 39302-0927 (601) 693-6678

/s/ Robert Foote Robert Foote Foote, Myers, Mielke, & Flowers, LLC. 3 North 2nd Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL. 60174 (630) 232-6333
/s/ Peter Currie The Law Firm of Peter Currie, P. C. 536 Wing Lane St. Charles, IL. 60174 (630) 797-3339
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

/s/ Kathleen Chavez Kathleen Chavez
The Chavez Law Firm, P.C. 3 North 2nd Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL. 60174
(630) 232-6333

29

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 91 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 30 of 30 PageID #:722 /s/ Keith Hult Keith C. Hult Shanthi V. Gaur Littler Mendelson, P. C. 200 North LaSalle Street Suite 2900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Firmwide:92538508.1 046769.1034
30

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:724

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DNISION

Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, and Jeremy Williams on behalf of themselves and all other black persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v

Canadian National Railway Co.,

Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand

Trunk Western Railroad, Inc.,

)

Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois

Central Railroad Company,

Wisconsin Central Transportation

Corporation, Wisconsin Central

Limited.

Defendants.

) ) ) ) CNIL ACTION NO. 04-C-1249 ) ) Judge: James B. Zagel ) Magistrate Judge: Michael T. Mason ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This cause is now before the Court on the Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement between plaintiffs, Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, and Jeremy Williams as Class Representatives ("Named Plaintiffs"), and the Railroad, which is defined in the Decree as all U.S. operating railroad subsidiaries of Canadian National Railway Company, including Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company, Cedar River Railroad Company, Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company, Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company, Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, Grand

-1-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:725
Trunk Western Railroad Company, Illinois Central Railroad Company, The Pittsburgh and Conneaut Dock Company, Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company, and Wisconsin Central Ltd. Pursuant to the Court's October 26, 2009 Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, this action now comes before the Court for a Fairness Hearing on January 7, 20 I0, to consider the matter set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order; due notice of said hearing having been given pursuant to the Court's October 26, 2009 Order; and all members of the class having been provided the opportunity to file timely objections to the proposed Consent Decree ("Decree") as described in the Notice of Proposed Settlement; and the Court having considered the matter and all of the submissions filed in connection therewith, and the oral presentation of counsel at said hearing, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims at issue in this action, as well as over the Parties and the Railroad. "Parties" means the Named Plaintiffs and "Defendants" in this Litigation. The Named Plaintiffs are Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele and Jeremy Williams. The "Defendants" are Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated, Illinois Central Railroad Company, and Wisconsin Central Ltd. Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Illinois Central Corporation and Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation, being holding companies and not operating, policy-setting or employer companies, were not
-2-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:726
served with the Third Amended Complaint and were dismissed from this case, without prejudice, by stipulation of the Parties on May 21, 2008. PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
2. Substantial discovery has been initiated and completed in this case. Named Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint and three Amended Complaints in this case. Subsequent to discovery, the parties have engaged in extensive mediation and settlement discussions. The parties have kept the Court informed of the status of their settlement efforts. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
3. For the purposes of settlement of this case only, Named Plaintiffs seek to have the following settlement class certified: "All African-American employees of the Railroad from February 18,2000 to October 21, 2009."
For the purposes of settlement, the parties agree to the conditional certification of said class. Applying the factors set forth in Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that it is appropriate to conditionally certify said class for settlement purposes.
a. Numerosity The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied because the proposed class
involves in excess of 1500 African-Americans during the relevant time period. The Court also finds that joinder would be impracticable.
b. Commonality
-3-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:727
The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there is at least one factual or legal issue which is common to all, or substantially all, of the class members. Named Plaintiffs allege that the Railroad has engaged in systemic racial discrimination, including a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and practices having unlawful disparate impact in its selection procedures with regard to promotions to and training for Covered Positions (as Covered Positions are defined in Section II.F. of the Decree), and the working conditions that face African-American employees ("Common Practices"). These allegations involve interrelated factual and legal issues for each potential member of the class. Stated another way, Named Plaintiffs allege that the Railroad's conduct impacts all class members by general practices.
c. Tvoicality Rule 23(a)(3) typicality is generally satisfied when the Named Plaintiffs' claims
arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts as the claims of absent class members. In this case, the typicality requirement is satisfied as the Named Plaintiffs and the potential class members all claim that the Railroad's Common Practices have had a disparate impact upon them in the same fashion.
d. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representatives and their counsel fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Class counsel in this case are highly skilled,
-4-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:728
competent and experienced class action attorneys who have a long history of successfully litigating class action civil rights lawsuits, are knowledgeable ofthe applicable law, and have committed the necessary resources to the case. Further, the Court notes that class counsel have vigorously litigated this case for several years, have done extensive work in identifying and investigating potential claims in this action, and have successfully negotiated a settlement for the class. Class counsel was provided with the Railroad's electronic databases describing the pay and promotion history of class members and their comparators. With the assistance of expert consultants, class counsel analyzed these data and were able to thoroughly investigate the magnitude and incidence, if any, of racial disparities in pay and/or promotion. Class counsel have determined that the settlement they have obtained is commensurate with these findings, making due allowance for the risks and uncertainties of further litigation. The Court is satisfied that the firms of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC., Ready & Associates, Foote Myers Mielke & Flowers, LLC., the Chavez Law Firm, P.C., and the Law Firm of Peter Currie, P.C. have thus far fairly and adequately protected and represented the interests of the settlement class and will continue to adequately represent the class. The Court also finds that the class representatives Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele and Jeremy Williams have adequately represented the class. The class representatives' interests are sufficiently aligned with the interests of the unnamed class members and they have taken an active role in working with class counsel in the prosecution of this litigation.
-5-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:729
e. Predominance Rule 23(b)(3) requires that questions of law and fact common to the claims of
Named Plaintiffs and each class member predominate over any questions of Jaw or fact affecting any individual members of the class. All claims by Named Plaintiffs and the unnamed class members are based on allegations of Common Practices which have allegedly had a discriminatory effect against African-American employees of the Defendants. Thus, the liability issue is common to the class in this case. As all claims by Named Plaintiffs and the class members are based on the same alleged Common Practices, the predominance requirement of Fed. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
f. Superiority Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the court finds that a class action is superior to
individuals' actions in this case because (1) joinder of all class members would create extreme hardship and inconvenience for the class members due to the geographic dispersion of the class members; (2) there are no known individual class members who are interested in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions; (3) the interest ofjustice would be well served by resolving the common disputes of the class members in one forum resulting in efficiencies to the Court system; (4) individual suits would not be cost effective and would have a potential detrimental impact on the Court's ability to manage and control its docket; and (5) this action is
-6-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:730
manageable as a class action and individual lawsuits would result in great inefficiencies and cost to the Court, Named Plaintiffs, class members, and the Railroad.
In the event the Decree does not become finally approved or effective for any reason, then this conditional class certification is null and void, shall no longer be in effect and shall not be used or referred to for any further purpose in this action or any other action or proceeding. In such event, no party shall have waived the right to seek approval of or challenge/contest class certification in this case. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS
4. As noted in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds that the proposed notice to the class members attached to the Agreement as Exhibit 3 satisfies due process and is constitutionally adequate, both in terms of its substance and the manner in which it is to be disseminated. First, the notice contains all of the essential elements necessary to satisfy any due process concerns, including: (a) the nature of the action; (b) the definition of the class certified; (c) a description of the class claims, issues and defenses; (d) the identities of the parties; (e) a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement, including the amount of incentive payments and the amount of Class Counsel's fees; (f) notice that the class member may appear through an attorney; and (g) information regarding the manner in which objections can be submitted, how a class member can seek exclusion from the class, what facts will result in denial of a class member's claim, and the binding effect of the class judgment. The notice also properly informs
-7-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:731
the settlement class members of the basis for distribution of benefits under the settlement, as well as the date and location of the Fairness Hearing for the settlement. The contents of the notice, accordingly, satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.
5. Second, the Court finds that the methods employed by the parties to identify settlement class members are reasonable. The Notice was disseminated by a Claims Administrator. The Railroad provided to the Claims Administrator a list of all class members that was drawn from a computerized database maintained by the Railroad. As required by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, the Claims Administrator provided individual notice to each class member for whom deliverable addresses were obtained. The Claims Administrator kept records of all notices returned for any reason and made substantial efforts to determine recent addresses for returned notices and forwarded new notices. Accordingly, the Court finds that the method of identifying settlement class members, as well as the timing, form, content and method of disseminating the individual notice to those persons, comports with due process and the requirements of Rule 23.
6. Due and adequate notice of the proceedings having been given to the Class and a full opportunity having been offered to the Class to participate in the fairness hearing, it is hereby determined that all Class Members, except those who timely requested exclusion, are bound by this Final Order and Judgment. FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
-8-

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:732
7. The court held a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement and was advised that there were very few objections to the settlement. The Court finds that those objections lack merit.
8. The Court has considered the merits and risks in this case as well as the extent of the hard fought settlement negotiations.
9. The settlement of this race discrimination case was not the product of collusion between Plaintiffs and Defendants or their respective counsel, but rather was the result of bona fide and arm's-length negotiations conducted in good faith between Class Counsel and counsel for the Railroad.
I0. The Court hereby modifies the Class Release in Section VII. A. of the Consent Decree by removing the references to the "Effective Date" therein and adding the following language: "The Class Release shall release claims which accrued up to and including the date the class members submitted a claim form, or, if no claim form was submitted, up to and including December 15, 2009."
II. Thus, the Consent Decree and the terms contained therein are hereby approved as fair, reasonable, just and adequate and in the best interests of the Class as a whole and in satisfaction of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process requirements, provided, however, that to the extent there is any conflict between the Decree and this Order, this Order controls.
-9-

~ . . . Case: 1:04-cv-01249 Document #: 93 Filed: 01/07/10 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:733
12. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore directs entry of this Final Order and Judgment as a fmal judgment that is immediately appealable.
13. In the event that the proposed settlement embodied in the Decree does not become final for any reason, or in the event that the Decree becomes null and void, pursuant to its terms, then the Decree and all orders entered in connection therewith shall become null, void and of no further force and effect and shall not be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever in this action or in any other case or controversy. In such event, the Decree and all negotiations and proceedings related thereto shall be deemed to be without prejudice as to the rights of any and all parties thereto, and the parties shall be restored to their respective litigation positions as of the date immediately preceding the execution of the Decree.
DONE and ORDERED this 7rH day of January, 20 JAM U.S. District Judge
-10-

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 1 of 11
MASON,PROTO,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04−cv−01249

Barnes, et al v. Canadian Natl IL Cen Assigned to: Honorable James B. Zagel Demand: $75,000 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Melvin Barnes

Date Filed: 02/18/2004 Date Terminated: 01/07/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Diversity
represented by Robert M. Foote Foote, Mielke, Chavez &O'Neil LLC 10 West State Street #200 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232−7450 Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin J DeGweek Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &Pantazis 420 20th Street North 14th Floor Birmingham, AL 35203 (205)328−0640 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Mattison Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &Pantazis 420 20th Street North 14th Floor Birmingham, AL 35203 (205)328−0640
Herman N Johnson , Jr Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &Pantazis 420 20th Street North 14th Floor Birmingham, AL 35203 (205)328−0640 Email: rjohnson@wcqp.com TERMINATED: 01/07/2010
Kathleen Currie Chavez Foote, Mielke, Chavez &O'Neil LLC 10 West State Street Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232−4480 Fax: (630) 232−7452 Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Herman Foote, Mielke, Chavez &O'Neil LLC 10 West State Street Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232−7450 Email: mjh@fmcolaw.com

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 2 of 11

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Lawrence Currie Foote, Mielke, Chavez &O'Neil, LLC 10 West State Street Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232−7450 Fax: (630) 232−7452 Email: plc@fmcolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert F Childs , Jr Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &Pantazis 301 19th Street, North The Kress Building Birmingham, AL 35203 (205)314−0500 Email: rchilds@wcqp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roderick T Cooks Winston Cooks, LLC The Penick Bldg 319−17th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205)502−0970 Email: rcooks@winstoncooks.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen William Fung Kalijarvi, Chuzi &Newman, P.C. 1901 L St., N.W. Suite 610 Washington, DC 20036 2023319260 Email: sfung@kcnlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William E Ready Ready &Associates 517 − 23rd Avenue Meridian, MS 39301 (601)693−6678 Email: ready@mississippi.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tracy Steele on behalf of themselves and all other black persons similary situated

represented by Robert M. Foote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin J DeGweek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A Mattison (See above for address)

Herman N Johnson , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 3 of 11

Plaintiff Jeremy Williams

Kathleen Currie Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Herman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Lawrence Currie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F Childs , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roderick T Cooks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen William Fung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Ready (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin J DeGweek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Currie Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Herman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Lawrence Currie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F Childs , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M. Foote (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roderick T Cooks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen William Fung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Ready (See above for address)

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 4 of 11 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad TERMINATED: 06/08/2007 also known as Illinois Central Railroad Company TERMINATED: 06/08/2007
Defendant Canadian National Railway Company Defendant Grand Trunk Corporation Defendant Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc.

represented by Keith C. Hult Littler Mendelson, P.C. 321 North Clark Street Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 372−5520 Email: khult@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allan G King Littler Mendelson, P.C. 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 2600 Lock Box 116 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 880−8100 Email: agking@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson Littler Mendelson P.C. 1300 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402−2136 (612)313−7603 Email: kwilson@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanthi V. Gaur Littler Mendelson, P.C. 321 North Clark Street Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 372−5520 Email: sgaur@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie D Sarantopoulos Littler Mendelson P.C. 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55106 (612) 313−7609 Email: ssarantopoulos@littler.com
represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 5 of 11

Keith C. Hult (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanthi V. Gaur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Illinois Central Corporation

Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith C. Hult (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanthi V. Gaur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation

Defendant Wisconsin Central Limited

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith C. Hult (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanthi V. Gaur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 6 of 11

02/18/2004
02/18/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004 04/27/2004 11/15/2004 12/03/2004 12/06/2004 01/06/2005 02/15/2005 04/07/2005 04/20/2005 04/20/2005

1 COMPLAINT (Attachment); jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Kathleen Currie Chavez, Robert M. Foote as attorney(s) for plaintiffs ( one original, one copy of summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1−1 through 1−3) (air) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 2/18/04 in the amount of $150.00, receipt #10322782. (air) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
2 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by Benjamin J. DeGweck; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
3 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by Herman N. Johnson, Jr.; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
4 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by Roderick T Cooks; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
5 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by Deborah A. Mattison; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
6 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by Robert F. Childs, Jr; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
7 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Keith C. Hult, Kathryn A. Mrkonich, Shanthi V. Gaur. (air) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
8 ANSWER and additional defenses by defendant to plaintiff's complaint [1−1]; Notice. (air) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
9 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant by Allan G King; Order entered granting leave by Hon. B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
10 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant by Stephanie D. Sarantopoulos; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
11 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs by William E. Ready; Order entered granting leave by Hon. James B. Zagel. (air) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 11/15/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing set to 10:00 12/16/04 . Mailed notice (drw) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 12/3/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset to 10:00 2/16/05 from 12/16/04. Parties proceeding with agreed discovery and possible mediation. Mailed notice (drw) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1]; adding Jeremy Williams; Notice. (air) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 1/6/05 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset from 2/16/05 to 10:00 2/23/05 . Mailed notice (drw) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
13 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 4/7/2005 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notices. (drw, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
14 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 4/21/2005 at 10:00 AM. Parties to report on status of any mediation proceedings. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
16 ANSWER and Affirmative and Additional Defenses to amended complaint by Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad.(air, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
17 MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to file amended complaint; Notice. (air, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 7 of 11

04/21/2005 04/28/2005 04/28/2005 05/05/2005 05/05/2005
06/13/2005 07/20/2005 11/02/2005 02/03/2006 03/07/2006 04/10/2006 06/12/2006 08/07/2006 09/26/2006 10/13/2006 11/07/2006 01/03/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007

15 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel dated 4/21/05: Status hearing held on 4/21/2005, and continued to 6/14/2005 at 10:00 AM., for report on status of any mediation proceedings. Judicial staff mailed notice (gl, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
19 NOTICE of Motion by Kathleen Currie Chavez for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to file amended complaint 17 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 5/5/2005 at 10:15 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
20 MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to file second amended complaint (gma, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
18 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams against Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad.(jmm, ) . Modified on 11/20/2006 (las, ). (Entered: 04/26/2005)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Motion for leave to file amended complaint 17 is granted, Motion to file second amended complaint 20 is granted.Motion hearing held on 5/5/2005 regarding motion to amend/correct 20 , motion for leave to file 17 Current status date to stand. Judicial staff mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
22 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 7/20/2005 at 10:00 AM. Report on assignment of mediator to be determined. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
23 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 7/20/2005. Mediation proceedings ongoing. Status hearing set for 11/2/2005 at 10:00 AM. No notice (drw, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 2/7/2006 at 10:00 AM. Mediation proceedings ongoing. (drw, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
25 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 3/7/2006 at 10:00 AM from 2/7/2006 for an update on mediation progress. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
26 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 4/11/2006 at 10:00 AM for a report on settlement. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
27 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 6/13/2006 at 10:00 AM by agreement of the parties. (drw, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
28 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 8/8/2006 at 10:00 AM from 6/13/2006. Mediation being scheduled for late July. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
29 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 9/27/2006 at 10:00 AM from 8/8/2006. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 10/13/2006 at 10:00 AM from 9/27/2006. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
31 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 11/9/2006 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2006)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 1/4/2007 at 10:00 AM from 11/9/2006 by agreement of the parties to pursue settlement. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
33 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing reset for 3/15/2007 at 10:00 AM from 1/4/2007 to further pursue settlement.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
34 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset for 5/10/2007 at 10:00 AM from 3/15/2007. In person appearance required at next status.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
35 MOTION by Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams for leave to appear as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Foote, Robert) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 8 of 11

03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/10/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/08/2007
06/08/2007
06/11/2007 06/11/2007 08/10/2007 09/21/2007 01/09/2008 02/19/2008

36 NOTICE of Motion by Robert M. Foote for presentment of motion for leave to appear 35 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 3/20/2007 at 10:15 AM. (Foote, Robert) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
37 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams by Stephen William Fung (Fung, Stephen) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
38 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams by Peter Lawrence Currie (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Currie, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Motion for Peter L. Currie to appear as additional counsel for plaintiffs 35 is granted.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
40 NOTICE by Robert M. Foote of Change of Address (Foote, Robert) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
41 NOTICE by Kathleen Currie Chavez of Change of Address (Chavez, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
42 NOTICE by Stephen William Fung of Change of Address (Fung, Stephen) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
43 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 5/10/2007. Status hearing set for 6/8/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
44 MOTION by Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams for leave to file Third Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Motion# 2 Exhibit A−H 3rd Amended Complaint)(Foote, Robert) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
45 NOTICE of Motion by Robert M. Foote for presentment of motion for leave to file 44 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 6/8/2007 at 10:00 AM. (Foote, Robert) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
48 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 6/8/2007. Motion for leave to file third amended complaint 44 is granted. Issuance of summons stayed until 7/20/2007. Status hearing set for 8/10/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
49 THIRD AMENDED complaint by Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams against Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation, Wisconsin Central Limited and terminating Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad; (Exhibits).(vkd, ) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
46 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Enter class action scheduling order. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
47 CLASS ACTION SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge James B. Zagel on 6/11/07: (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
50 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 8/10/2007. Status hearing set for 9/21/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
51 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 9/21/2007. Status hearing set for 1/9/2008 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
52 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 1/9/2008. Discovery extended to 4/16/2008.Status hearing set for 4/16/2008 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
53 MOTION by Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation, Wisconsin Central Limited to amend/correct order 47 Scheduling Order

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 9 of 11

02/19/2008
03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/24/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/29/2008
05/29/2008
05/29/2008
05/29/2008
06/04/2008
06/27/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008
08/05/2008 08/05/2008
08/05/2008
08/05/2008 08/06/2008

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order A: Amended Class Action Scheduling Order)(Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
54 Agreed (Joint) NOTICE of Motion by Shanthi V. Gaur for presentment of motion to amend/correct,, motion for relief, 53 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 3/6/2008 at 10:45 AM. (Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
55 MINUTE entry before James B. Zagel :Motion to amend class action scheduling order 53 is granted. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
57 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Enter Amended Class Action Scheduling Order. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
58 AMENDED Class Action Scheduling Order 57 signed by Honorable James B. Zagel on 3/6/2008. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
56 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Status hearing reset for 7/9/2008 at 10:00 AM from 4/16/2008.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
59 STIPULATION (Joint Stipulation of the Parties) (Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
60 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 5/21/2008. Mailed notice(kj, ) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
61 ANSWER to amended complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited(Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
62 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited by Shanthi V. Gaur (Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
63 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (Wilson, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
64 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited by Keith C. Hult (Hult, Keith) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
65 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited by Allan G King. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
66 NOTICE by Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams of Discovery Service (Ready, William) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
67 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams by Matthew J. Herman. (ef, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
68 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel:Status hearing held on 7/9/2008. Status hearing set for 10/6/2008 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
69 DOCUMENT Entered in Error.(Foote, Robert) Modified on 8/6/2008 (ef, ). (Entered: 08/05/2008)
70 MOTION by Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams to amend/correct Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Currie, Peter) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
71 NOTICE of Motion by Peter Lawrence Currie for presentment of motion to amend/correct 70 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 8/7/2008 at 10:15 AM. (Currie, Peter) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
73 NOTICE of Correction regarding document 69 . (ef, ) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
72 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel:Motion to enter amended class action scheduling order 70 is granted.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 10 of 11

08/06/2008 08/06/2008 10/06/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/15/2008 10/08/2009 10/21/2009
10/21/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 11/19/2009 12/31/2009
01/05/2010

08/06/2008)
74 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Enter amended class action scheduling order.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
75 AMENDED CLASS ACTION SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 8/6/2008.(mjc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
76 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel:Status hearing held on 10/6/2008. Status hearing set for 12/15/2008 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
77 MOTION by Plaintiff Melvin Barnes to amend/correct Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Foote, Robert) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
78 NOTICE of Motion by Robert M. Foote for presentment of motion to amend/correct 77 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 12/15/2008 at 10:00 AM. (Foote, Robert) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
79 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel:Status hearing held on 12/15/2008. Motion to amend scheduling order 77 is granted. Court adopts the amended scheduling order. Status hearing set for 10/14/2009 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Status hearing (10−14−2009) is reset for 10/21/2009 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
81 MOTION by Plaintiffs Melvin Barnes, Tracy Steele, Jeremy Williams, Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation, Wisconsin Central Limited to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit A to Decree − Release and Waiver of Claims, # 3 Exhibit B to Decree − Notice of CN's Policy Prohibiting Workplace Discrimination, # 4 Exhibit C to Decree − CN's Educational Financial Assistance Policy, # 5 Exhibit D to Decree − Claim Form, # 6 Exhibit E to Decree − Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing, # 7 Exhibit F to Decree − Media Statement, # 8 Exhibit G to Decree − Proposed Preliminary Approval Order)(Hult, Keith) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
82 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel:Status hearing held on 10/21/2009. Motion hearing held on 10/21/2009. Motion to approve consent judgment 81 is granted. In Court final approval hearing set for 1/7/2010 at 11:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Enter Preliminary Approval Order. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
84 PRELIMINARY Approval Order 83 signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 10/26/2009. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
85 MOTION by counsel for Plaintiff Melvin Barnes to withdraw as attorney UNOPPOSED (Johnson, Herman) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
86 NOTICE by Canadian National Railway Company, Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Steven Platt and exhibits)(Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
87 MOTION by Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation for final approval of Class Action Settlement (Joint) (Gaur, Shanthi) Modified on 1/6/2010 (td, ). (Entered: 01/05/2010)

Case: 1:04-cv-01249 As of: 03/29/2015 08:43 PM CDT 11 of 11

01/05/2010
01/05/2010 01/07/2010
01/07/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010 08/17/2010

88 JOINT Submission by Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation in support of joint motion to for final approval of a consent decree 87 (Gaur, Shanthi) Modified on 1/6/2010 (td, ). (Entered: 01/05/2010)
89 NOTICE of Motion by Shanthi V. Gaur for presentment of motion for final approval of Class Action Settlement 87 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 1/7/2010 at 11:00 AM. (Gaur, Shanthi) Modified on 1/6/2010 (td, ). (Entered: 01/05/2010)
90 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel:In court hearing held on 1/17/2010 for final approval of settlement. Motion hearing held on 1/7/2010. MOTION by Defendants Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Wisconsin Central Limited, Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation for entry of consent decree 87 is granted. MOTION by counsel for Plaintiff Melvin Barnes to withdraw as attorney 85 is granted. Attorney Herman N Johnson, Jr appearance is withdrawn nunc pro tunc 11/19/2009. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
91 CONSENT Decree by plaintiffs and defendants. (tlm) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
92 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Enter Final Approval Order. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
93 FINAL Approval Order 92 signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 1/7/2010. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
94 NOTICE by Shanthi V. Gaur of Change of Address (Gaur, Shanthi) (Entered: 08/17/2010)