,

>,

•

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 1 of 22
o

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

~:" . !:" ;""
) ~ ,:, t •• .;..'

Iii
, ',,,.i

Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr., Kim Nachampassack, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal,
Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, and Janet Wilkins, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,

03C 50190
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Plaintiffs,

Class Action

vs.

Judge Philip Reinhard

Woodward Governor Company,

Magistrate Judge Mahoney

Defendant. Jury Trial Demanded

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

The plaintiffs, individually and on behalfofsimilarly situated persons, complain ofdefendant

Woodward Governor Company as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action brought under the Civil Rights Act of1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981,1

as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981A, seeking to redress unlawful

employment practices on the basis of race and to remedy defendant's interference with the rights of

plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons to make, enter into and enforce contracts. Plaintiffs

further allege that defendant has engaged in a general and pervasive corporate policy and pattern and

practice ofdiscrimination against minorities in employment. Defendant's conduct as complained of

herein constitutes intentional race discrimination, and defendant's practices as complained ofherein

have a discriminatory impact on minority employees.

DOCKETEO
MAY 1 5Z003

Each of the named plaintiffs has also filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. The §1981 claims are brought at this time because ofthe longer statute oflimitations period under §1981. Plaintiffs will seek to join their individual and class Title VII disparate treatment and disparate impact claims upon receipt oftheir Right to Sue letters.

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 2 of 22
o

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1337 and 1343. 3. Venue is proper because the unlawful conduct alleged herein was committed and continues to occur within the boundaries ofthe Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. 4. Plaintiff Demetric Bell is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 5. Plaintiff Marilyn Berry is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 6. Plaintiff Catherine Brown is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 7. PlaintiffKimberly Buchanan is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 8. Plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez is an Hispanic citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 9. PlaintiffTimmy Link is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Rock County, Wisconsin. 10. PlaintiffEddie Manning, Jr. is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 11. PlaintiffKim Nacharnpassack is an Asian-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 12. PlaintiffDuane Parks is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 13. PlaintiffBrendaRiley is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 14. Plaintiff Darnel Royal is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
2

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 3 of 22
o

15. PlaintiffRobin Sallis is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Rock County, Wisconsin.
16. Plaintiff Velma Sanders is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
17. Plaintiff Barbara Smith is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
18. Plaintiff Tony Triplett is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
19. Plaintiff Janet Wilkins is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
20. Defendant Woodward Governor Company is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Rockford, Illinois. At all relevant times, the defendant has employed more than five hundred persons.
BACKGROUND
21. Woodward Governor Company was founded in 1870. The Company designs and manufactures hydromechanical and electronic controls, fuel delivery systems, actuators, valves and related components. In 2002, the Company had sales in excess of $679,000,000. The Company is headquartered in Rockford, Illinois, and has approximately 3,500 employees at facilities throughout the country. The Company employs over 1,000 persons at facilities in Rockford, Illinois and Rockton, Illinois.
22. As set forth below, for many years Woodward Governor has engaged in a pervasive company-wide pattern and practice of discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities with respect to compensation, promotions, hiring, and other terms and conditions of employment. African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities are under-represented in Woodward Governor Company's work force and severely under-represented in the Company's management and supervisory levels.
3

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 4 of 22
o

23. For example, although African-Americans make up over 15% ofthe local population
and comprise at least 13% ofthe civilian labor force. (U.S. Census EEO Special File and Public Use
Data Tapes), Woodward Govemor Company currently employs less than 3% African-American
employees. This is less than comparable to other employers in the Rockford area, including Ingersoll
Milling Machine Company and Sundstrand.
24. Each plaintiff asserts a claim of pervasive company-wide pattern and practice race
discrimination and each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to eradicate company-wide discriminatory
practices, regardless ofwhether a class is certified. The Company's unlawful pattern ofconduct has
adversely affected all the plaintiffs.
25. The discriminatory conduct against minorities that defendant has engaged in
includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. defendant has paid lower wages to minority employees as compared to the wages paid to white employees;
h. defendant has failed to advance minority employees into higher level classifications and jobs within the company in the same manner that it has advanced and promoted white employees;
c. defendant has subjected minority employees to a· racially hostile work environment, and has tolerated racial slurs and stereotypes of minority employees;
d. defendant has failed to investigate or act upon legitimate complaints about discrimination raised by minority employees;
e. defendant has required minority employees to perform out of class work without receiving an appropriate title or wages commensurate with the work performed;
f. defendant has criticized and disciplined minority employees for talking and associating with each other in the work place, whereas other employees who talk in the workplace are not similarly criticized or disciplined; and
g. defendant has required employees to refrain from revealing their rate of pay so as to perpetuate discrimination in compensation.
26. At all relevant times, Human Resources and personnel functions have been
implemented through a central Human Resources Department. At all relevant times, the Company

4

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 5 of 22
has operated through company-wide standard personnel policies. These company-wide policies include policies relating to compensation and the advancement of employees.
27. The criteria used by defendants in determining who to promote or advance in classification are needlessly subjective and infected with racial bias.
28. The criteria used by defendants in determining the compensation of employees are needlessly subjective and infected with racial bias.
THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS 29. Demetric Bell was employed as a machinist by the defendant from 1995 through October 16, 2002. Despite performing his job skillfully, Bell was not advanced beyond the entry level machinist classification (class 1) during his seven years ofemployment with the Company, nor did he reach the highest salary level corresponding with this classification. During his employment with the Company, Bell was paid less than many comparable white employees with less experience. Bell repeatedly complained about his salary to management and Human Resources, but no action was taken. Bell was also denied training provided to white employees. Because defendant failed to take adequate remedial action, Bell had no choice but to resign. 30. Marilyn Berry has worked for the defendant since 1981. She is currently employed as an SlProcess Operator. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $13.18Ihour. On a continuing basis, Berry has been paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills, who are unable to perform all of the jobs that Berry can. 31. Catherine Brown has worked for the defendant since 1972. She is currentlyemployed as an Administrative Specialist in Engineering Services. Plaintiff s current rate of pay is $13.38Ihour. Prior to receiving a small raise in January 2003, Brown was paid at the same rate as a white female hired less than a year earlier into the same job. During her career, plaintiffhas been passed over for promotions to Sales Assistant and Engineering Records positions for which she was qualified. On a continuing basis, Brown has performed job duties above and beyond those of the stated level of her job, but Brown has not been promoted or compensated accordingly.
5

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 6 of 22
32. Kimberly Buchanan worked for defendant from April 19, 1999 to April 25, 2003. Buchanan was the only African-American employee in defendant's Corporate division, world wide. Buchanan was hired as a Communications Specialist, Level I at an annual base salary of$38,012.00. On a continuing and ongoing basis, Defendant failed to pay Buchanan commensurate with her skills, education and job duties, whereas less qualified non African-American employees were promoted and paid disproportionately more than she was. Defendant hired and promoted a similarly situated non African-American employee to a higher level position than Buchanan, Communications Specialist II, on August 21, 2002, while ignoring Buchanan's requests to be promoted to at least Communications Specialist II. Buchanan complained starting in July, 2001, about her pay level, classification level and about being required to perform work above her job classification without being given a promotion or increase in pay. Buchanan was then retaliated against and received a lower raise than to which she was entitled. Buchanan was subjected to different and unfavorable terms and conditions of employment as compared to similarly situated non African-American employees. Buchanan objected to requests by defendant to create the inaccurate perception that its work force was diverse and that it was undertaking programs to increase representation ofminorities in its work force and in management. In connection with a meeting concerning "diversity," attended by minority employees who raised complaints about discrimination, Buchanan complained to the head of Human Resources about her compensation and job duties. As a result of these complaints, defendant falsely stated it was finally promoting her to Communication Specialist II, but, instead, terminated her employment for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. Less tenured, less experienced and less skilled non African-American employees were either not laid off or were offered other jobs within the company. Buchanan was not offered any other jobs. The similarly situated non African-American employee that was hired and promoted over Buchanan was not laid off, even though she was paid more than Buchanan. Buchanan's salary atthe time ofher termination was $42,248.00. Defendant denied Buchananjobs she applied for in the company after she learned she would be laid off based on pretextual reasons.
6

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 7 of 22
33. Gilberto Gonzalez is a fonner Marine and has worked for the defendant since 1990. He is currently employed as a Test Stand Operator. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $17.01/hour. During his employment with the defendant, Gonzalez has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Despite his excellent job perfonnance, Gonzalez has been kept in lowerjob classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. Gonzalez has also been subjected to a work environment hostile to Hispanic employees and has been denied training opportunities on the same basis as they are provided to white employees.
34. Timmy Link has worked for the defendant since 1989. He is currently employed as a test stand operator. Until his pay was raised in March 2003 (after the Company leamed that the instant litigation would be filed) plaintiffs rate ofpay was $15.27/hour. He was and is paid less than white employees in the same job class with less experience. Despite his excellent job perfonnance, Link has been kept in lowerjob classifications longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay.
35. Eddie Manning has worked for the defendant since 1991. He is currently employed as a Deburrer Lead Person. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $16.25/hour. During his employment with defendant, Manning has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Despite his excellent job perfonnance, Manning has been kept longer in lower job classification levels than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. When Manning was promoted to the job of"lead" or working leader, he was not given a commensurate pay increase. He has also been subjected to a work environment hostile to African-American employees.
36. Kim Nachampassack first worked for the defendant in 1990. She is currently paid at the rate of$16.00/hour. During her employment with defendant, Nachampassack has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Nachampassack has also been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees,
7

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 8 of 22
o

which adversely affects her pay. She has also been denied training provided to similarly situated non-minority employees and has been subjected to unwarranted scrutiny and discipline.
37. Duane Parks has worked for the defendants since 1986. He is currently employed in Finish Assembly. Parks is paid at the rate of $14.71lhour, which is approximately the same rate as a white employee with 14 less years of service. Parks has also been subject to a work environment hostile to African-American employees, including racially derogatory comments. Parks and other African-American employees have been told not to congregate or speak to each other, while white employees are allowed to do so. When Parks complained to Hnman Resources, he was told to learn to have a thick skin.
38. Brenda Riley has worked for the defendant since 1980. She is currently employed in HMWIFMW Assembly. Plaintiffs current rate ofpay is $1611.00 on a bi-weekly basis. During her employmentwith the defendant, Riley has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Despite her excellent job performance, Riley has been kept longer in lowerjob classification levels than white employees, which adversely affects her pay. Unlike white employees, Riley has also been required to perform work above her job classification without commensurate pay.
39. Darnel Royal has worked for the defendant since February 1998. He is currently employed as a security officer and is the only African-American security officer in the company. Royal was discriminatorily demoted into this position from ajob in Equipment Services in January 2002 and given a reduction in pay so that defendant could accommodate a white employee. Royal is paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills. For example, Royal has been paid less than four white security officers who were hired subsequent to him. Royal has also been subjected to a hostile work environment during his employment. For example, Royal was told by his supervisor not to talk to a white female employee because this upset other employees. Royal was also singled out by his supervisor to remove a raccoon from a cage trap so that pictures could be

8

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 9 of 22
o

taken of him with the raccoon and then posted throughout the area. Royal was also discriminatorily passed over for promotion to an Inspection position in March 2003.
40. Robin Sallis has worked for the defendant since 1974. She is currently employed as a Level I Assembly Tech. Plaintiffs current rate ofpay is $15.11, which is less than the Company pays white employees in the same job with less tenure. Despite working for defendant since 1974, Sallis has been kept at the entry level classification, which adversely affects her pay. She has trained less qualified and tenured white employees, who have progressed ahead of her through job levels. Sallis has also been denied computer training afforded to white employees.
41. Velma Sanders has worked for defendant since 1989. She is currently employed as an Inspector. Plaintiffs current rate ofpay is $12.701hour. Plaintiffis paid approximately 25% less than a white employee in the same job class who has comparable experience with the Company. Sanders has trained less qualified and tenured white employees who have progressed ahead of her throughjob levels and are paid more than Sanders. During her career, Saunders has been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, including racially derogatory comments and unwarranted and disparate discipline.
42. Barbara Smith has worked for defendant since 1983. She is currently employed in Accounts Payable. She is currently paid $14.06Ihour, which is less than what the Company pays a white employee in the same job class who only has two years offull-time service with the Company. Smith has trained less qualified and tenured white employees, (including her supervisor), who have progressed to higher level jobs and are paid more than Smith. In her current job, Smith performs duties ofa higher level employee, but has not been promoted or provided commensurate pay. Smith wrote to the CEO of the company to complain generally about racially derogatory remarks being made in the workplace, but did not receive a response.
43. Tony Triplett has worked for the defendant since 1974. He is currently employed as a Machinist. Plaintiff s current rate ofpay is $1506.00 on a bi-weekly basis. During hrs career with defendant, Triplett has performed a wide variety of jobs and developed broad expertise.
9

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 10 of 22
o

Nonetheless, he has been passed over for management or leadership positions, despite requesting consideration for them, and is paid less than white employees with less skills and experience.
44. Janet Wilkins has worked for the defendant since 1978. She is currently employed as a Reliability Test Technician. Plaintiff's current rate ofpay is $15.571hour. Despite her excellent job performance, Wilkins has been paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills. For example, white employees with less than half her 24 years of experience are paid as much or more than Wilkins.
WRONGFUL CONDUCT AGAINST THE CLASS 45. On a continuing basis, defendant has paid the plaintiffs and the class less than similarly situated white employees. On a continuing basis, white employees receive greater raises more often than minority employees, including plaintiffs. 46. Within many departments at Woodward Governor, there is a hierarchy of job classifications. Higher job classifications carry with them the opportunity to earn greater amounts of money and to obtain further advancement. Job classifications are not posted and movement to different levels ofjob classifications is within the control and discretion of defendant's supervisors and managers. On a continuing and ongoing basis, defendant has failed to advance plaintiffs as well as other minority employees in terms ofjob classification in the same marmer that similarly situated white employees are advanced. 47. On a continuing basis, the plaintiffs and other minority employees have been passed over for promotions or opportunities for advancement, which have been given to white employees with the same or lesser qualifications, experience and tenure. Many ofthe plaintiffs, as well as other minority employees, have trained white co-workers who have gone on to surpass them in terms of job position and/or salary. 48. As a result ofbeing rejected for promotions and other advancement opportunities for which they were qualified, and their observation that other minority employees have been similarly

10

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 11 of 22
o

treated, plaintiffs and other minority employees have been deterred from applying for or seeking advancement with defendant.
49. The Company's performance evaluation, promotion and advancement processes are unduly subjective, have a disparate impact on minorities, and do not meet standards of jobrelatedness and business necessity.
50. On a continuing basis, the plaintiffs and other minority employees are subjected to discrimination in other terms and conditions of employment, including a racially hostile work environment, in which management has tolerated racial slurs and stereotypes ofminority employees. Supervisors have condoned and actively participated in this conduct. Some examples of the racial slurs, epithets and conduct that have occurred in the workplace are the following:

a. the statement made by a Woodward Governor Company supervisor that he didn't like "niggers," and that African-Americans "smell sweet and stink."

b. the statement made by a Woodward Governor Company supervisor that he would not have sex with "a nasty trash bitch" who was dating a black man.

c. the statement made by a Woodward Governor Company employee in the presence of the supervisor of one of the plaintiffs' that "if your people continue like this, they'll be back in slavery."

d. the statement made in a conference attended by management that a white woman had thrown away her life by getting married to an African-American man and that "no decent white man would touch a white woman that had been with a black man."

e. the statement by a manager to a white employee that she should not "hang
around the blacks."

f. the use of the term "African Engineering" to describe mistakes made in the design process.

g. the statement at a conference attended by the former CFO that a dark-skinned employee had "forgot to wash his face in the morning."

h. the direction from a Woodward Governor Company Supervisor to a newly designated African-American lead that "now that he was a lead person he
should watch who he hangs around with because he will be judged differently
from them (i.e., his black friends)."

I.

the widespread use of demeaning references with regard to the sexual

preferences of African-American males.

11

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 12 of 22
o

j . t h e widespread stereotyping of the work habits of minority employees (e.g., "lazy blacks," "he's the hardest working minority employee").

k. the distribution of racially insensitive cartoons and jokes in the workplace.

I.

the pattern ofreprimanding African-American employees when they talk with

each other in the workplace while allowing whites to freely congregate, even

when they are wasting time.

51. Most of the plaintiffs have directly complained to their supervisors or to Human

Resources regarding the conditions and conduct described above. Some have complained on

repeated occasions. Company officials have ignored these complaints and, on several occasions,

have retaliated against persons raising or corroborating such complaints. For example, current and

former employees who complained to management about racial slurs were told to "try to get along"

with the racist employees or to have "broad shoulders." In similar fashion, Human Resources

personnel have told plaintiffs that they will "look into their complaints," and then failed to get back

to them. In some instances, Human Resources personnel have acknowledged or participated in the

offensive conduct, but advised plaintiffs that they should "work things out" with the offending party.

COUNT I Section 1981 - Race Discrimination in Compensation

52. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Class Action

Complaint.

53. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes a

pattern and practice ofdiscrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in

connection with compensation to employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1981. African-

Americans, Hispanics and other minorities are continually denied compensation at the levels

provided to comparably experienced or qualified white employees.

54. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to each of the representative

plaintiffs individually and to the class including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits,

emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts ofdefendant, its agents and

12

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 13 of 22
employees, were deliberate, intentional, willful, wanton and malicious and taken with reckless disregard to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages.
55. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), and Ru1e 23(b)(2) and/or(b)(3). The class consists of all AfricanAmerican, Hispanic and other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton within the applicable limitations period, taking into account that defendant's conduct with respect to race discrimination constitutes a continuing violation.
56. The members of this class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can only be ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are in excess of 50 members of the class.
57. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class including, inter alia, whether defendant's policies, practices and procedures with respect to compensation discriminated against African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees; whether defendant's conduct was carried out with discriminatory intent; whether defendant has common defenses; and whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct.
58. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class members inasmuch as they arise from the same course ofconduct and are based upon the same legal theory.
59. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
60. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
13

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 14 of 22
61. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory compensation practices and policies were applied to deny proper compensation to members of the class.
62. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
63. In the event that a plaintiffclass is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court should still enter systemic injunctive relief to address the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
64. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count I, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class defined herein; B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each of the representative plaintiffs individually and against the class in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981; C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct which discriminates on the basis of race; D. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful employment practices; E. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices alleged herein; F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
14

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1

Filed 05/08/03 Page 15 of 22
o

G. Order defendant to pay to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Award the representative plaintiffs and the class attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; and
I. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II
Section 1981 - Race Discrimination in Terms and Conditions of Employment 65. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint. 66. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes discrimination by defendant against each plaintiff individually and other minority employees with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment (including the work environment and opportunities for job advancement, training, promotions and higher job classifications) in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1981. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees in connection with the terms and conditions of their employment. 67. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to each of the plaintiffs individually and to the class including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts ofdefendant, its agents and employees, were deliberate, intentional, willful, wanton and malicious and taken with reckless disregard to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages. 68. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2) andlor(b)(3). The class consists of all AfricanAmerican, Hispanic or other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton who have been discriminated against in connection with the terms and conditions oftheir employment (including the work environment and opportunities for promotions, transfers, training, increases in job classification or other opportunities for advancement) within the applicable limitations period.
15

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 16 of 22
\f""i\
69. The members of this class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can only be ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are in excess of 50 members of the class.
70. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, including, inter alia, whether defendant's company-wide personnel policies and practices discriminated against minority employees; whether defendant's conduct was carried out with discriminatory intent; whether defendant has common defenses; and whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct.
71. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class members inasmuch as they arise from the same course ofconduct and are based upon the same legal theory.
72. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
73. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
74. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory promotion practices and policies were applied to deny promotions to members ofthe class.
75. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
16

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 17 of 22
Q
76. In the event that a plaintiff class is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court
should still enter systemic injunctive relief to address unlawful conduct complained of herein.
77. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count II, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class defined herein;
B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each ofthe representative plaintiffs individually and the class in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981;
C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct which discriminates on the basis ofrace;
D. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, rightful place reinstatement;
E. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices alleged herein;
F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order defendant to pay to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Award each of the representative plaintiffs individually and the class attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; and
1. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III KIMBERLY BUCHANAN - TERMINATION AND RETALIATION
78. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint.
79. Plaintiff Buchanan engaged in protected conduct.
17

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 18 of 22
80. Defendant's conduct toward Buchanan as alleged herein constituted unlawful retaliation.
81. Defendant's termination of Buchanan constitutes unlawful discrimination and unlawful retaliation.
82. Defendant's conduct towards Buchanan was intentional, willful and egregious and resulted in lost wages, emotional anguish and other compensatory damages.
83. Plaintiff demands trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count III, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: A. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against Buchanan in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981; B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct which discriminates on the basis of race; C. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, rightful place reinstatement; D. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices alleged herein; E. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Order defendant to pay Buchanan punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial; G. Award Buchanan attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; H. Enter an Order requiring defendant to reinstate plaintiff with all commensurate retroactive pay and benefits; and I. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
18

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 19 of 22
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 7, 2003 Jennifer K. Soule James G. Bradtke Kelly K. Lambert Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4422
C:ICorellCaseslWoodwardlPleadingslComplaint - §1981.wpd
19

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 20 of 22

, j . , . ' ICI.VI'1"Cover Sheet
.

110rED STATES DISTRICT couQ

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Page 1 of

Civil Cover Sheet 2Ut13I,AY -8 Pl~ 3: 14

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conferenceo(th~_ U)li:G11~~*~il\ffptember 1974,
The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket s!\eel:) .nlJ·,lJj ,atit>rl' c6nlained herein
neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District of Illinois,

_ _,""''''_..,_ , _ _ _,_"._..;_ _ _ _ _"_""__. _ ._j'''"_.,'"'"_~''''''''_"

4=__'__ _ _ _ _"""_'""_*' ' _' '"' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '"""'""'"""';;"'"''' 4"#"'''' '" &Ii _"itiWNiiW\WiiiWld;

WOiM MU"'''''''''

Plaintiff(s): Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine

Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez,

0 3 C 5 0 1 90

Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr., Kim

Machampassack, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Defendant(s):Woodward Governor Company

Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith,

Tony Triplett, and Janet Wilkins, individually and on

behalf of similarly situated persons

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Arty: Jennifer K. Soule @ Soule, Bradtke Defendant's Arty:

Michael W. Duffee @ Matkov,

& Lambert

Salzman, Madoff & Gunn

155. N. Michigan Ave., #500

55 E. Monroe St., #2900

Chicago, IL 60601

Chicago, IL 60603

312-616-4422

312-332-0777

-II.-B-a-sis-o-f-Ju-ri-sd-ic-ti-on-:-------3.-F-e-de-ra-l-Q-ue-s-ti-on-(-U-.S-. n-o-t -a p-a-rt-y-) ---.----------~------

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

IV. Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

This is a class action brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.c.

§1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981A.

VII. Reguested in Complaint

Class Action: Yes
Dollar Demand: 1,000,000 +

Jury Demand: Yes

DUCKETEn'

VIII. This case IS NOT a refi1ing of a previously dismissed case.

NAy 1 52003'

Date: hrt :llwww.ilnd.uscourts.ovIPUBLIClForms/auto·s44.cfin

\/)
517120C

n . . Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 1 Filed 05/08/03 Page 21 of 22

Civil Cover Sheet

('""). . . ....

. Page 2 of

...

• If any of this information is incorrect, please go D "the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in Y\. iowser and change it. Once correct, print this

form, sign and date it and submit it with your newci~ii action. Note: 'You' may need to adjust the font size in your browser display to make

the form print properly.

Revised: 06/28/00

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIClForms/autojs44.cfm

5171200

.<~,~i':~~~\~f1f~~>~1~fi~1@~:~~;6~~\\);:.'.·:"i:<,'\:\I'., \ Case 3:03"-. ci,",v_, -i5'~. 0~.1:,;"9",.,0:';j ,D;'.; "o'i','c{:,u(rm'-;':,~-ei ?n;";,t(:«1:,;:; ":'~F,-,,~.i: ;l;e<'~'d;:"':0-'~'5; ,/08/0'3;:. ,,",Pa','~~'g..e,; _.'2.,,,2,,~,~'(,o':- f 2.;2~: '-:,;;:pj.t,';~~·Y:~';~~;t~'5,'o. '(<,
'.~!::,,;J~.:.''.' :/,::~;.:·i:N~,"oIfR;T§HJ~E;R~~N,';D~f"s!f!R7I!C:T!(<!:W!~~IL~~:L;iIN\!O.tIS&·:J!'p\\\~·'~,i!":,,,f:;N:! !;

, . '

-,',' ,>,:,<.:",-,.:~:'t--;:' ,:,:>,;;:::,,:>}.t!.~i>:.;.~':"'.~.•'.~:;~'~

'".'., _,t' '/.-' . ;"i

,
~," '.' ;""iC~; ',' ',,"I

\,,;",

-; .-<' <' --'7':'- - .;"

.. ';,'.:-: ~!",\{'i:< ':-,::; ~,'

',' ;,'

;,/-:\' " -~"

J~> "

Gonz~le:l!,Timmy Link, Eildle Manning, Jr:, Duane Parks, Brend~ Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin
. . . . > ' : : . Sallis, Velma Sand~rs, BarJ)ara Smitli, Tony Triplett, DorotIly Wallace and Janet Wilkins,
i~diYi4.1laIlYaii.donheli~ltofsiDilhi,rlysihillte~ persons .... ..

NAME

FIl\M

Soule, ,

Bradtke&Lam1:J~rt

,-

" , - ,', ' "-,

.~, ,- Y;·""'·-""/,,'" "

",';J"," _,),' ,_' .C'. _ ',~,", ,;' ,

STREET ADD,",S' 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite' 500

-''< '" "".,

,

, ~"" 'H~'"

',._ ,,'

i" CITYISTATEIZIP Chicago, Illinois.6()~0

, '

-, )" 4' ,', -. '

"' :':."-',Y;,-,-'""

TELEPHONBNUMBER3i2_616_4422FAXNUMBER 312-616:4422 '.

,

"

',,,._

"

, - , " " -'I ;,- "

-..,: -'w: '-", , '''v,.". ",:,~:> ,'\"

, MEMBER OF TRI"A"L-B~' ?

F.IRM Soule, Bi:~dtke. & LaIllb~rt

STREET ADDRESS 155 NorthMi~higan Avenue, s·~ite5b,O.

'

,

_,'" _ ,'"

,

,,'

d'"

c. ,._.cE

_'"

"",',' .," ',- ", .,,, >' ":'''''"; ;:'~:'\'"
cfrYISTATF1ZIP Chicago, Illl11ois6060 1

,

" ',._ , ""', :,'~"._,,,,,'''~, , .,1,.;

',",.

TELBPHONENUMBER 312-61o-4422iAxiroMi;ER:312~616:4422··

-

,.CI~

IDE\ITIFICATIONiruMB", (SEEITEM~~N\",~SE) 06183694"

"I -:. ,,',.

- " " , , ' " ,- . ' ~,'.~ , ".<,'"

TRIAL ATTORNEy?

TRIALATTO~
DESIGNATEDAS LOC~ CObNSEt?

SIGNATURE NAME
CITY/STATEItIPChicago,Il1iri)o:,ls6"6-"-6' :d~'. l"

SIGN~TURE
FIRM STREET ADDRESS
CITYIs:rATEJZIP '

IDE\ITII'ICATI0l!~ER(SEE ITEM 4 ON,REVERS~i 0620152:t .' '-.':.,':,' \':'

TRIAL ATTOIU-:mY1

TRIAL AT1'ORNEY?

"'-,' "

DESIGNATED AS, LOq.r;tO'ONsar
-'. ~

o

 
 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 55

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

DEMETRlC BELL, MARlLYN BERRY, CATHERINE BROWN, KIMBERLY BUCHANAN, GILBERTO GONZALEZ, TIMMY LINK, EDDIE MANNING, JR., KIM NACHAMPASSACK, DUANE PARKS, BRENDA RlLEY, DARNEL ROYAL, ROBIN SALLIS, VELMA SANDERS, BARBARA SMITH, TONY TRIPLETT and JANET WILKINS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,

GeT 0 I) 2006

Plaintiffs, v.

Case No. 03 C 50190 Class Action

WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

CONSOLIDATED

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. 06 C 50178
Judge Philip Reinhard Magistrate Judge
P. Michael Mahoney

CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 3 of 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION....................................................... 1

II.

JURISDICTION........................................................ 5

III.

DEFINITIONS......................................................... 6

IV.

SETTLEMENT CLASS.................................................. 9

V.

RELEASE OF CLAIMS ................................................. 11

VI.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS........................................ 13

VII. ESTABLISHMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUND.............................. 14

VIII. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE.................................... 17

IX.

CLAIMS PROCEDURE................................................. 20

X.

FAIRNESS HEARING ................................................. 24

XI.

DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUND ............................... 25

XII. TAX TREATMENT OF MONETARY AWARDS............................ 25

XIII. CY PRES FUND....................................................... 25

XIV. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS........................................ 25

XV. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS ................................... 27

XVI. DURATION OF DECREE............................................... 29

XVII. APPOINTMENT OF NANCY KREITER................................... 30

XVIII. KREITER DUTIES..................................................... 31

XIX. EQUITABLE RELIEF/RELATED ISSUES ................................. 31

XX. RECORD KEEPING................................................... 46

XXI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.............................................. , 47

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 3 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 4 of 58 XXII. COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DECREE.............................. 50 XXIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS........................................ 50
11

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 4 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 5 of 58
I. INTRODUCTION This Consent Decree is made and entered into by and among the plaintiffs and plaintiff class
in Bell, et al. v. Woodward Governor Company, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "the Commission"), and Woodward Governor Company ("Defendant" "Woodward" or "the Company") (collectively referred to herein as "the Parties") for the purpose of fully and finally resolving the litigation covered hereby.
The Bell Litigation A. On May 8, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, captioned Bell, et al. v. Woodward Governor Co., under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et ~. ("Title VII"). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of minority employees and alleged race, color and national origin discrimination against current and former minority (African-American, Hispanic and Asian) employees with respect to job assignment, promotion, compensation and terms and conditions of employment at Woodward's Rockford and Rockton facilities. The complaint also alleged discrimination and retaliation in connection with the termination of plaintiff Kimberly Buchanan. B. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed both an Amended and a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint added a claim on behalf of two individual female employees alleging a pattern and practice of discrimination based on gender in compensation under both Title VII and the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206 et~. C. The Company categorically denies that it has engaged in a policy or pattern and practice ofrace or gender discrimination against any employee, whether collectively or individually, and maintains that its employees have had equal employment opportunity with respect to job assignment, compensation, promotion, and all other terms and conditions of employment.

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 5 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 6 of 58
D. Plaintiffs served their First Interrogatories and First Document Requests on September II, 2003. Defendant responded on October 13, 2003 and served Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories on November 25, 2003 and October 25, 2004. Defendant served its First Interrogatories on September 11,2003 and First Contention Interrogatories to Plaintiffs on January 24, 2004, who responded on February 23, 2004. Individual class members filed supplemental responses on September 30, 2004, October 5, 2004, and November 12,15,16, and 23, 2004. Defendant served its First Document Request on September 12,2003 and Plaintiffs responded on October 14, 2003. Plaintiffs served additional Interrogatories on November 20, 2003 and Defendants responded on December 24, 2003. Plaintiffs served their Second Interrogatories on March 3, 2004 and additional Interrogatory Requests on November 1, 2004, November 4,2004, December 27,2004, and December 28,2004. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' March 3, 2004 Interrogatories on April 2, 2004 and Plaintiffs' November 1,2004 Interrogatory on December 3, 2004 (with an additional supplemental response on March 28, 2005). Defendant served additional Interrogatories on December 31, 2004.
E. In addition to written discovery, the parties also took several depositions. Before January 3,2005, Plaintiffs took thirteen (13) corporate representative (30(b)(6)) depositions and fourteen (14) other depositions. Defendants took twenty-eight (28) depositions.
F. On January 3, 2005, the Court entered its Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, certifying two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (3): "a compensation class ofall African-American, Hispanic and Asian employees employed by defendant during the applicable limitations period and advancement class consisting of all African-American, Hispanic and Asian employees passed over for unposted promotions during the applicable limitations period." In the same Order, the Court certified Plaintiffs Bell, Berry, Buchanan,
2

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 6 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 7 of 58
Gonzalez, Link and Triplett as class representatives. On February 10,2005, notice went out to the classes as certified, with the opportunity to opt-out by a date certain.
G. Since class certification, Plaintiffs served additional Interrogatory Requests on March 18,2005; May 2,2005; May 20,2005; August 11,2005; October 31,2005; and December 1,2005. Plaintiffs also served Requests for Admissions on October 31, 2005 and December 1, 2005. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' additional Interrogatories on July 11, 2005; August 23, 2005; October 7, 2005; December 5, 2005; December 12, 2005; and March 16, 2006. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' additional document requests on October 7,2005 and December 5, 2005. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions on December 5,2005; December 30, 2005; February 28,2006; and March 16,2006. Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's December 31, 2004 Interrogatories on June 27, 2005; September 29, 2005; and December 29,2005. Defendant served global Interrogatories on October 3, 2005 and additional Interrogatories on December 2, 2005. Defendant served a global document request on October 3, 2005 and additional document requests on October 31, 2005 and December 2, 2005. Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's Interrogatories on November 18,2005 and January 6,2006. Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's document requests on November 18, 2005; November 30,2005; and January 6, 2006.
H. After January 3, 2005, the parties engaged in an additional one hundred twelve (112) depositions. These included one corporate representative (30(b)(6» deposition, fifty-nine (59) depositions taken by Plaintiffs, and fifty-two (52) depositions taken by Defendant.
The EEOC Litigation I. Between February 12, 2003 and August 13,2004, the EEOC received charges of discrimination from the Charging Parties alleging discrimination against women and minorities with respect to job assignment, compensation, promotion and other terms and conditions of employment
3

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 7 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 8 of 58

at the Rockford and Rockton facilities. On or about December 15,2005 and on October 3, 2006,

the EEOC issued Letters of Determination on the charges, finding probable cause that the Charging

Parties were discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, and gender. The EEOC's

investigation involved and included interviews, analysis of hard copy documents and statistical

compilations.

J.

On October 4, 2006 the EEOC filed a Complaint against Woodward alleging that the

Company violated Title VII and/or the EPA by: (a) engaging in pattern and practice of

discrimination against minorities with regard to compensation, promotion and training; (b) engaging

in a pattern and practice of discrimination against female employees with regard to compensation,

promotion and training; and (c) failing to maintain records in violation of Title VII. The EEOC's

case and the Bell case have been consolidated by agreement of the parties and Order of the Court.

K. The Company categorically denies that it has engaged in a policy or pattern and

practice of discrimination against any minorities or women, whether collectively or individually,

and maintains that its minority and female employees have had equal employment opportunity with

respect to job assignment, compensation, promotion, training and all other terms and conditions of

employment.

Mediation of the Bell and EEOC Litigation

L. The Plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this case, and the Company has vigorously

contested it. The parties have taken sufficient discovery to assess reliably the relative merits of the

claims and defenses.

M. Upon consent of the parties, the Court referred the action to mediation and stayed all

pending deadlines. Beginning on April 13, 2006, and on several dates subsequently, all parties

conducted mediation discussions, with Hunter Hughes as the Mediator. During the mediation, the

4

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 8 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 9 of 58
parties consented to additional discovery, as well as the exchange of expert infonnation. Under the supervision of the Mediator, these negotiations have been conducted at anus-length and without collusion. The mediation discussions culminated in this Decree. II. JURISDICTION
A. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter ofthe Bell litigation and the EEOC Litigation. The parties have already sought consolidation of the Bell action and the EEOC action before Judge Reinhard for purposes ofreview and approval ofthis Decree. The claims asserted in the Complaints, ifproven, would authorize the Court to grant the equitable and monetary relief set forth in this Decree. Venue is proper in this District. The Court shall maintainjurisdiction ofthis action for the duration of the Decree solely for the purpose of entering all orders authorized hereunder which may be necessary to implement relief provided herein.
B. This Decree resolves all claims arising out ofCharge Numbers 210-2003-01906,2102003-01910, 21 0-2003-03088, 210-2003-03089, 210-2003-03090, 210-2003-03091, 210-200303092, 210-2003-03093, 210-2003-03094, 210-2003-03095 (Amended), 210-2003-03096, 2102003-03097,210-2003-03098, 210-2003-03100, 210-2003-03101, 210-2003-03102, 210-200303103,210-2003-03104,210-2003-03105, 210-2003-03106 (Amended), 210-2003-03107, 2102003-03108,210-2003-03109,210-2003-03110, 210-2003-03111, 210-2003-03112, 210-200333860,210-2003-34290,210-2004-00614, 210-2004-01647, 210-2004-06783, 210-2004-06784, 210-2004-06785, and the claims alleged in the Complaints filed in the Bell Action and the EEOC Action. This Decree constitutes a complete resolution of all claims of discrimination against minorities arising from conduct occurring from May 8, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date with respect to compensation, advancement, training, and other tenns and conditions ofemployment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 that were alleged or could have been alleged in the
5

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 9 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 10 of 58
Complaints. This Decree also constitutes a complete resolution of all claims of employment discrimination against women with respect to compensation, advancement, training and other terms and conditions of employment under Title VII and the EPA arising from conduct occurring from June 26, 2002 through the Preliminary Approval Date that were alleged or could have been alleged in the Complaints. This Decree also resolves all claims asserted by plaintiff Kimberly Buchanan in connection with her termination, as well as all other claims relating to Ms. Buchanan that could have been alleged in the Complaints. III. DEFINITIONS
1. "African-American" means all persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
2. "Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court signs this Decree, after determining that it is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class(es) as a whole, after (i) notice; (ii) an opportunity to opt-out ofthe Minority Settlement Class with respect to the monetary relief; (iii) an opportunity to submit timely objections to the Decree; (iv) appropriate discovery ofthe specifics of any such timely objections, and (v) a hearing on the fairness of the settlement.
3. "Asian" means all persons having origins in any ofthe original peoples ofthe Asian Continent, Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, and/or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, but is not limited to, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
4. "Bell Action" means Bell, et at. v. Woodward Governor Company, N.D. Illinois, W.D., No. 03 C 50190.
5. "Bell Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiffs" means Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr., Kim
6

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 10 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 11 of 58

Nachampassack, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara

Smith, Tony Triplett and Janet Wilkins in the Bell Action.

6.

"Charging Party" means all Class Representatives, Plaintiffs and Van D.

Avant, Jr., Larry M. Bates, D. Todd Christopher, Noreen Edmondson, Hershey Ellis, Gregory A.

Ford, Antwan Hodges, Tonya Kahly, Detroy Marshall, Sally McCabe, Joyce Polk, Pang Sati, Jose

L. Vargas, Ruth Virgen, Dorothy Wallace, and Lecie Wright. 7. "Class Counsel" for the "Minority Class" means: Jennifer Soule, James

Bradtke, and Kelly Lambert of Soule, Bradtke & Lambert; Robert Allison of Robert D. Allison &

Associates; and Peter Earle of the Law Offices of Peter G. Earle. In addition, Stephen Seliger of

Law Offices of Stephen G. Seliger and Joshua Karsh of Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym are

counsel of record in the Bell litigation.

8. "Class Representatives" for the "Minority Class" means Bell, Berry,

Buchanan, Gonzalez, Link, and Triplett.

9. "Settlement Class," "Minority Class," and "Gender Class" each mean those

persons described in Section IV, below. 10. "Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Western Division. 11. "EEOC Civil Action" means EEOC v. Woodward Governor Company, No.

06 C 50178. 12.

"Eligible Claimants" means Eligible Minority Claimants and Eligible Female

Claimants.

7

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 11 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 12 of 58
13. "Eligible Female Claimants" means female employees and fonner employees of the Company who worked at the Rockford or Rockton facilities at any time on or after June 26, 2002 through the Preliminary Approval Date, whose claim fonns are timely received by EEOC.
14. "Eligible Minority Claimants" means all African-American, Asian and/or Hispanic employees or fonner employees ofthe Company who worked at the Rockford or Rockton facilities at any time on or after May 8, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date, whose claim forms are timely received by EEOC.
15. "Final Approval" means the signing of this Decree on the Approval Date by the Court and either: (a) the expiration of the time for filing of a direct appeal from the Court's approval of the Decree without the filing of a notice of appeal, or (b) if a timely direct appeal is filed, the final resolution of that appeal (including any requests for rehearing and/or petitions for certiorari), resulting in final judicial approval of the Decree.
16. "Final Approval Date" is the date upon which Final Approval of this Decree is attained, as set forth in Paragraph 15 above.
17. "Gender Settlement Fund" means the amounts to be paid by Woodward under this Decree to the Gender Class.
18. "Hispanic" means all persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
19. "Lead Counsel" for the "Minority Class" means Jennifer Soule at Soule, Bradtke & Lambert, 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
20. "Liability Period" means: a. for the Minority Class, the period between May 8, 1999 and the Preliminary Approval Date; and
8

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 12 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 13 of 58

b. for the Gender Class, the period between June 26, 2002 and the Preliminary Approval Date.
21. "Minority" means African-Americans, Asians, and/or Hispanics. "Minority

Group" means each of these three groups. 22. "Minority Settlement Fund" means the amount to be paid by Woodward under

this Decree to the Minority Class. 23. "Preliminary Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court entered

an Order preliminarily approving this Decree, pending notice, setting an opportunity for opt-out of

the Minority Class or to submit objections to the Decree, and scheduling a fairness hearing thereon.

The Preliminary Approval Date is October 5, 2006.

24. "Release" means the Release of Claims as provided for herein.

25. "Term of the Decree," "Period of the Decree" or "Duration of the Decree"

is the period from the Approval Date until the expiration ofthe Decree, as described in Section XVI

below.

26. "Woodward" or the "Company" means Woodward Governor Company, as

well as each of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, management,

successors and assigns and those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them.

Anytime or place the terms "Woodward" or "the Company" appears herein as relates to any duty

or obligation, such terms of this Decree only apply to and are strictly limited to Woodward's

Rockford, Illinois, and Rockton, Illinois facilities.

IV. SETTLEMENT CLASS A. For purposes of the monetary relief provided in this Decree, the "Settlement Class"

is and consists of:

9

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 13 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 14 of 58
1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), all African-American, Hispanic and/or Asian employees and former employees of Woodward who have worked at the Rockford and/or Rockton Illinois facilities at any time on or after May 8, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date, except those who previously opted out of the Rule 23 minority class pursuant to Orders of the Court dated January 3,2005 and January 13, 2005 and those who timely file a request to opt-out of the monetary relief provisions of this Decree (herein the "Minority Class"); and
2. All female employees and former employees ofWoodward who have worked at the Rockford and/or Rockton Illinois facilities at any time on or after June 26, 2002 through the Preliminary Approval Date and who execute releases pursuant to this Decree (herein the "Gender Class").
B. For purposes of the equitable and declaratory relief provided in this Decree, the Settlement Class is and consists of:
1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), all African-American, Hispanic and/or Asian employees and former employees of Woodward who have worked at the Rockford and/or Rockton Illinois facilities at any time on or after May 8, 1999 through the Preliminary Approval Date; and
2. All female employees and former employees ofWoodward who have worked at the Rockford and/or Rockton Illinois facilities at any time on or after June 26, 2002 through the Preliminary Approval Date and who execute releases pursuant to this Decree.
C. For purposes of Section V below of this Decree, Minority Class Members who have filed timely requests to opt-out of the monetary relief provisions of the Decree shall not be held to release any claims for individual relief.
10

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 14 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-501 90 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 15 of 58
D. In the event that Final Approval of this Decree is not attained, nothing herein shall be deemed to waive the Company's objections and defenses to class certification, liability or entitlement to monetary or equitable relief, or any other issue, and this Decree shall not be admissible or citable in any court regarding the propriety of class certification or any other issue or subject. V. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
A. Release of Claims by the Settlement Class. Upon Final Approval of the Decree, Woodward and its directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, pension, profit sharing, savings and other employee benefits plans of whatsoever nature, as well as those plans' trustees and administrators, and for each of the foregoing, their respective successors and assigns, shall be fully released and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of actions of any kind, known or unknown, by the Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, Charging Parties, the Settlement Class and by each member of the Settlement Class, including their heirs, assigns and estates, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of or are related to conduct within the applicable Liability Period constituting alleged gender and/or race, color, and/or national origin discrimination and/or retaliation, and/or an alleged violation of 42 U.S.c. 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000e et seq., and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206 et seq., and/or any other federal, state or local law or order prohibiting gender, race, color, and/or national origin discrimination and/or retaliation, whether statutory, regulatory, pursuant to local ordinance or at common law which was or could have been asserted in the Bell and/or EEOC Litigation, except sexual harassment. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
11

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 15 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 16 of 58
B. Release of Claims by Plaintiffs, Class Representatives and Charging Parties. Upon Final Approval ofthe Decree, for and in consideration ofthe mutual promises, terms and conditions set forth herein, the sufficiency of which consideration is expressly acknowledged, Woodward and its directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, pension, profit sharing, savings and other employee benefits plans of whatsoever nature, as well as those plans' trustees and administrators, and for each of the foregoing, their respective successors and assigns, shall be fully released and forever discharged by Plaintiffs, the Class Representatives and the Charging Parties, including their heirs, assigns and estates from any and all claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights actions, causes ofactions, suits, demands, damages, liabilities, assessments, judgments, costs, losses, debts, obligations and expenses, of any and every kind, known or unknown, that they have had, now have or may have from the beginning oftime to the Preliminary Approval Date, including, but not limited to, those arising in any way out of the alleged facts, circumstances and occurrences underlying those allegations ofviolations ofTitle VII and/or Section 1981 and/or the Equal Pay Act that were asserted or might have been asserted by or on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charging Parties and/or the Class Representatives against the Company either in the Complaints filed, or in any and all charges ofdiscrimination filed against Woodward or any other allegedly illegal, unlawful or tortuous actions by Woodward. The sole exception to the foregoing is that this release does not include workers' compensation claims, if any, of the Class Representatives, Plaintiffs and/or Charging Parties. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
C. EEOC Release. Upon Final Approval, this Decree shall fully and finally resolve any and all claims, class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of actions of any kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, which were or could have pursuant to the EEOC's Letter of Determination been asserted by the EEOC in its Complaint arising from incidents
12

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 16 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 17 of 58
occurring prior to the Preliminary Approval Date. It is the intention of Woodward and the EEOC that this release terminates all investigations relating to claims which were asserted by EEOC in its Complaint or by Charging Parties in their charges listed in Paragraph I1.B relating to Woodward's Rockford and Rockton facilities. This release is final and shall survive the termination of this Decree.
D. No Bar to Future Claims. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to bar any claims ofthe Settlement Class, Plaintiffs, Class Representatives and/or Charging Parties based on or arising out of events occurring after the Preliminary Approval Date. VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. No Admission of Liability. This Decree does not constitute and shall not be deemed to be a finding or determination by the Court, nor an admission by any party, regarding the merits, validity or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims or defenses. This Decree represents the compromise of disputed claims that the parties recognize would require protracted and costly litigation to determine. Woodward denies that it has engaged in any policy or pattern or practice ofunlawful discrimination, or that it has engaged in any other unlawful conduct. Woodward's entry into this Decree is not and may not be used by any person or entity in any proceeding as an admission or evidence that Woodward and/or its employees, managers, and/or attorneys have on any occasion engaged in discriminatory employment practices or any other unlawful conduct, such being expressly denied. Woodward has voluntarily entered into this Decree because it believes the actions it has agreed to undertake demonstrate its strong commitment to equal employment opportunity. Neither the Decree nor any compliance reports, filings, data, or other compliance information arising out of or related to the Decree shall be discoverable, admissible or used as evidence of liability or
13

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 17 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 18 of 58
non-liability for unlawful discrimination In any proceeding other than one relating to the enforcement of this Decree.
B. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree. Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, Charging Parties, Class Counsel, EEOC and Woodward each agree to abide by all ofthe terms ofthis Decree in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their best efforts to defend this Decree from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack. VII. ESTABLISHMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUND
A. Settlement Fund. 1. As ofthe Preliminary Approval Date, Woodward shall cause to be established
a Qualified Settlement Fund under §468(b) of the Internal Revenue Code ("the Settlement Fund") hereunder in the principal amount of $4,800,000.00 for the purpose of providing individual monetary awards to Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, Charging Parties and other Eligible Claimants. The Settlement Fund shall accrue imputed interest at a rate sufficient to provide a total in the fund of$5,000,000.00 (i.e., $200,000 of interest) as of the Approval Date. As ofthe Approval Date, the total opt-out credit, as computed in Paragraph VIII.B.3, shall be subtracted from the Settlement Fund, leaving as the remainder the "Post Opt-Out Settlement Fund Amount." Beginning on Approval Date through Final Approval, the Post Opt-Out Settlement Fund Amount shall accrue interest in the Qualified Settlement Fund at the T-Bill rate. On Final Approval, the Post Opt-Out Settlement Fund Amount shall be distributed by the Claims Administrator consistent with the EEOC Determinations ofamounts to Eligible Claimants. The interest accrued from Approval Date to Final Approval will be used by/for Woodward to (a) pay administrative expenses, and (b) to satisfy Woodward's payroll taxes on the distributed amounts, in that order. If there is any balance remaining thereafter, it will be distributed to Eligible Claimants pro-rata, providing that any
14

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 18 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 19 of 58
additional payroll tax liability of Woodward caused by the pro-rata distribution is first satisfied. If the Cy Pres provision is triggered for either or both classes the amount to be conveyed to the charities shall also be distributed on Final Approval. After Final Approval, the Qualified Settlement Fund, subject to the provisions herein, shall be transferred to the Claims Administrator, who shall be authorized to issue checks to Eligible Claimants.
2. Within five (5) days of the Arbitrator's decision or agreement of the parties, fees and costs will be placed in a separate Qualified Settlement Fund to accrue interest until distributed to Class Counsel within five (5) days of the Final Approval date.
B. Minority Settlement Fund. Subject to the opt-out credit, if any, as computed in Paragraph VIII.B.3, $2,400,000.00 of the Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Eligible Minority Claimants pursuant to the procedures described in this Decree, provided, that at least 110 Eligible Minority Claimants submit claims.
C. Gender Settlement Fund. 1. $2,600,000.00 of the Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Eligible Female
Claimants pursuant to the procedures described in this Decree, provided, that at least 225 Eligible Female Claimants submit claims.
2. Eligible minority females who submit a claim form in both classes shall be counted towards the total number of claims in both classes.
D. Cy Pres Provision. In the event that fewer than 110 Eligible Minority Claimants submit timely claims, the amount ofthe Minority Settlement Fund to be distributed shall be reduced by $7,500.00 for each Eligible Minority claim less than 110 that has been timely submitted. For example, if 100 Eligible Minority Claimants submit timely claims, then the Minority Settlement Fund shall be reduced by $75,000 (7,500 x 10). The full amount of the reduction from the amount
15

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 19 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-501 90 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 20 of 58
of the Minority Settlement Fund shall be conveyed to Rock Valley Community College (with a direction from the Claims Administrator that the funds be utilized in particular to advance the interests of minorities) at the time the distribution of payments to Eligible Minority Claimants is made. In the event that fewer than 225 Eligible Female Claimants submit timely claims and releases, the amount ofthe Gender Settlement Fund shall be reduced by $10,000.00 for each Eligible Female Claimant less than 225 that has been timely submitted. For example, if200 Eligible Female Claimants submit timely claims and releases, then the Gender Settlement Fund shall be reduced by $225,000 (10,000 x 25). The full amount ofthe reduction from the amount ofthe Gender Settlement Fund shall be conveyed to Rock Valley Community College (with a direction from the Claims Administrator that the funds be utilized in particular to advance the interests of women) at the time the payment to Eligible Female Claimants is made.
E. If Class Counselor the EEOC believe Woodward took any action that adversely interfered with, deterred, or discouraged claimants (minority or female) from filing a claim, they will notify Woodward in writing of such actions, along with all other non-privileged information available to them, including, but not limited to, the identities of all individuals involved, interfered with or discouraged, and permit Woodward an opportunity to cure as to the individual(s) directly involved and any chilling effect the action may have had on others. If Class Counselor the EEOC are not satisfied with Woodward's response, they may file a motion with the Court for appropriate relief. It shall be a presumption that if Class Counselor the EEOC establish that Woodward took any action that adversely interfered with, deterred, or discouraged claimants from filing a claim, and Woodward failed to cure, then the Court will order 50% ofthe amount to be allocated to the Cy Pres Charity, instead be returned to the Settlement Fund for distribution for Eligible Claimants. Provided, however, that nothing in this Section shall in any way affect the rights or remedies
16

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 20 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 21 of 58
available to the Parties or individuals under any other provision of this Decree, including, without limitation, Section XXI. VIII. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE
A. On October 13, 2006, Woodward shall transmit to the Claims Administrator a computer disk containing information from its payroll database including the full name, social security number, and last known address for each current Female Class Member and each current Minority Class Member. This information shall also be provided to Class Counsel. Class Counsel shall provide the Claims Administrator a list of persons who previously opted out and a list of Plaintiffs, Class Representatives and Charging Parties who get General Releases. Class Counsel will also send these lists to Defendant's Counsel. Also by October l3, 2006, Woodward shall transmit to the Claims Administrator a computer disk containing information from its payroll database including the full name, social security number, and last known address for each former Female Class Member who has worked at the Rockton or Rockford facilities from June 26, 2002 to present and a computer disk containing information from its payroll database including the full name, social security number, and last known address for each former Minority Class Member who has worked at the Rockton and Rockford facilities from May 8, 1999 to present. This information shall also be provided to Class Counsel. The Claims Administrator will take reasonable steps to obtain the current addresses of Settlement Class Members formerly employed by the Company including tracing and using other relevant information reasonably available to the Company.
B. Notice to Class Members. Within 10 days of the receipt of the employee data, but no later than October 25,2006, the Claims Administrator shall mail to all known Class Members (but not to those on the previously opted out list as provided by Class Counsel) at their last known address and most recent address obtained, via first class postage, (i) a Notice of Settlement, (ii)
17

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 21 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 22 of 58

Claim Form(s), and (iii) a release form ("Claim Package"). The Minority Claim Package will be

substantially in the forms attached at Exhibit A (i), (ii) and (iii), approved Cor modified) by the Court

in the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Gender Claim Package will be substantially in the forms

attached as Exhibit BCi), (ii) and (iii), approved (or modified) by the Court in the Preliminary

Approval Order. The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts (including tracing) to

locate Settlement Class Members whose Claim Packages are returned as undeliverable. 1. Notice to Minority Class Members. The Claim Package to be sent to the

Minority Class Members shall be in the form attached hereto and approved (or modified) by the

Court and is intended to include the following:

a. a statement that there is a proposed settlement of the claims in the Bell Action;
b. a description of the Bell Action and description of the terms of the settlement, including the factors that will be considered in distributing the settlement funds;

c. a statement that the Court will hold a hearing at which time the Court will consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement;
d. a statement that a Minority Class Member may elect to opt-out ofthe monetary provisions of the proposed settlement;

e. a statement that Minority Class Members who do not opt-out may object by submitting written objections regarding the settlement and appearing at the fairness hearing;

f.

a statement that the parties have agreed to submit the issue of

attorneys' fees and expenses to an independent, neutral arbitrator for

resolution by a Court-approved process;

g. a statement that, before the Fairness Hearing, class members may contact the EEOC or Class Counsel to see the final distribution, which will be filed with the Court;

18

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 22 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 23 of 58

h. a claim form and instructions, including instructions concerning the release form; and

1.

a release form.

2. Notice to Female Class Members. The Claim Package to be sent to the

Female Class Members shall be in the form attached hereto and approved (or modified) by the Court

and is intended to include the following:

a. a statement that there is a proposed settlement of the claims of the Female Class Members;

b. a description of claims asserted by the Female Class Members and the terms of the settlement, including the factors that will be considered in distributing the settlement funds;

c. a statement that the Court will hold a hearing at which time the Court will consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement;

d. a statement that, before the Fairness Hearing, Female Class Members may contact the EEOC or Class Counsel to see the final distribution, which will be filed with the Court;

e. a claim form and instructions, including instructions concerning the release form;

f.

a release form.

3. Minority Class Opt-Outs. For each Minority Class Member who timely

complies with the procedure in this Decree to be excluded from the Minority Class monetary

settlement by November 29, 2006, (not including persons who have previously opted out of the

class), $5,000.00 will be deducted from the Minority Settlement Fund. Ifthere are 21 or more such

opt-outs, (not including persons who have previously opted out of the class), Woodward has the

right for ten( 10) business days after the Claims Administrator notifies the parties ofthe total number

of opt-outs and provides Woodward with the name, social security number and a copy ofthe opt-out

19

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 23 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 24 of 58
request for each person to elect to nullify the settlement. In such event, all releases will be considered null and void, the Decree is null and void and any Orders hereunder shall be vacated by the consent motion of the parties. IX. CLAIMS PROCEDURE
A. Claims Administrator. The parties agree that Settlement Services Incorporated shall be the Claims Administrator and shall: (a) mail the Claims Package; (b) receive claim fonus, objections, opt-outs and other communications from Class Members; (c) transmit notifications of monetary awards; (d) issue checks from the Settlement Fund; (e) issue related tax documents; and (t) perfonu such other administrative tasks as it may deem necessary to facilitate the claims process. All expenses, fees, and costs of the Claims Administrator shall be paid by the Company. Subject to Paragraph VIl.A, in the event that actual interest accrues on the initial funding of the Settlement Fund such that the fund has more than $5.0 Million to distribute, such excess monies shall be used to pay administrative costs, expenses, and any payroll taxes incurred by Woodward.
B. Minority Class Members Right to Opt-Out. Members of the Minority Class who have not previously opted out of the case may exclude themselves; that is opt-out, of the monetary relief provisions of the proposed settlement. Any request for exclusion must be in writing, must include the individual's name and address and must be sent to and received by the Claims Administrator no later than November 29,2006, fifty-five (55) days after the Preliminary Approval Date. The notice that a Minority Class Member is opting out must be postmarked on or before such date in order to be considered timely.
C. Submission of Claim Fonus. Eligible Claimants who seek money from the Settlement Fund must complete a claim fonu and release fonu and cause it to be sent to the Claims Administrator and postmarked no later than November 29, 2006, fifty-five (55) days after the
20

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 24 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 25 of 58
Preliminary Approval Date. The claim form must be postmarked on or before such date in order to be considered timely. All claim forms must be signed under penalty ofpeIjury to be considered.
D. Late Claims. For claims received after the filing deadline, the Claims Administrator shall notify late-filing claimants that their claims are untimely and that they are not eligible for any monetary award. The Claims Administrator shall also inform late-filing claimants that they may seek a review of the determination that they filed untimely by requesting the Claims Administrator reconsider its determination. The Claims Administrator may reverse its determination that a claim was not timely filed only if the claimant proves that the claim form was mailed on or before the filing deadline and that the untimeliness determination is erroneous.
E. Incomplete Forms. If a claim form is determined to be incomplete by the Claims Administrator, the Claims Administrator shall request additional information from the Class Member. Likewise, ifa Class member fails to provide a Release with his/her claim form, the Claims Administrator shall promptly request that one be executed. If such additional information is necessary to make a determination of eligibility for an award or the amount thereof, then the Class Member must send such requested information, signed under penalty of perjury, to the Claims Administrator by mail with a postmark no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the mailed request for information. If a claim is submitted without a release form, the Claims Administrator will contact the Claimant and obtain the release form by December 29, 2006. If a Class Member fails to provide such necessary information, the Claims Administrator shall notify the Class Member that his/her claim form is untimely and he/she is not eligible for a monetary award.
F. Claims of Deceased Persons. Claims may be filed by deceased claimants through legal representatives of their estate if appropriate documentation (letters testamentary or the
21

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 25 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 26 of 58
equivalent) is provided. Any claims paid to a deceased claimant shall be made payable to the estate of the deceased claimant.
G. Forwarding ofClaim Forms to EEOC. The Claims Administrator shall forward claim forms and supporting documentation to the EEOC on a rolling basis as received.
H. Determination of Claims. By January 8, 2007, the EEOC shall determine whether each Eligible Claimant who filed timely claims is eligible to receive a monetary award and, if so, EEOC shall determine the amount of each monetary award.
l. Factors Bearing on Determination of Minority Settlement Fund Claims. EEOC will determine the amount of each Eligible Minority Claimant's monetary award based on the following factors: length of service with Woodward; length and degree of alleged underpayment; length and degree of alleged under-advancement; evidence of alleged denial of training opportunities; evidence of alleged disparities between the Eligible Minority Claimant's and comparable white employees with respect to compensation, training, and advancement; Class Counsel's recommendations; evidence of other alleged conduct with respect to which claimant asserts a right to relief (e.g., denial of promotions beyond level advancement, hostile work environment, termination, retaliation); whether the Eligible Minority Claimant allegedly complained to Woodward; whether the Eligible Minority Claimant was a Class Representative, Plaintiff and/or a Charging Party and time or effort devoted to the litigation; any alleged emotional distress suffered as a result of alleged unlawful practices.
2. Factors Bearing on Determination ofGender Settlement Fund Claims. EEOC will determine the amount of each Eligible Female Claimant's monetary award based on the following factors: length of service with Woodward; length and degree of alleged underpayment; length and degree of alleged under-advancement; evidence of alleged denial of training
22

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 26 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 27 of 58

opportunities; evidence of alleged disparities between the Eligible Female Claimant's and

comparable male employees with respect to compensation, training, and advancement; evidence of

other alleged conduct with respect to which claimant asserts a right to relief (e.g., denial of

promotions beyond level advancement, work environment, termination, retaliation); whether the

Eligible Female Claimant allegedly complained to Woodward; whether the Eligible Female

Claimant was a Charging Party and time or effort devoted to the litigation; any alleged emotional

distress suffered as a result of alleged unlawful practices.

I.

Direct Assertions of Discrimination. The Claim Forms will not require an Eligible

Claimant to make direct assertions of discriminatory conduct by Woodward.

J. Information in Woodward's Possession. In certain limited instances, Woodward may

be asked to provide documents and electronic data that has not already been provided to the EEOC

and/or Class Counsel that is necessary to make award determinations. In those limited instances,

Woodward will cooperate in a reasonable manner in providing documents or data which is

reasonably necessary to assist in determining the eligibility of any Eligible Claimant for monetary

relief or the amount thereof. Any requests hereunder shall be made through Counsel for the

Company.

K. Notification of Awards. Upon the determination of all claims and no later than

January 8, 2007, EEOC shall cause the Claims Administrator to notify within seven (7) days each

such Class Member via First-Class U. S. Mail of the amount ofhislher monetary award, if any, and

the distribution to each Eligible Class Member and ofhis/her right to object by submitting a notice

of intention, position, and appearing at the Fairness Hearing. The Notification of Award shall

indicate that the award is subject to review or modification only by the Court. It shall also notify

each Eligible Claimant that in order to receive monetary payments under this Decree, he/she must

23

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 27 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 28 of 58
have executed and delivered to the Claims Administrator a Release (copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A(iii) and Exhibit B(iii)). Settlement funds will not be distributed to any Eligible Claimant until the Eligible Claimant has executed the Release and delivered it to the Claims Administrator. As set forth above, the Claims Administrator shall request a Release form at the time claim forms are submitted from any Eligible Claimant who failed to provide an executed Release along with his/her Claim form. X. FAIRNESS HEARING
A. A Fairness Hearing to consider the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement shall be held following mailing ofthe notice described in Paragraph VIIl.B, on a date between February 12,2007 and February 23,2007, specified by the District Court at the time of Preliminary Approval. The notice described in Paragraph VIII.B shall identify this date.
B. Appearance By Class Members at Fairness Hearing. Any member of the Minority Class as defined in this Decree who wishes to be heard in opposition to the overall or individual fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, including monetary awards, may appear at the Fairness Hearing, provided that such member of the Minority Class must first provide to the Claims Administrator a notice of intention to appear and written statement of position (including name and address) to be asserted, at least twenty (20) business days prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Claims Administrator shall transmit any such notices and statements to the District Court and Counsel no later than fifteen (15) business days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
C. The Court shall modify an objecting Eligible Claimant's monetary award only upon finding that EEOC's monetary award determination constituted a gross deviation from the EEOC's application of the provisions contained in Pargaraph IX.H The modification of awards may result in a revision ofthe tentative monetary awards determined by the EEOC for other Eligible Claimants.
24

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 28 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 29 of 58
In no event may such revision increase the Settlement Fund. Upon the Court's resolution of any objections, and any necessary modification of the monetary awards, the Court will enter an Order Approving the Allocation of the Settlement Funds. The Court will further rule on any objections as to the overall or individual fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. XI. DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUND
As defined in Paragraph IIU5, above, within five (5) days of Final Approval, the Claims Administrator shall issue and mail a check to each Eligible Claimant in the amount reflected in the final settlement distribution list. XII. TAX TREATMENT OF MONETARY AWARDS
The monetary awards shall be allocated 15% to lost wages and 85% to compensatory damages and interest. XIII. CY PRES FUND
In the event that checks are returned, the Claims Administrator shall make best efforts to find the claimant and shall hold the check for sixty (60) days to do so. Thereafter, any such portion of the Settlement Fund not completely distributed for any reason shall become part of a cy pres fund to be distributed to Rock Valley College with the direction that the funds be used to advance the interests of minorities and women. XIV. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
A. Attorney's Fees to Date. The parties agree that the entitlement of Class Counsel to fees to date will be determined by Max Brittain, Esq., in accord with a stipulated Fee Arbitration process, utilizing Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals and United States Supreme Court standards. The parties agree to be bound by the Fee Arbitration Stipulation signed simultaneously with Preliminary Approval ofthe Consent Decree. The outcome ofthis Arbitration process shall be final and binding,
25

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 29 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 30 of 58

and there shall be no appeal. Prior to the Fairness hearing, the Court will be infonned of and, if it

finds it reasonable and fair, approve the Arbitrator's detennination of attorneys' fees and costs at

the Fairness Hearing. Nothing shall prevent the Mediator, Hunter Hughes, from engaging the parties

in settlement of the fees prior to the Arbitrator's detennination at his discretion and in accord with

the understanding of the parties. The Fee Arbitration process shall commence upon Preliminary

Approval. The Fee Arbitration process concerning fees to date is summarized as follows, and is

detailed in a stipulation between the parties:

a. Class Counsel shall file a submission in accord with Local Rule 54.3(A) ~ (D) with defendant and the Arbitrator within twenty-one (21) days of Preliminary Approval (on or about October 26,2006);

b. Defense Counsel will produce materials to plaintiffand the Arbitrator in accord with Local Rule 54.3(A) and (B) on the same day as plaintiffs' submission;

c. both parties may submit narrowly tailored requests for additional documents and the Arbitrator will rule on any objections thereto;

d. defendant will file with Class Counsel and the Arbitrator additional disclosures and its responsive submission under Local Rule 54.3(D) twenty (20) days after receiving the documents produced in response to requests for production;

e. Plaintiff shall submit to the Arbitrator and defendant a reply twenty (20) days after defendant's submission;

f.

the Arbitrator shall conduct a confidential hearing to be completed no

later than January 25, 2007, consisting of no more than 10 hours as

detailed in the stipulation;

g. the Arbitrator will make and convey his detennination to the Mediator, Hunter Hughes, no later than February 9, 2007, and in any event prior to the Fairness Hearing.

B. Attorney's Fees Related to Obtaining Fees. The parties agree that entitlement of

Class Counsel to fees and costs related to obtaining attorney's fees ("fees on fees") will be

26

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 30 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 31 of 58
detennined by the fee Arbitrator, Max Brittain, in accord with the stipulated Fee Arbitration process. The outcome of this determination shall be binding and there shall be no appeal.
C. Attorney's Fees Related to Approval of Decree and Claims Process. The parties agree that the entitlement of Class Counsel to fees and costs related to approval of this Decree and the claims process will be determined by the fee Arbitrator, Max Brittain, in accord with the stipulated Fee Arbitration process. The outcome of this determination shall be binding and there shall be no appeal.
D. Costs to Date. The parties stipulate to the payment within five (5) days of Final Approval ofthis Decree ofS345,OOO.OO to Class Counsel in litigation costs through Final Approval, plus any reasonable copying and telephone costs and costs of the mediator.
E. Time For Payment. The fees determined to be owing to Class Counsel under A, B or C above shall be paid to Class Counsel within five (5) days after Final Approval, as defined in Paragraph III. 15.
F. Pro Rata Opt-Out Credit Fee Reduction. The total of fees owed to Class Counsel shall be reduced by the same percentage as the percentage reduction to the overall Settlement Fund from the opt-out credit amount. XV. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS
A. For the term of the Decree, Woodward shall not enact, maintain or implement any policy or engage in any practice or procedure that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians on the basis ofrace, color, and/or national origin.
27

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 31 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 32 of 58
B. For the term of the Decree, Woodward shall not enact, maintain or implement any policy or engage in any practice or procedure that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against women on the basis of gender.
C. For the term of the Decree, Woodward shall not enact, maintain or implement any policy or engage in any practice, conduct or procedure that retaliates or has the purpose or effect of retaliating against any current, future, or former employee of Woodward because he or she opposed discrimination on the basis ofrace, national origin or gender; filed a charge of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin or gender; testified, furnished information or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing in co=ection with any charge or complaint of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin or gender; testified, furnished information or participated in any ma=er in co=ection with the monitoring or implementation ofthis Decree; or sought and/or received any monetary and/or non-monetary relief pursuant to this Decree.
D. For the term ofthe Decree, Woodward shall maintain all records as required by Title VII and EEOC regulations.
E. Within ten (l0) days of the Approval Date, Woodward shall post in conspicuous places where employee notices are posted in Rockford and Rockton the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Notice shall remain posted in each such location for the duration of this Decree.
F. For the term of the Decree, Woodward will make available to minority and female employees the same employment opportunities and terms and conditions ofemployment, including but not limited to job assignments and promotions, as Woodward affords similarly-situated white male employees.
28

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 32 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 33 of 58

G. Nothing herein should be construed as any finding or admission that Woodward

previously has failed to act in the manner described herein, such being expressly denied by

Woodward.

H. Except as provided in alternative dispute resolution provisions herein, employees

complaining ofalleged violations ofthe provisions set forth in this Section may utilize Woodward's

internal complaint procedures (as applicable) and/or may file charges with the EEOC, or the state

or local fair employment practices ("FEP") agency.

I.

As of the Approval Date, and pursuant to the Court's authority under the All Writs

Act and the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651,2283, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

(where applicable), each and every Plaintiff, Class Representative, minority Charging Party and each

and every minority Settlement Class member who has not filed a timely request to opt-out and each

and every Female Class Member who has signed a release shall be and hereby is permanently

enjoined from bringing any claims released, in any court, agency or adjudicative body, whether

federal, state or local.

XVI. DURATION OF DECREE

A. Unless otherwise provided, the equitable provisions ofthis Decree are effective thirty

(30) days following the Approval Date; provided, however, that in the event that this Decree

ultimately does not receive Final Approval, then any Order hereunder shall be vacated.

B. The terms of this Decree shall remain in effect for a period of 42 months from the

Approval Date and shall expire without further action by the parties at midnight on the last day of

the 42nd month after the Approval Date. Woodward may be relieved ofthe provisions ofthe Decree

at any time following the expiration of thirty-six months from the Approval Date of the Decree if

Ms. Kreiter determines that Woodward (a) has in all material respects implemented and maintained

29

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 33 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 34 of 58
all policies, programs, practices, and other procedures required by this Decree; (b) has in all material respects applied its policies and practices regarding compensation, promotion, and training in such a way as not to discriminate unlawfully against minorities and women with respect to compensation, promotion and training; and (c) has complied with all monetary provisions ofthis Decree. If Kreiter determines that Woodward satisfies the criteria in (a), (b) and (c) herein, then the Court, on motion by Woodward shall terminate this Decree upon conclusion of the thirty-six (36) months.
C. During the duration of this Consent Decree, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties for the purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. XVII. APPOINTMENT OF NANCY KREITER
The parties have stipulated that Nancy B. Kreiter ("Kreiter") shall be appointed to serve for the duration of the Decree for the purpose of overseeing Woodward's implementation of and compliance with the terms of the Decree and providing advice and assistance to Woodward. Kreiter's specific duties are as set forth herein to oversee and ensure Woodward's compliance with obligations in Sections XV through XX ofthis Decree. The parties agree that Kreiter's duties shall commence upon the Final Approval Date ofthis Consent Decree; provided, however, that following Preliminary Approval Kreiter and appropriate Woodward officials shall engage in a preparatory meeting for the purpose of promptly and effectively commencing performance of her duties hereunder as ofthe Approval Date and Kreiter shall be compensated for this meeting and reimbursed by Woodward as provided hereunder. In the event that Kreiter cannot serve for the full term of the Decree, EEOC and Class Counsel shall propose a replacement to Woodward for approval. If the parties agree on a replacement, the Parties shall file a joint motion for an order from the Court
30

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 34 of 55
Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 35 of 58
appointing the replacement. Ifthe parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the Court shall make such replacement appointment, giving due consideration to any recommendation of the parties. XVIII. KREITER DUTIES
During the term hereof, Kreiter shall have the duty to and responsibility to oversee Woodward's compliance with the provisions of Sections XV through XX of this Decree and to provide advice and consultation to Woodward as she deems appropriate to assist Woodward in carrying out its duties hereunder. XIX. EQUITABLE RELIEF/RELATED ISSUES
A. Complaint Investigation Process. Within thirty (30) days of the Approval Date, the Company shall adopt and implement for its Rockton and Rockford facilities the written complaint procedure and protocol attached as Exhibit D hereto which provides for, inter alia, the receipt, logging, investigating, documenting and responding to internal complaints of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, and gender, as well as any complaint of retaliation.
B. Within thirty (30) days ofthe Approval Date, Woodward shall adopt and implement for its Rockton and Rockford facilities a complaint tracking spreadsheet included in Exhibit D for the purpose of recording the required information as relates to complaints of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, and gender, as well as any complaint of retaliation, all with respect to compensation, performance appraisals, training, and/or promotion or retaliation.
C. Woodward shall provide Kreiter with the complaint tracking spreadsheets on a quarterly basis for the term hereof and Kreiter may seek backup or further documents or information in respect of any complaint identified on the tracking spreadsheet. With respect to any tracking
31

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 35 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 36 of 58
spreadsheet complaints that in Kreiter's good faith opInIOn reflect systemic or a pattern of discrimination against minorities or females, Kreiter is authorized to address such conduct and take such steps as authorized by Paragraph E, below.
D. During the first year following the Approval Date, Woodward shall on a quarterly basis provide Kreiter with 3 (assuming there are at least 3) employee complaints (as selected by her from the complaint tracking spreadsheet), along with all related investigative files, and written reports summarizing the investigation and remedial actions taken or proposed by Woodward relative to each such complaint. In addition, in any instance where Kreiter receives directly a complaint (whether oral or written) of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender from any minority or female, she shall refer such complaint to Woodward for investigation and appropriate remedial action and the complaint shall thereafter be handled as provided in Paragraph E, below.
E. Kreiter will review Woodward's investigation of each complaint that in her good faith opinion reflects systemic or a pattern of discrimination against minorities or females and in Paragraph D above, and, where appropriate, may make recommendations to Woodward regarding the investigation and resolution of complaints. Kreiter may recommend the Company take additional investigative steps including, without limitation, re-interview of the complaining party and other persons of interest with respect to any complaint, if she deems it appropriate. In addition, if such additional investigative steps do not fully resolve any concerns Kreiter may have regarding the matter, she may take any other investigative actions as she may deem appropriate.
F. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude Woodward from consulting with Kreiter in the course of investigating or taking remedial action or other steps prior to the quarterly
32

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 36 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 37 of 58
review referred to above. Woodward is encouraged to do so so that it can obtain the
contemporaneous input and advice of Kreiter in respect of such matters.
G. Job Analysis
I. Promptly and no later than thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the Company
shall retain Dr. Kathleen Lundquist, a professional industrial/organizational psychologist, and her
staff at Applied Psychological Techniques, Inc., (collectively "Dr. Lundquist"). The parties have
stipulated to Dr. Lundquist's conducting ajob analysis ofthe positions and job levels within the 600
series job codes at the Rockton and Rockford facilities. Prior to commencing the work called for
herein, Dr. Lundquist shall attend a confidential meeting with EEOC, Class Counsel and Company
counsel as a group and/or separately as determined by Dr. Lundquist. Dr. Lundquist, using her
professional judgment, will be solely responsible for determining the methodology for conducting
the job analysis and may consider any aspect of the positions and job levels within the 600 series
job codes she deems professionally appropriate for the completion ofthe job analysis. Dr. Lundquist
may seek information from any source she deems appropriate while conducting the job analysis.
2. Upon completion of the job analysis described herein, Dr. Lundquist, using
her professional judgment, shall:
a. develop written job descriptions (or modify the current job descriptions, as necessary) for all positions and job levels within the 600 series job codes at Rockton and Rockford, which shall include Minimum Qualifications and job responsibilities/essential functions ofthe job that, based on the job analysis, are job-related. Regardless of the results from the job analysis, the Company shall not be required to use "seniority" and/or "time in job" as a Minimum Qualification or other criteria for any position or job level;
b. develop a performance appraisal, (or modify the current performance appraisal form, as necessary), that is job related for the positions and job levels in the 600 series job codes at Rockton and Rockford, consistent with the results of the job analysis; and
33

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 37 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 38 of 58
c. develop a compensation review process, (or modify the current compensation review process, as necessary) (including salary change forms), that is job related for the 600 series job codes at Rockton and Rockford, consistent with the results of the job analysis.
3. The Company and Kreiter will receive the written report of Dr. Lundquist containing the results of the job analysis described in Paragraphs 2a, 2b and 2c herein and may comment upon and suggest additions or changes to such report as she deems appropriate or necessary. Kreiter will also be available to assist in resolving disputes, if any, that arise between the Company and Dr. Lundquist relating to:
a. the development of the job descriptions in Paragraph 2a; and b. the application of the job analysis to the member appraisal and
compensation review process in Paragraphs 2b and 2c. 4. Kreiter will not retain anyone for the purpose of reviewing or duplicating the work of Dr. Lundquist. 5. Upon completion of the steps described herein, Dr. Lundquist, and Human Resources personnel (with the advice and recommendations of Kreiter) will meet with members holding positions in the 600 series job codes in Rockton and Rockford to communicate:
a. the results of the job analysis; b. the job descriptions; c. the level advancement or downward movement process; d. the performance appraisal and compensation process for positions
and job levels in the 600 series jobs in Rockton and Rockford; and e. such other matters as Dr. Lundquist and Kreiter deem appropriate
with input from the Company.
34

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 38 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 39 of 58
H. Job Review 1. Upon completion ofthe job analysis andjob descriptions in Paragraph XIX.G
by Dr. Lundquist, Human Resources personnel will conduct a review, with input from Front-Line Leaders, of the job level assignment for each member in positions and levels classified within the 600 series job codes to determine each member's level classification consistent with the updated written job descriptions. Based on this review, the Company may adjust upward, maintain, or adjust downward a member's level classification.
2. Based on the review in Paragraph XIX.H.labove, the Company will adjust upward the job level classification ofany member who meets the objective Minimum Qualifications and objective job responsibilities/essential functions, as provided in the written job description, of a job level above the member's then current assigned level classification.
3. Based on the review in the Paragraph XIX.H.l above, the Company will adjust downward the job level classification of any member who does not meet the objective Minimum Qualifications and objective job responsibilities/essential functions, as provided in the written job description, of the member's then current job level classification.
4. The Company will be responsiblefor informing each member whosejob level classification is within the 600 series job codes whether the Company has adjusted upward, maintained or adjusted downward the member's job level classification and the reasons for any downward classification decision.
5. Within 30 days ofthe review described in Paragraph XIX. H.l, Dr. Lundquist shall receive from the Company the information in the preceding Paragraph 4 and will review all job level downward reclassifications or classifications that remained the same for minority and
35

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 39 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 40 of 58
female members in the 600 series job codes to ensure that the reclassification is consistent with the
requirements of the job.
a. If Dr. Lundquist disagrees with the downward or maintained reclassification of a minority or female member in the 600 series job codes, she shall confer in good-faith with Human Resources personnel, and to the extent necessary, Front-Line Leaders involved in the decision to reclassify the member.
b. If an agreement is not reached between Dr. Lundquist and Human Resources on the downward or maintained reclassification, Dr. Lundquist shall submit the disagreement to Kreiter for her review and the determination of Kreiter in respect of such disagreement shall be final.
6. H.R. Review
a. Within ten (10) days of receipt of notice in Paragraph 4, above, a member in the series 600 job codes who believes he or she was improperly maintained at the same level or improperly classified downward can submit to Human Resources a written request that the decision be reconsidered ("request for HR review"). Any such request for HR review must include the specific reasons the member believes support reconsideration.
b. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a request for HR review, Human Resources along with the member's Front-Line Leader will confer and make a determination as to whether the member was properly maintained in the same classification or properly classified downward. If the determination is adverse to the employee, then the matter automatically shall be forwarded to Global Human Resources. Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt by Global HR, the Global Human Resources Director will review and make a determination as to whether the member was properly classified. Within five (5) days thereafter, the Global Human Resources Director will advise the member of the determination by Global HR and advise the member in writing of the time limits for appeal to Kreiter and provide Kreiter's address and phone number. The written notification shall prominently and in bold identify the ten (10) day time limit for appeal.
7. Kreiter's Review. Within ten (10) days ofreceipt ofthe determination on the
appeal to Global HR, a minority and/or female member, if dissatisfied with the downward or
36

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 40 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04f2006 Page 41 of 58
maintained classification decision, may submit a written request to Kreiter seeking review of such
classification decision ("request for Kreiter's review"). Any such request for Kreiter's review must
include the specific reasons the member believes supports the request for Kreiter's review. Within
twenty-one (21) days of the receipt of the request for Kreiter's review, Kreiter shall advise the
Global Human Resources Director as to whether she believes the classification decision was proper.
As a part of her review, Kreiter will be given access to such Company information as she may
reasonably deem is necessary for her determination.
a. If Kreiter determines that the minority or female member was not properly classified downward or maintained in the same classification, then Kreiter will provide to the Global Human Resources Director the reasons supporting a recommendation that the classification be overturned and the member be placed in the proper level.
b. If the Kreiter and Global Human Resources Director agree as to the outcome, then Kreiter shall notify the member ofthe outcome of the request for Kreiter review.
c. Ifthe Global Human Resources Director and Kreiter, after conferring in good-faith, do not reach an agreement as to the minority or female member's proper job level classification, then Kreiter shall advise the EEOC and Class Counsel, who may initiate the dispute resolution process under Section XXI hereof.
d. Dr. Lundquist will be available to consult with the Human Resources personnel, Global Human Resources Director, and/or Kreiter at each step in the process described herein.
8. Following the downward reclassification ofany minority or female as aresult
oftheprocess described above, and upon conclusion ofthe appeals process above, the Company will
make available to any minority or female who has been re-classified downward and requests it, a
development plan which will include a description of the training, experience, and/or skills
necessary to obtain the objective Minimum Qualifications and objectivejob responsibilities/essential
37

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 41 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 42 of 58
functions of his or her previous job level classification; such development plan shall include the targeted dates for completion of the development steps and a statement by the member and the Company as to how they will jointly work to achieve the plan in the targeted time frame.
9. Upon completion of the review and appeal process described above, the Company will conduct two reviews, in six month increments, and annually thereafter of whether each member who was reclassified to a lower job level has acquired the objective Minimum Qualifications and objective job responsibilities/essential functions of his/her prior job level classification. Ifthe member has obtained the objective Minimum Qualifications and objective job responsibilities/essential functions ofhis/her prior level classification, the Company shall return the member to hislher prior level classification.
lO. If a member who is reclassified downward fails to attain the objective Minimum Qualifications and objective job responsibilities/essential functions to return to the prior level within the first one year period described above, then the member's compensation will not be decreased during the one year period following the downward level adjustment. After this one year period expires:
a. the member's compensation will not be adjusted downward so long as the member's then-current compensation falls within the minimum and maximum range for the lower job level to which he/she has been reclassified; or
b. if the member's then-current compensation exceeds the maximum compensation for the lower job level to which he/she has been reclassified, then the member's compensation will be reduced to the maximum allowed for the lower job level to which he/she has been reclassified. This compensation reduction will occur in two phases, occurrmg m two consecutive six month periods, in two equal reductions.
38

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 42 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 43 of 58

II. If a female or minority successfully appeals his or her classification was

improperly maintained, then that person shall be moved to the upper level, provided however that

as of the time of the appeal decision Woodward makes the determination that there is not a need at

the level at issue, the person shall not be advanced. If Woodward makes a good faith determination

that there is no need for an additional person at such level at that time, it shall so advise the affected

member and Kreiter and the basis for such determination. Ifbeginning twelve (12) months after the

initial decision in Paragraph XIX.HA, above, to not reclassify the member to a higher level, the

member has not been placed in the upper level, then (a) the member's compensation shall not be

adjusted upward so long as the member's then-current compensation is within the range for the

higher job level to which he or she would have been reclassified, or (b) ifthe member's then-current

compensation is below the minimum compensation range for the higher job level for which he or

she would have been reclassified, then the member's compensation will be increased to the

minimum for the higher job level to which he or she would have been reclassified. This increase

will occur in two (2) phases, occurring in two (2) consecutive six (6) month periods in two (2) equal

lllcreases.

I.

Job Postings

1. Within twenty (20) days of Preliminary Approval, the Company shall amend

its job posting system to include all open working lead job positions at its Rockford and Rockton

facilities with the posting of such position being in the same location and manner as are other job

postings. Persons selected for posted job positions shall be identified on "Inside Woodward" for

no less than two weeks subsequent to their selection.

2. While the job posting system does not apply to changes in status occurring

through the job level advancement process, persons receiving a job level advancement at Rockford

39

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 43 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 44 of 58
and Rockton shall be identified on "Inside Woodward" for no less than two weeks subsequent to their advancement.
3. Kreiter shall have oversight of and access to the Company's job posting system and Inside Woodward to ensure Woodward's compliance with this provision.
J. Training, Education and Information 1. Within ninety (90) days ofthe Approval Date, the Company shall provide two
hours of equal employment opportunity training to all current non-management Rockford and Rockton employees. The parties have stipulated that the training shall be conducted by ELI. The non-management training shall include, but need not be limited to, communicating the equitable provisions ofthis Decree (including the discrimination complaint process and the posted promotion process); the requirements ofTitle VII; examples ofconduct which may be considered race, national origin, or gender discrimination or harassment, including but not limited to examples of discrimination concerning compensation, promotion, level advancement, and training, including opportunities for cross training; examples of conduct that may be considered retaliation; the discrimination complaint procedure; and other topics that foster equal employment opportunity in compensation, promotions, and training. Each employee's participation in this training shall be documented and subject to Kreiter's oversight. New hires shall receive equal employment opportunity training within a reasonable period from their time ofhire. During each subsequent year in which the Decree is in effect, the Company shall provide all non-management Rockford and Rockton employees two hours of equal employment training. This training may be provided by a Company employee approved by Kreiter and trained by ELI. All trainings required by this Section shall be live trainings conducted in person.
40

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 44 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 45 of 58
2. Beginning ten (l0) days after the Approval Date, the Company shall initiate the process with ELl to provide all current management and supervisory-level employees and all human resources professionals at the Rockton and Rockford facilities with four hours of "supervisor" equal employment opportunity training. The parties have stipulated that this training shall be conducted by ELl. The management training shall include, but need not be limited to, communicating the equitable provisions of this Decree; compliance with the Decree; the requirements of Title VII; examples of conduct which may be considered race, national origin, or gender discrimination or harassment, including but not limited to examples of discrimination concerning compensation, promotion, level advancement, and training; examples of conduct that may be considered retaliation; the discrimination complaint procedure; other topics that foster equal employment in compensation, promotions, and training; instruction related to non-biased decisionmaking, (including, once implemented, any revised personnel system resulting from the Decree); managers' responsibilities under the discrimination complaint procedure; systems or techniques that may be useful in avoiding discrimination and retaliation; and proper record keeping under Title VII. Each management employee's participation in the "supervisor" equal employment opportunity training shall be documented and subject to Kreiter's oversight. New employees with supervisory authority and new human resources managers shall receive this training within a reasonable period from their time of hire. During each subsequent year in which the Decree is in effect, the Company shall provide all management and supervisory-level employees and all human resources professionals at the Rockton and Rockford facilities with four hours of"supervisor" equal employment training. This training may be provided by a Company employee approved by Kreiter and trained by ELl. All trainings conducted during the Term of the Decree shall be live trainings conducted in person.
41

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 45 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 46 of 58
3. Thirty (30) days prior to the first scheduled EEO training required by Paragraphs XIX.J.! and XIX.J.2 above, Woodward shall provide Kreiter with a copy ofthe proposed training program, including a copy of all written materials intended to be used or distributed at the training. Kreiter may make recommendations regarding the proposed training program. Any disputes between Kreiter and Woodward shall be resolved pursuant to Section XXI hereof.
K. Policy Recommendations. IfKreiter determines that there are specific identified nonmonetary requirements of the Decree that are not being met by Woodward that are covered in the scope of her dutiesiresponsibilities, she shall notify Woodward in writing of such concerns. Within ! 0 business days ofreceipt by Woodward of such communication, Kreiter and Woodward shall meet and jointly seek to identify and implement steps to address Kreiter's articulated concerns. If Kreiter concludes after a reasonable period of time that such Decree requirements continue not to be met, then Kreiter may recommend policies, procedures and practices to be developed, modified or implemented by Woodward to remedy the specified and identified non-monetary requirements of this Decree that are not being met. Kreiter shall do so in writing, specifying the recommended policies and the identified requirement of the Decree which is not being met. Woodward will respond in writing whether it will adopt and implement Kreiter's recommendation within 10 business days of receipt of Kreiter's notice of policy, procedure or practices recommendations. If it agrees, Woodward shall implement such recommendations within the period Kreiter recommends or Woodward and Kreiter agree upon for implementation thereof. If Woodward declines, then Kreiter may choose to advise the EEOC and Class Counsel of such matter and they may invoke the dispute resolution provisions of Section XXI hereof.
L. Cooperation. Woodward shall cooperate with Kreiter in connection with her efforts to undertake and complete her duties in the Decree, including providing her with reasonable and
42

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 46 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 47 of 58
timely access to relevant books, data (including databases), documents, and other sources of infonnation, including interviewing Woodward employees, as well as access to Woodward's Rockford and Rockton premises as may be necessary or appropriate to exercise her duties described herein.
M. If counsel for EEOC desire to initiate communication with Kreiter relative to any matter related to or concerning her duties hereunder, it may only do so in writing with a copy to all counsel. Kreiter, however, is authorized in her discretion to communicate with and provide documentation to legal counsel for any of the parties hereto at any time; it being understood, however, that the intent of the parties is that Kreiter and Woodward shall use their best efforts to resolve any dispute, disagreement, or other matter that is the subject ofher responsibilities under the Decree without the fonnal involvement of any counsel, and that consistent with such intent Kreiter and Woodward will to the extent appropriate use the provisions herein for resolution of any concern (see, e.g. provisions of Paragraphs XIX.E. and XIX.H.7) before fonnally raising the issue with any counsel.
N. Compensation 1. The Company shall compensate Kreiter at her customary hourly rate, or upon
other tenns agreed upon by the Company and Kreiter. The Company shall also pay reasonable costs and expenses incurred or caused to be incurred by Kreiter in connection with the perfonnance of her duties under this Consent Decree. In connection with the perfonnance of her duties under the Decree, Kreiter may retain and use on a reasonable basis the assistance and service of third parties (such as administrative staff, interviewers, and other such assistance) on the subjects that are a part of her duties herein; and further, Kreiter may expend up to Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per year on input or assistance from any non-party professionals. Woodward shall
43

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 47 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 48 of 58
promptly, and within a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of her invoice, pay Kreiter's and any authorized third party's fees, costs and expenses as permitted hereby which have been certified in writing by Kreiter to have been incurred by her or any staffperson or the third party in the performance of her duties under this Consent Decree. Woodward shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Kreiter with respect to liability for any such costs and expenses she incurs as permitted hereby and for any claims made against her and/or her staff by anyone arising out of or related to her performance of her duties or alleged failure to perform her duties hereunder in the same manner and to the same extent and degree as the indemnification Woodward provides to its officers and directors for claims or actions against them arising out of or related to their duties. Woodward shall include Kreiter in a rider to its insurance policy upon Final Approval.
2. If Woodward has a good faith objection to any item in any bill submitted by Kreiter, Woodward shall attempt to resolve the dispute with Kreiter. If Woodward and Kreiter are unable to resolve the dispute within 10 business days, the dispute shall be submitted to the Arbitrator, Max Brittain, for prompt resolution.
O. Reporting 1. Twelve (12) months, twenty-four (24) months, thirty-six (36) months, and,
if Woodward is not relieved ofthe provisions ofthe Decree pursuant to Paragraph XVLB, forty-two (42) months after the Approval Date, Kreiter shall submit a written report to the Parties regarding the Company's compliance with the Decree. The report shall include the following:
a. an assessment ofwhether Woodward has complied with each specific non-monetary term of this Decree;
b. for each specific term ofthis Decree that has not been complied with, a statement discussing the reasons for Woodward's failure to implement the required changes;
44

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 48 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 49 of 58
c. a discussion of barriers perceived by Kreiter, if any, to the Company's compliance with the Decree;
d. a copy of Kreiter's written recommendations to Woodward to effectuate the purposes of this Decree and the Company's response to those recommendations; and
e. any other matter falling within the scope of Kreiter's authority. 2. The first two such reports (12 month and 24 month) shall be delivered to Judge Reinhard and the subsequent reports shall be filed publicly with the Court. P. Confidentiality. Except as communicating with counsel as provided herein, Kreiter and any staff or other authorized person who assists Kreiter shall retain all information supplied by the Company in strict confidence. Q. Company Reporting On a semi-annual basis, Woodward shall provide a report to Kreiter, the EEOC, and Class Counsel that shall include, but not be limited to, the following information for Rockford and Rockton: 1. A list ofall promotion/advancement decisions, including level advancements, during the period, including each employee's name, race/national origin, gender, original job position, code and level, new job position, code, and level, and all individuals who made the decision to promote or advance the employee; 2. A list of salary increases/decreases during the period, including each employee's name, race/national origin, gender, job position, code, and level, the amount of the salary changes;
45

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 49 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 50 of 58
3. A list of employees receiving Green Belt or Black Belt training during the period, including each employee's name, race/national origin, gender, job position, code, and level, and all individuals involved in the decision to offer green belt or black belt training;
4. A description of any policies or practices modified to implement the Decree. XX. RECORD KEEPING
Upon Preliminary Approval, Woodward shall retain the following employment-related records for Rockford and Rockton only for the Duration of the Decree or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:
I. Discrimination Complaint Procedure; 2. All Job Analyses for positions including those conducted concerning the affected job codes under this Decree; 3. Minimum Eligibility Requirements and job-related criteria for all positions in the affected job codes; 4. Job descriptions for all positions; 5. EEO training plans and program materials; 6. Kreiter's Reports; 7. Internal complaints of discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or gender and all documents related to the investigation of any such complaints; 8. Performance evaluations of all non-executive level employees; 9. All documents used in making promotion decisions, including interview notes; 10. Internal postings ofjob openings, including for working lead positions;
46

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 50 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 51 of 58
11. All documents used in making advancement and level changes for all nonexecutive employees;
12. All documents used in making the selection of GreenbeltiBlackbelt and similar training;
l3. Applications or other documents expressing interest by Woodward employees for job openings posted internally; and
14. Documentation of compensation and changes in compensation for all nonexecutive employees. XXI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Unless otherwise provided by the Decree, Judge Reinhard, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, shaH have exclusive authority to resolve all disputes arising under the Decree, subject to the various limitations on enforcement, and to the pertinent enforcement standards, as set forth in this Decree. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude Kreiter and Woodward from resolving matters informally at any time.
B. Kreiter may bring to the attention of Class Counsel, EEOC and/or Woodward any issue that falls within the scope of her duties that has not been resolved informally by her and Woodward after a good faith effort to do so. If Kreiter invokes this provision, then at the request of Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward, Class Counsel, EEOC and Woodward shaH confer as necessary, and the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve promptly any differences or any disputes regarding the interpretation or implementation of the Decree.
C. Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward shall have the right to file a motion with the Court to resolve any dispute or issue of compliance hereunder including any matter raised by
47

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 51 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 52 of 58
Kreiter, subject to the same enforcement limitations and standards set forth herein. The procedure for resolution of such issues shall be as follows:
1. If Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward has good reason to believe that a legitimate dispute has been raised, the initiating party or parties shall promptly give written notice to the other party or parties, including:
a. a reference to all specific provisions of the Decree that are involved; b. a specific statement of each issue; c. a statement of the remedial action sought by the initiating party, and d. a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances and any other
arguments supporting the position of the initiating party. 2. Within fifteen days after receiving such notice, the non-initiating party or parties shall respond in writing to the statement 0 f facts and argument set forth in the notice and shall each provide its written position, including the facts and arguments upon which it relies in support of its position. 3. Class Counsel, EEOC and Woodward shall undertake good-faith negotiations, which should include a meeting by telephone or in person and the exchange of relevant documents andlor other information, to attempt to resolve the issue(s) in dispute. 4. Judge Reinhard, upon motion, may permit either Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward to take limited discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but only as to clearly relevant and necessary documents andlor witnesses, as relates to the disputed issue(s), if the Judge determines that the informal exchange ofdocuments or information has not been sufficient to allow either Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward to present the dispute upon a factual record adequate for the determination required hereunder.
48

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 52 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 53 of 58
5. Ifgood-faith efforts to resolve the matter have failed, and after written notice of "impasse" to the non-initiating party or parties, Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward may file a motion with the Court, with a supporting brief, requesting resolution of the dispute, provided, however, that such motion shall be limited to the dispute(s) and/or issue(s) as to which the "meet and confer" provisions herein have been exhausted.
6. The non-moving party or parties will have fifteen days to respond to any such motion. Reply pleadings to such response are permitted only by consent of the opposing party or by specific leave of the Court.
7. Judge Reinhard shall, after the filing ofthe final brief, resolve the dispute and may schedule a hearing or other proceeding, which any party may attend telephonically unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, to resolve the matter.
D. The provisions of this Section do not prevent Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward from promptly bringing an issue before Judge Reinhard when exigent facts and circumstances require immediate Court action to prevent a serious violation of the terms of this Decree, which otherwise would be without meaningful remedy. The moving papers shall explain the facts and circumstances that allegedly necessitate immediate action by the Judge. If any such matter is brought before the Judge requesting immediate Court action, the opposing party or parties shall be provided with appropriate actual notice, and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion, pursuant to the Local Rules of the Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Judge, in his discretion, may set such procedures for emergency consideration as are appropriate to the particular facts and circumstances, but no such matter may be conducted on an ex parte basis.
E. Only Class Counsel, EEOC or Woodward shall have standing to move the Court to enforce, apply, or modify this Decree.
49

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 53 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 54 of 58
F. In the event that any party (except the EEOC) seeks to utilize the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Section XXI, then the prevailing party in such matter shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in such. XXII. COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DECREE
The Company agrees to pay Lead Class Counsel at her hourly rate as established by the Arbitrator for reasonable attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs for work performed in the course ofthe enforcement ofthis Decree up to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) If Lead Counsel believes that additional fees or expenses are required to meet her duties hereunder, in advance of incurring over $10,000 in fees, she will notify counsel for defendant, and thereafter, she may have such issue resolved pursuant to Section XXI hereof (but not any work under the Dispute Resolution Process, which is subject to the prevailing party provisions in Paragraph XXI.F). XXIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Computation of Time Periods. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Decree, unless otherwise stated, such computation shall be made consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
B. Counterparts. This Decree may be executed in one or more counterparts, and each executed copy shall be deemed an original which shall be binding upon all parties hereto.
C. Persons Bound By Decree. The terms of this Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon the Parties, and upon all of their present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns and successors (partial or complete). Woodward agrees that, in the event of a sale, transfer or merger of the Company or the sale or transfer of substantially all of its assets in Winnebago County to a purchaser or successor, Woodward will notify the purchaser or successor
50

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 54 of 55 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 615-3 Filed 10104/2006 Page 55 of 58
of the tenus of the Decree prior to the sale or transfer, and shall obtain the agreement of the purchaser or successor to adhere to the tenus of the Decree.
D. Construction. The tenus ofthis Decree are the product ofjoint negotiations and shall not be construed as having been authored by one party rather than another.
E. Integration. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the matters discussed herein and it supersedes all negotiations, representations, comments, contracts, and writings prior to the date of this Consent Decree.
F. Modification. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision ofthis Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by EEOC, Bell Plaintiffs, and Woodward and approved and ordered by the Court.
G. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision and term of this Decree shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event any provision or tenu of this Decree should be determined to be or rendered invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions and tenus of this Decree shall remain in force. If application of any provision or tenu of this Decree to any person or circumstance should be detenuined to be invalid or unenforceable after Final Approval, the application of such provision or tenu to other persons and circumstances shall remain in force.
H. Notices. Except as may be otherwise provided for in this Decree, all notifications, reports and communications to the parties required under this Decree shall be sufficient as handdelivered, sent by first class mail or electronically transmitted to the following persons:
51

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 617 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 55 of 55

For EEOC Ann Henry, Trial Attorney U.S. EEOC 500 West Madison Street
Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661

For the Plaintiff Class Jennifer K. Soule Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Nancy Rafuse Ashe, Rafuse & Hill 1255 Peachtree Street Suite 500 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

For Defendant Robert E. Reuterfors Woodward Governor Company 5001 North Second Street Post Office Box 7001 Loves Park, Illinois 61125

Whenever Kreiter is to communicate formally with Woodward, she is to notify:

Steven J. Meyer

Woodward Governor Company

1000 East Drake Road

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

thiS~ay IT IS SO ORDERED

of October, 2006.

BY CONSENT:

Ju ge Philip G. Reinhard United States Judge

~~.-L:::C=~~14..(.!I[J!!J J fin C. Hendrickson, Regional Attorney o the U.S. EEOC

•

52

 
 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 217 Filed 01/03/05 Page 1 of 2
Minute Order Form (06/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Philip G. Reinhard

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

,0';,;".,"'.; '" ,f' " , . , " " " " " , ' .. ,,~,.,

CASE NUMBER

03 C 50190

DATE

113/2005

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

BELL, et al. VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e,g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o

Filed motion of [ use listing in "Motion" box above.]

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due _ __

(3) o (4) o

Answer brief to motion due- - - Reply to answer brief due_ __
Ruling/Hearing on ___ set for ___ at _ __

(5) o

Status hearing[heldlcontinued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ _ _ set for _ _ _ at _ __

(6) o

Pretrial conference[heldlcontinued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ _ _ set for _ _ _ at _ __

(7) o

Trial[set for/re-set for] on

at _ __

(8) o

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ___ at _ __

(9)

o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41(a)(l) 0 FRCP41 (a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] For the reasons stated on the reverse Memorandum Opinion and Order, movants motion for

class certification is granted in part. Bell, Berry, Buchanan, Gonzalez, Link, and Triplett are certified as class

representatives. Plaintiff's counsel are appointed class counsel. Two classes are certified under Rule 23 (b) (2) for

injunctive and declaratory reliefpurposes and Rule 23 (b) (3) for purposes ofdetermining liability for discrimination injuries,

but not individual damages: A compensation class consisting of all African-American, Hispanic, and Asian employees

employed by defendant during the applicable limitations period and an advancement class consisting of all African-

American, Hispanic and Asian employees passed over for unposted promotions during the applicable limitations period.

(11)

This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for purposes ofadministering notice to the class members and opt-out rights .

•

[For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute ordeL]
%. ,;.1', ';:~~::: ";'oJ,'ii:,'l~:J;iL; ,;, li.,~+'"";w;,',:; ',i;';>l~

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. Notices mailed by judge's staff. Notified counsel by telephone. Docketing to mail notices.

number of notices
-~/05 date docketed

Mail AO 450 form.
y... .J Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

/SEC

courtroom deputy's initials

Date/time received in , central Clerk's Office

maili:W!1!s

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 217 Filed 01/03/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reserved fqr Jlse by the Court)
MEMORANDtfi~ft)'P1Nf(jN11AN:ifORDER
Plaintiffs, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Della Jarrett, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr., Kim Nachampassack, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Damel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, and Janet Wilkins', individually and as purported class representatives, brought this action underthe court's federal question jurisdiction against defendant, Woodward Governor Co., alleging a pattern or practice of racial discrimination and disparate impact in compensation and terms and conditions of employment in violation of 42 V.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981 ") (Counts I & III) and 42 V.S.c. § 2000e-5 ("Title VII") (Counts II & IV). Buchanan also has a separate claim for unlawful termination and retaliation under Section 1981 (Count V) and Sallis and Wilkins have individual claims for gender based compensation discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (d), (Count VI). Nine of the named plaintiffs (Bell, Berry, Brown, Buchanan, Gonzalez, Link, Manning, Nachampassack and Triplett), as purported class representatives, move to certifY two plaintiffclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: one a compensation class consisting of all African-American, Hispanic and Asian employees employed by defendant during the applicable limitations period and the other an advancement class ofall African-American, Hispanic, and Asian employees passed over by defendant for unposted promotions to higher level positions during the applicable limitations period. The class certiftcation involves Counts I to IV. Defendant opposes certification of these classes.
A litigant seeking to maintain a class action must meet the Rule 23 (a) prerequisites ofnumerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy ofrepresentation. See General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,156 (1982). If these prerequisites are met, the potential class must also satisfY at least one provision of Rule 23 (b). See Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d \0\3, \017 (7"'Cir. 1992), £m denied 506 U.S. 1051 (1993). "Before deciding whether to allow a case to proceed as a class action, therefore, ajudge should make whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary under Rule 23." Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir.), £m denied, 534 V.S. 951 (2001). The court cannot simply accept the allegations ofplaintiffs' complaint as true and must make a preliminary inquiry into the merits where necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met. See id. at 676-77.
Plaintiffs evidence is that there are at least 117 members in each prospective class. This number is the total number ofminorities working for defendant during the 4 years preceding the filing of the case. Defendant argues numerosity is lacking. It contends that half the minority employees are Asian or Hispanic and that the compensation data do not support a statistically significant compensation difference from whites for these two groups. However, the evidence, particularly Dr. DiPrete's declaration, which purports to show a statistically significant difference between whites and non-whites, supports a class ofAfrican-Americans, Asians and Hispanics. The purported class will not be disaggregated into separate racial groups for purposes ofconsidering numerosity. The fact that there is evidence that one potential class member does not want to participate or that most potential class members live within the same geographic area (arguments also raised by defendant), does not defeat numerosity. There are well over 100 potential class members, which is enough to satisfY numerosity.
The commonality requirement is met where there is a common nucleus offactsuch as engaging in standardized conduct towards members ofthe proposed class. See Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7"' Cir. 1998). Plaintiff asserts the common nucleus of operative fact is that all class members were subject to the same compensation and promotion policies and practices under centralized control. Defendants argue the system was decentralized with decisions on compensation and promotion being made by different decision makers so that the facts related to the compensation and promotion of each class member are not common to one another. This is a "pattern or practice" action. Plaintiffs have alleged facts that, if believed, show at least some centralized control by defendant's human resources department purportedly to ensure no discrimination. Plaintiffs have presented evidence sufficient for class certification purposes to ;iUPport these allegations.
Defendant's own documents submitted to the OFCCP indicate the human resources department carefully monitors all job actions to assure they are non-discriminatory.
The evidence of standardized conduct toward members of the purported class is sufficient to find commonality. See Palmer v. Conibined Ins. Co. of America, 217 F.RD. 430, 437 (N.D Ill. 2003) (Zagel, 1.).
Typicality is closely related to commonality, Keele, 149 F.3d at 595, and is satisfied when the plaintiffs' claim arises from the same practice or course ofconduct that gives rise to the claims ofother class members and the plaintiffs' claim is based on the same legal theory. Palmer, 217 F.RD. at 437 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The presence offactual differences between claims ofclass members is not fatal and the similarity oflegal theory is more important. Id. Typicality is met here. Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same legal theory and same alleged practice as the class members. While factual variations may exist between each class member to a certain extent, the overriding theory is the same, that defendant's compensation and promotion practices work to keep non-whites lower paid and out of higher level jobs.
Defendant concedes, based on prior decisions by the court in other cases, that plaintiffs' counsel is adequate to represent the class. Defendant challenges the adequacy offour ofthe named plaintiffs to serve as class representatives citing the fact Gonzalez and Nachampassack have hourly compensation above the average for white employees, that Manning is a leader who will now be making compensation decisions under the defendant's system, and that Brown cannot represent members of the promotion class because she is in a job code with only one job level and has never posted for nor sought another job. Plaintiffs do not specifically dispute defendant's position except as to Gonzalez. There is evidence Gonzalez is paid less than white employees in the same job classification and level with significantly less seniority and that he has not been allowed to advance to a higher level. Gonzalez is an adequate class representative. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden as to Nachampassack, Manning and Brown, who are therefore, not certified as class representatives. The remaining movants have not been challenged by defendant and are found to be adequate class representatives.
Having found that the Rule 23 (a) requirements have been met as to some of the movants, the court moves to the Rule 23 (b) analysis. Plaintiffs argue the class qualifies for certification as to equitable relief under Rule 23 (b) (2), which provides certification is proper where "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2). This requirement has been met. Plaintiffs' pattern or practice allegations and evidence support certification based on the assertion, supported by statistical evidence, that non-white employees were discriminated against in compensation and promotion opportunities. This alleged action on the part of defendant is generally applicable to the class and any injunctive relief entered would almost necessarily apply to the whole class. See Allen v. Int'l Truck and Engine Corp., 358 F.3d 469, 471 (7'" Cir. 2004) (noting the infeasibility ofdrafting and enforcing an injunction that would apply to some but not all black employees).
Having found certification appropriate for injunctive relief purposes, the court, mindful ofthe decision in Allen, looks to the question ofdamage claims. In actions for money damages, ifa class is certified, class members are entitled to personal notice and an opportunity to opt out. Jefferson v. Ingersoll In!'!' Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 897 (7'" CiT. 1999). To certifY a damages class under Rule 23 (b) (3) the court must find that questions oflaw or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that the class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication. It is evident that each class member's damages will be different, assuming liability is proved, based on factors such as job classification, level, seniority, etc. However, issues related to liability based on the plaintiffs' pattern or practice claims will have common questions oflaw and fact. These common questions will predominate overthe individual damage determinations ofeach class member. The factors listed in Rule 23 (b) (3) (A)-(D) as pertinent to finding common question predominating weigh in favor ofpredominance. The interest of individual class members in individually controlling the liability phase ofthe pattern or practice and disparate impact actions is not great. Each class member can individually control the damages phase of his claim ifliability is found. Concentrating the litigation in this forum is sensible because the bulk of the plaintitrs reside in this district and division, the plants where the alleged discriminatory actions occurred are located here, and the issues concerning the pattern or practice are common to all plaintiffs. Management ofthe class action will be no more difficult than managing innumerable individual actions. See Allen, 358 F.3d at 472.
For the foregoing reasons, movants motion for class certification is granted in part. Bell, Berry, Buchanan, Gonzalez, Link, and Triplett are certified as class representatives. Plaintitrs counsel are appointed class counsel. Two classes are certified under Rule 23 (b) (2) for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes and Rule 23 (b) (3) for purposes of determining liability for discrimination injuries, but not individual damages: A compensation class consisting of all AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, and Asian employees employed by defendant during the applicable limitations period and an advancement class consisting of all AfricanAmerican, Hispanic and Asian employees passed over for unposted promotions during the applicable limitations period. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for purposes of administering notice to the class members and opt-out rights.
1 Fred Wynne was previously a named plaintiff but his claims have been dismissed with prejudice on his own motion.

 
 Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 1 of 34
f\ j.

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

Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Della Jarrett, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr., Kim Nachampassack, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, and Fred Wynne, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Woodward Governor Company,
Defendant.

FILED

APR 26 2004

UMN'CITHeDAESTLAWTi:~OBB'NSJ CLERK

Case No. 03 C 50190

DISTRICT COURT

Class Action

Judge Philip Reinhard

Magistrate Judge Mahoney

Jury Trial Demanded

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Jennifer K. Soule

James G. Bradtke

Kelly K. Lambert

Soule, Bradtke & Lambert

155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60601

l>:
~~~.

312-616-4422

t.=

Robert D. Allison Steven P. Schneck Robert D. Allison & Associates 122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1850 Chicago, Illinois 60603
312-427-7600

Stephen G. Seliger Laurie S. Elkin
Seliger & Elkin, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-616-4244

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 2 of 34
The plaintiffs, individually and on behalfofsimilarly situated persons, complain ofdefendant Woodward Governor Company as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a class action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. ("Title VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981A, seeking to redress unlawful employment practices on the basis ofrace and to remedy defendant's interference with the rights of plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons to make, enter into and enforce contracts. Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins also bring individual claims of gender discrimination. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant has engaged in a general and pervasive corporate policy and pattern and practice of discrimination against minorities in employment. Defendant's conduct as complained of herein constitutes intentional discrimination, and defendant's practices as complained of herein have a discriminatory impact on minority employees. I
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1337 and 1343. 3. Venue is proper because the unlawful conduct alleged herein was committed and continues to occur within the boundaries ofthe Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. 4. Plaintiff Demetric Bell is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois. 5. Plaintiff Marilyn Berry is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
Each of the named plaintiffs, as well as another 13 additional persons represented by plaintiffs' counsel, filed complaints of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In an effort to further the efficient resolutionofthe claims raised in this case, plaintiffs earlier requested and received right to sue letters with regard to four named plaintiffs: Demetric Bell, Cathy Brown, Timmy Link and Brenda Riley and their class and individual Title VII claims were added on December 4, 2003. Pursuant to the Court's April 26, 2004 deadline to add parties and claims to this litigation, plaintiffs requested Right to Sue letters for the remaining named plaintiffs. The EEOC has determined to keep open its investigation of all of the named plaintiffs' charges, as well as of the additional charging parties.
1

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 3 of 34
6. Plaintiff Catherine Brown is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
7. PlaintiffKimberly Buchanan is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
8. Plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez is an Hispanic citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
9. PlaintiffDella Jarrett is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
10. PlaintiffTimmy Link is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Rock County, Wisconsin.
11. PlaintiffEddie Manning, Jr. is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
12. PlaintiffKim Nachampassack is an Asian-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
13. PlaintiffDuane Parks is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
14. PlaintiffBrenda Riley is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
15. Plaintiff Darnel Royal is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
16. PlaintiffRobin Sallis is an African-American female citizen ofthe United States who resides in Rock County, Wisconsin.
17. Plaintiff Velma Sanders is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
18. Plaintiff Barbara Smith is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
2

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 4 of 34
19. Plaintiff Tony Triplett is an African-American citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
20. Plaintiff Janet Wilkins is an African-American female citizen of the United States who resides in Winnebago County, Illinois.
21. PlaintiffFred Wynne is an African-American citizen ofthe United States who resides in Ottawa County, Michigan.
22. Defendant Woodward Governor Company is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Rockford, Illinois. At all relevant times, the defendant has employed more than five hundred persons.
23. Plaintiffs, with the exception of Della Jarrett, filed timely Charges ofDiscrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, received Right to Sue Letters, attached hereto as Exhibit l, and have timely filed their claims under Title VII.
BACKGROUND
24. Woodward Governor Company was founded in 1870. The Company designs and manufactures hydromechanical and electronic controls, fuel delivery systems, actuators, valves and related components. In 2002, the Company had sales in excess of $679,000,000. The Company is headquartered in Rockford, Illinois, and has approximately 3,500 employees at facilities throughout the country. The Company employs over 1,000 persons at facilities in Rockford, Illinois and Rockton, Illinois.
25. As set forth below, for many years Woodward Governor has engaged in a pervasive company-wide pattern and practice of discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities with respect to compensation, promotions, hiring, and other terms and conditions of employment. African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities are under-represented in Woodward Governor Company's work force and severely under-represented in the Company's management and supervisory levels.
3

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 5 of 34

26. For example, although African-Americans make up over 15% ofthe local population

and comprise at least 13% ofthe civilian labor force. (U.S. Census EEO Special File and Public Use

Data Tapes), Woodward Governor Company currently employs less than 3% African-American

employees. This is less than comparable to other employers in the Rockford area.

27. Each plaintiff asserts a claim of pervasive company-wide pattern and practice race

discrimination and each plaintiff seeks injunctive reliefto eradicate company-wide discriminatory

practices, regardless ofwhether a class is certified. The Company's unlawful pattern ofconduct has

adversely affected all the plaintiffs.

28. The discriminatory conduct against minorities that defendant has engaged in includes,

but is not limited to the following:

a.

defendant has paid lower wages to minority employees as compared to the

wages paid to white employees;

b. for years and on a continuing basis, defendant has intentionally ignored substantial disparities between the wages ofminority employees as compared to non-minority employees;

c.

defendant has failed to advance the plaintiffs and minority employees into

higher level classifications and jobs within the company in the same manner

that it has advanced and promoted white employees;

d. defendant has subjected minority employees to a racially hostile work environment, and has tolerated racial slurs and stereotypes of minority
employees;

e.

defendant has failed to investigate or act upon legitimate complaints about

discrimination raised by minority employees;

f.

defendant has required minority employees to perform out of class work

without receiving an appropriate title or wages commensurate with the work

performed;

g. defendant has criticized and disciplined minority employees for talking and associating with each other in the work place, whereas other employees who talk in the workplace are not similarly criticized or disciplined; and

h. defendant has required employees to refrain from revealing their rate of pay so as to perpetuate discrimination in compensation.

29. At all relevant times, Human Resources and personnel functions have been

implemented through a central Human Resources Department. At all relevant times, the Company

4

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 6 of 34
has operated through company-wide standard personnel policies. These company-wide policies include policies relating to compensation and the advancement of employees.
30. The criteria used by defendant in determining who to promote or advance in classification are needlessly subjective and infected with racial bias.
31. The criteria used by defendant in determining the compensation of employees are needlessly subjective and infected with racial bias.
32. The race discrimination claims of the plaintiffs and the class herein are based upon both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories.
THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS 33. Demetric Bell was employed as a machinist by the defendant from April 3, 1995 through October 8, 2002. Despite performing his job skillfully, Bell was not advanced beyond the entry level machinist classification (class 1) during his seven and a half years of employment with the Company, nor did he reach the highest salary level corresponding with this classification, whereas similarly situated non-minority employees were. During his employment with the Company, Bell was paid less than many comparable white employees with less experience. Bell repeatedly complained about his salary to management and Human Resources, and repeatedly complained about his job level to management, but no action was taken. In 2002, Bell complained to Human Resources that he and others were discriminated against based on race. Bell was also denied training provided to white employees. Because defendant failed to take adequate remedial action, Bell had no choice but to resign. 34. Marilyn Berry has worked for the defendant since 1981. She is currently employed as an S/Process Operator.2 Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $13. 18/hour. On a continuing basis, Berry has been paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills, who are unable to perform all ofthe jobs that Berry can. Berry has not advanced at the same rate and to the same levels as other
2 The references in this Amended Complaint to plaintiffs' jobs, job levels and pay rates are to the circumstances existing at the time the original Complaint was filed.
5

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 7 of 34
comparable co-workers, including employees who previously worked in the same area or department with Berry and who have advanced and tran$ferred to different areas within the company. On several occasions, Berry asked for but was denied transfers. Berry was also subjected to discriminatory work assignments, transfers and criticism by her supervisors. On several occasions, Berry complained to her supervisors about her compensation, work assignments, job level and not getting transfers requ~sted. She also complained about her compensation to Human Resources.
35. Catherine Brown has worked for the defendant since 1972. She is currently employed as an Administrative Specialist in Engineering Services. Plaintiff's current rate of pay is $13.38/hour. Prior to receiving a small raise in January 2003, Brown was paid at the same rate as a white female hired less than a year earlier into the same job. During her career, plaintiffhas been passed over for promotions to Sales Assistant and Engineering Records positions for which she was qualified. On a continuing basis, Brown has performed job duties above and beyond those of the stated level of her job, but Brown has not been promoted or compensated accordingly. Brown has been required to work far more overtime than white employees. When Brown complained about her treatment to Human Resources, she was told to have "broad shoulders."
36. Kimberly Buchanan worked for defendant from April 19, 1999 to April 25, 2003. Buchanan was the only African-American employee in defendant's Corporate division, world-wide. Buchanan was hired as a Communications Specialist, Level I at an annual base salary of$3 8,012.00. On a continuing and ongoing basis, Defendant failed to pay Buchanan commensurate with her skills, education and job duties, whereas less qualified non African-American employees were promoted to higher job levels and paid disproportionately more than she was. After posting job duties performed by Buchanan in connection with another Communications Specialist; Level IIjob on July 19,2002, defendant hired and promoted a similarly situated non African-American employee to a higher level position than Buchanan, Communications Specialist II, on August 21, 2002, while ignoring Buchanan's requests to be promoted to at least Communications Specialist II. Defendant then transferred some ofBuchanan' s duties to this employee. Buchanan complained starting in July,
6

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 8 of 34
2001, about her pay level, classification level and about being required to perform work above her job classification without being given a promotion or increase in pay. Buchanan was then retaliated against and received a lower raise than to which she was entitled. Buchanan was subjected to different and unfavorable termsand conditions ofemployment as compared to similarly situated non African-American employees. Buchanan objected to requests by defendant to create the inaccurate perception that its work force was diverse and that it was undertaking programs to increase representation ofminorities in its work force and in management. For example, Buchanan was asked to stage photos of minorities performing jobs they did not hold. In connection with a November 2002 meeting concerning "diversity," attended by minority employees who raised complaints about discrimination, Buchanan complained to the head ofHuman Resources about her compensation and discrimination. As a result ofthese complaints, defendant falsely stated it was finally promoting her to the job level of Communication Specialist II, but, instead, terminated her employment for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. Less tenured, less experienced and less skilled non AfricanAmerican employees were either not laid off or were offered other jobs within the company. Buchanan was not offered any other jobs. The similarly situated non African-American employee that was hired and promoted over Buchanan was not laid off, even though she was paid more than Buchanan. Buchanan's salary at the time of her termination was $42,248.00. Defendant denied Buchanan jobs she applied for in the company after she learned she would be laid off based on pretextual reasons.
37. Gilberto Gonzalez is a former Marine and has worked for the defendant since 1990. Gonzalez entered the Woodward Governor Academy in June 1990 and graduated from the Academy in June 1992. He is currently employed as a Test Stand Operator. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $l7.0l/hour. During his employment with the defendant, Gonzalez has been paid less than nonminority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Gonzalez has been discriminated against in terms of work assignments, transfers and promotions. Among other incidents, Gonzalez was denied a lead position in the A.S.V. department for which he applied in
7

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 9 of 34
2001, a lead position in the A.S.V. in 2002 which was not posted and lab tech positions for which he applied in 2003 and 2004. Despite his excellent job performance, Gonzalez has been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. Gonzalez has complained to management about his compensation, job level and denials of promotions. Gonzalez has also been subjected to a work environment hostile to Hispanic and African-American employees and has been denied training opportunities on the same basis as they are provided to white employees.
38. Della Jarrett worked for the defendant from February 6, 1981 until November 15, 2002. Jarrett began as a file clerk in the Engineering Department and eventually received a position as an Administrative Assistant, which she held during several extended periods (only to be later transferred or demoted). Over the course ofher employment, Jarrett was frequently transferred and demoted to different jobs, whereas similarly situated white employees received more favorable treatment and assignments. On one occasion, when Jarrett was transferred to ajob working directly for a manager to a job in Engineering Records, defendant created a higher level job for a less qualified similarly situated white employee, who then required training for tasks that Jarrett was qualified to perform. In approximately 1997, Jarrett became on overall secretary for the Electrical Engineering Department. In November 1999, Jarrett was informed that she was going to be transferred back to Engineering Records, and she worked in that job from January 2000 through November 2002. Defendant c~eated ajob posting dated November 19, 1999 for the Engineering Services Administrator job that indicates that a "2 Year administrative degree" which Jarrett had "is a plus." After Jarrett gave her notice of resignation in October 2002, Woodward created a job posting for the job she was leaving that omitted the educational requirements or many ofthe things that Jarrett did, as an after-the-factjustification for Jarrett's wages. Despite performing her job duties in an exemplary fashion, Jarrett was paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills and was improperly treated as an "entry-level" employee, whereas similarly situated white employees received higher level jobs and classifications. Jarrett wrote to Human
8

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 10 of 34
Resources in October 2002 to express her concern about her salary level and job assignments, but received no response. Based upon her reasonable belief that because of her race she had no opportunities for advancement and would continue to be treated unfairly with respect to salary, Jarrett resigned from defendant effective November 15,2002.
39. Timmy Link has worked for the defendant since 1989. He is currently employed as a test stand operator. Until his pay was raised in March 2003 (after the Company learned that the instant litigation would be filed) plaintiff s rate ofpay was $15.27/hour. He was and is paid less than white employees in the same job class with less experience. Despite his excellent job performance, Link has been kept in lower job classifications longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. During January and August 2003, Link applied for Assembly and Test leader positions. He was not interviewed for the position posted in January 2003. On both occasions, the positions were given to white employees who were not more qualified than Link.
40. Eddie Manning has worked for the defendant since 1991. He is currently employed as a Deburrer Lead Person. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $16.25/hour. During his employment with defendant, Manning has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Despite his excellent job performance, Manning has been kept longer in lower job classification levels than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. When Manning was promoted to the job of"lead" or working leader, he was not given a commensurate pay increase. He has also been subj ected to a work environment hostile to African-American employees.
41. Kim Nachampassack first worked for the defendant in 1990. She is currently paid at the rate of$16.00/hour. During her employment with defendant, Nachampassack has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Nachampassack has also been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects her pay. She has also been denied training provided to similarly situated non-minority employees and has been subjected to unwarranted scrutiny and discipline.
9

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 11 of 34
42. Duane Parks has worked for the defendant since 1986. He is currently employed in Finish Assembly. Parks is paid at the rate of$14.71lhour, which is approximately the same rate as a white employee with 14 less years of service. Parks has also been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay. Parks has also been subjected to a work environment hostile to African-American employees, including racially derogatory comments. Parks and other African-American employees have been told not to congregate or speak to each other, while white employees are allowed to do so. When Parks complained to management, he was told to learn to have a thick skin.
43. Brenda Riley has worked for the defendant since 1980. She is currently employed in HMWIFMW Assembly. Plaintiff s current rate of pay is $1611.00 on a bi;..weekly basis. During her employment with the defendant, Riley has been paid less than non-minority employees with less or comparable skills, experience or tenure. Despite her excellent job perfonnance, Riley has been kept longer in lower job classification levels than white employees, which adversely affects her pay. Unlike white employees, Riley has also been required to perfonn work above her job classification without commensurate pay.
44. Beginning in the Fall of 1997, Darnel Royal worked at Woodward as a temporary employee and assigned to work in the oil room. Royal became a Woodward employee effective February 16, 1998. Royal continued working in the oil room until January 10,2002. At that time, his supervisor in the oil room (Glen Moist) retired. When Moist retired, Royal was discriminatorily denied promotion to Moist's position. In January 2002, Royal was discriminatorily demoted into the position of security guard and given a reduction in pay so that defendant could accommodate a white employee. Royal was the only African-American security officer in the company. On a continuing basis, Royal has been paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills. For example, when Royal worked in the oil room, his rate of compensation was below the pay scale range for his job. In addition, Royal was paid less than white security officers who were hired subsequent to him. In approximately September 2002, there was a rate adjustment in the gatehouse
10

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 12 of 34
and Royal should have received an increase incompensation (approximately 4%). Based on information and belief, Royal's wages were not raised pursuant to this adjustment. Further, after Royal was transferred out of security, his rate ofcompensation was not increased back to at least the rate he was paid before transferring into security. In contrast, on information and belief, the compensation rate of at least one white co-worker was reduced upon transferring into security but increased back to at least the prior rate after his transfer out of security. Royal continues to earn less than he was paid while working in the oil room (Equipment Services Department). Royal was also discriminatorily passed over for promotion to an Inspection position in March 2003. In 2003, Royal applied for jobs in Air Gap that became available as a result ofthe Buffalo, New York plant closing. Royal was informed that he would receive the job and training for it. Royal was discriminatorily denied the training and added compensation the training would entail. During his employment, Royal has been subjected to a work environment hostile to African-American and Hispanic employees. For example, Royal was told by his supervisor not to spend time with a white female employee because this upset people in the corporate office and he could get fired if he continued. Royal was also singled out by his supervisor to remove a raccoon from a cage trap so that pictures could be taken of him with the raccoon and then posted throughout the area. During the course of this litigation, Woodward has destroyed evidence related to the racoon incident (namely, the photos) and has presented fabricated assertions concerning details ofthe incident. The incident and public display (including responsive comments from co-workers) were racially offensive and caused Royal severe emotional distress.
45. Robin Sallis has worked for the defendant since 1974. She is currently employed as a Level I Assembly Tech. Plaintiffs current rate of pay is $14.68, which is less than the Company pays white and male employees in the same job with less tenure. Despite working for defendant since 1974, Sallis has been kept at the entry level classification, which adversely affects her pay. She has trained less qualified and tenured white employees, who have progressed ahead of her through job levels. Sallis has also been denied computer training afforded to white employees.
11

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 13 of 34
46. Velma Sanders has worked for defendaJlt since 1989~ She is currently employed as an Inspector. Plaintiff s current rate ofpay is $12.70lhour. Plaintiffis paid approximately 25% less than a white employee in the same job class who has comparable experience with the Company. Sanders has trained less qualified and tenured white employees who have progressed ahead of her through job levels and are paid more than Sanders. During her career, Sanders has been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, including racially derogatory comments and unwarranted and disparate discipline.
47. Barbara Smith has worked for defendant since 1983. She is currently employed in Accounts Payable. She is currently paid $15.06lhour, which is less than what the Company pays a white employee in the same job class who only has two years offull-time service with the Company. Smith has trained less qualified and tenured white employees (including her supervisor), who have progressed to higher level jobs and are paid more than Smith. In her current job, Smith performs duties of a higher level employee, but has not been promoted or provided commensurate pay.
48. Tony Triplett has worked for the defendant since 1974. He is currently employed as a Machinist. Plaintiffs current rate ofpay is $1506.00 on a bi-weekly basis. During his career with defendant, Triplett has performed a wide variety of jobs and developed broad expertise. Nonetheless, he has been passed over for management or leadership positions, despite requesting consideration for them, and is paid less than white employees with less skills and experience. Triplett has also been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects his pay.
49. Janet Wilkins has worked for the defendant since 1978. Sh(;! is currently employed as a Reliability Test Technician. Plaintiff s current rate ofpay is $15.57/hour. Despite her excellent job performance, Wilkins has been paid less than white employees with less tenure and skills. For example, white and male employees with less than halfher 24 years of experience are paid as much or more than Wilkins. Wilkins hasalso been kept in lower job classification levels longer than white employees, which adversely affects her pay.
12

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 14 of 34
50. Fred Wynne was hired by defendant in August 1999 as a Continuous Improvement Leader working in Zeeland, Michigan. Subsequently, Wynne's responsibilities were expanded to include Woodward's Winnebago County facilities, where he maintained a desk. Following a company reorganization in 2002, Wynne assumed responsibilities as Acting Manager for the Global Continuous Improvement Group. Despite the fact that Wynne performed these duties in an exemplary manner, in July 2003, the Global Continuous Improvement Manager position held by Wynne was posted (without his knowledge) on the Woodward company-wide intranet. When the posting was brought to Wynne's attention by a co-worker, he applied for the position, but did not receive it. The position was given to a far less qualified white employee in Winnebago County, who Wynne had to transition into the job. Wynne was given the justification that the less qualified white employee supposedly had more confidence, although Wynne's record and performance history demonstrate otherwise. Following the appointment of the new Global Continuous Improvement Manager, Wynne's job duties were re-defmed in a manner which constitutes a demotion; for example, Wynne no longer supervises other employees, and reports to the employee promoted over him in Winnebago County. Wynne has made complaints regarding his racially discriminatory treatment, but, to date, no corrective action has been taken.
WRONGFUL CONDUCT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFSAN1JTHE CLASS 51. On a continuing basis, defendant has paid the plaintiffs and the Class less than similarly situated white employees. On a continuing basis, white employees receive larger and more frequent raises than minority employees, including plaintiffs. 52. Within many departments at Woodward Governor, there is a hierarchy of job classifications. Higher job classifications carry with them the opportunity to earn greater amounts of money and to obtain further advancement. Increase in job classifications are considered by defendant to be promotions, but are not posted and movement to different levels of job classifications is within the control and discretion of defendant's supervisors and managers. On a continuing and ongoing basis, defendant has failed to advance plaintiffs as well as other minority
13

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 15 of 34
employees in terms ofjob classifications in the same mall11~rth,atsimilarly situated white employees are advanced.
53. On a continuing basis, the plaintiffs and other minority employees have been passed over for promotions or opportunities for advancement, which have been given to white employees with the same or less qualifications, experience and tenure. Many ofthe plaintiffs, as well as other minority employees, have trained white co-workers who have gone on to surpass them in terms of job position andlor salary.
54. As a result ofbeing rejected for promotions and other advancement opportunities for which they were qualified, and their observation that other minority employees have been similarly treated, plaintiffs and other minority employees have been deterred from applying for or seeking advancement with defendant.
55. The Company's performance evaluation, promotion and advancement processes are unduly subjective, have a disparate impact on minorities, and do not meet standards of jobrelatedness and business necessity.
56. On a continuing basis, the plaintiffs and other minority employees have been subjected to discrimination in other terms and conditionsofemployment, including a racially hostile work environment, in which management has tolerated racial slurs and stereotypes of minority employees. Supervisors have condoned and actively participated in this conduct. Some examples of the racial slurs, epithets and conduct that have occurred in the workplace are the following:
a. The statement made by a Woodward Governor Company supervisor that he didn't like "niggers," and that African-Americans "smell sweet and stink."
b. For many years, since at least February 1998, there was a noose hanging in the "Destruct Room." It was not removed untilafter~yi<ien~~c()ncerning the noose was included in discovery produced by plaintiffs in this litigation. The noose clearly had no work-related function and resembled a rope used for lynching. The noose was in a conspicuous location to anyone working in the Plating Department.
c. The statement made by a Woodward Governor Company supervisor that he would not have sex with "a nasty trash bitch" who was dating a black man.
14

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 16 of 34

d. The statement made by a Woodward Governor Company employee in the presence of the supervisor of one of the plaintiffs' that "if your people continue like this, they'll be back in slavery."

e. The statement made in a conference attended by management that a white

woman had thrown away her life by getting married to an African-American

man and that "no decent white man would touch a white woman that had

been with a black man."

.

f.

The statement by a manager to a white employee that she should not "hang

around the blacks."

g. The use of the term "African Engineering" to describe mistakes made in the design process.

h. The statement at a conference attended by the former CFO that a darkskinned employee had "forgot to wash his face in the morning."

1.

The direction from a Woodward Governor Company Supervisor to a newly

designated African-American lead that "now that he. was a lead person he

should watch who he hangs around with because he will be judged differently

from them (i.e., his black friends)."

J.

The widespread use of demeaning references with regard to the sexual

preferences of African-American males.

k. The widespread stereotyping ofthe work habits ofminority employees (e.g., "lazy blacks," "he's the hardest working minority employee").

1.

The distribution of racially insensitive cartoons and jokes in the workplace.

m. The pattern of reprimanding African-American employees when they talk with each other in the workplace while allowing whites to freely congregate, even when they are wasting time.

57. Most ofthe plaintiffs have directly complained to their supervisors and/or to Human

Resources regarding the conditions and conduct described above. Some have complained on

repeated occasions. Company officials have ignored these complaints and, on several occasions,

have retaliated against persons raising or corroborating such complaints. For example, current and

former employees who complained to management about racial slurs were told to "try to get along"

with the racist employees or to have "broad shoulders." In similar fashion, Human Resources

personnel have told plaintiffs that they will "look into their complaints," and then failed to get back

to them. In some instances, Human Resources personnel have acknowledged or participated in the

offensive conduct, but advised plaintiffs that they should "work things out" with the offending party.

15

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 17 of 34
COUNT I
§1981 - Race Discrimination in Compensation 58. This count is brought by all plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class. 59. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Class Action Complaint. 60. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes a pattern and practice ofdiscrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in connection with compensation to employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981. African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have been and are continually denied compensation at the levels provided to comparably experienced or qualified white employees. 61. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in. damages to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and to the class including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts of defendant, its agents and employees, were deliberate, intentional, willful, wanton and malicious and taken with reckless disregard to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages. 62. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2) and/or(b)(3). The class consists of all African-American, Hispanic and other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton within the applicable limitations period, taking into account that defendant's conduct with respect to race discrimination constitutes a continuing violation and that defendant's salary secrecy policy constitutes grounds for extending the applicable limitations period. 63. The members of this class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can only be ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are in excess of 50 members of the class. 64. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class including, inter alia, whether defendant's policies, practices and procedures with respect to compensation discriminated against African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees; whether defendant's conduct was carried
16

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 18 of 34
out with discriminatory intent; whether defendant has common defenses; and whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct. .
65. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class members inasmuch as they arise from the same course ofconduct and are based upon the same legal theory.
66. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
67. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
68. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory compensation system, practices and policies were applied to deny proper compensation to members of the class.
69. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
70. In the event that a plaintiffclass is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court should still enter systemic injunctive relief to address the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
71. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to ajury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count I, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class defined herein;
17

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 19 of 34
B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each of the representative plaintiffs individually and against the class, in violation of 42 U.S.c. §1981, as amended;
C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct and employment practice with respect to compensation which discriminates on the basis of race;
D. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conciuct and employment practices;
E. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct and employment practices alleged herein;
F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct and practices alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order defendant to pay to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct and practices alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Award the representative plaintiffs and the class attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; and
I. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II Title VII - Race Discrimination in Compensation
72. This count is brought by all plaintiffs individually and on behalf of a class.
73. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint as if
set forth herein.
74. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes a
pattern and practice of discrimination against each plaintiff individually and other minority
employees in connection with compensation to employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have been and
18

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 20 of 34
are continually denied compensation at the levels provided to comparably experienced or qualified Caucasian employees.
75. Defendant's compensation system has had and continues to have a disparate impact on African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees. Defendant's compensation system is not job related or justified by business necessity, in violation of Title VII.
76. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to plaintiffs including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts of defendant, its agents and employees, intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages.
77. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2) andJor(b)(3). The class consists of all African-American, Hispanic or other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton within the applicable limitations period, taking into account that defendant's conduct constitutes a continuing violation and that defendant's salary secrecy policy constitutes grounds for extending the applicable limitations period.
78. The members of this class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can only be ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and beliefthat there are in excess of 50 members of the class.
79. There are questions of law or fact common to the class including, inter alia, (a) whether defendant's practices and procedures with respect to compensation have discriminated and continue to discriminate against minority employees; (b) whether defendant's conduct was and continues to be carried out with discriminatory intent; (c)whether defendant's compensation system has had and continues to have a disparate impact on minority employees; (d) whether defendant's compensation system is job-related or a business necessity; (e) whether defendant has common defenses; and (f) whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct.
19

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 21 of 34
80. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class members inasmuch as they arise from the same course ofconduct and are based upon the same legal theories.
81. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
82. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
83. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P.. Rule 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory compensation system, practices and policies were applied to deny proper compensation to members of the class.
84. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
85. In the event that a plaintiff class is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court should still enter systemic injunctive relief to address the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
86. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count II, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class defined herein; B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each of the representative plaintiffs individually and against the class, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
20

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 22 of 34
C. Grant a permanent injunction enj oining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any employment conduct or practice with respect to compensation which discriminates on the basis of race;
D. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct and employment practices;
E. Order defendant to make whole .each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct and employment practices alleged herein;
F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct and practices alleged herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and embarrassment in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order defendant to pay each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct and practices alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Award the representative plaintiffs and the class attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action; and
1. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate
COUNT III §1981 - Race Discrimination in Terms andC()llditi()lls.o!.E:lIl:ployment
87. This count is brought by all plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class.
88. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Class Action
Complaint.
89. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes
discrimination by defendant against each plaintiff individually and other minority employees with
respect to the terms and conditions of their employment (including denial of training, the work
environment and opportunities for job advancement, promotions and higher job classifications) in
violation of42 U. S. C. §1981. By discriminating against the plaintiffs and other minority employees
in failing to appropriately advance them up through theirrespective job levels and corresponding pay
21

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 23 of 34
ranges, the plaintiffs and other minority employees were denied compensation, additional responsibilities and advancement and promotion opportunities. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees in connection with the terms and conditions of their employment.
90. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to each of the plaintiffs individually and to the class including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts ofdefendant, its agents and employees, were deliberate, intentional, willful, wanton and malicious and taken with reckless disregard to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages.
91. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2) and/or(b)(3). The class consists of all African-American, Hispanic or other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton who have been discriminated against in connection with the terms and conditions oftheir employment (including the work environment and opportunities for promotions, transfers, training, increases in job classification or level or other opportunities for advancement) within the applicable limitations period, taking into account that defendant's conduct with respect to race discrimination constitutes a continuing violation and that various ofdefendant's policies and practices constitute grounds for extending the applicable limitations period.
92. The members of this dass are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can only be ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are in excess. of50met:nbers of the class.
93. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, including, inter alia, whether defendant's company-wide personnel policies and practices discriminated against minority employees; whether defendant's conduct was carried out with discriminatory intent; whether defendant has common defenses; and whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct.
22

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 24 of 34
94. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class members inasmuch as they arise from the same course of conduct and are based upon the same legal theory.
95. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
96. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
97. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory personnel system, practices and policies were applied to the members of the class and negatively affected the terms and conditions oftheir employment.
98. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
99. In the event that a plaintiff class is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court should still enter systemic injunctive relief to address unlawful conduct complained of herein.
100. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to ajury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count III, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Cqurt: A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class defined herein; B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each of the representative plaintiffs individually and against the class, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended;
23

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 25 of 34

C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct and employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race;

D. Order defendant to make whole each of the. representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct and practices including, but not limited to, rightful place reinstatement;

E. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and
future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices and
conduct alleged herein;

F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct and practices alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Order defendant to pay to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct and practices alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;

H. Award each of the representative plaintiffs individually and the class attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; and

I.

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

COUNT IV Title VII - Race Discrimination in Terms and conditionsof~mployment

101. This Count is brought by all plaintiffs individually and on behalf of a class.

102. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint as if

set forth herein.

103. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was racially motivated and constitutes

discrimination by defendant against each plaintiff individually and other minority employees with

respect to the terms and conditions of their employment (including the work environment and

opportunities for job advancement, training, promotions and higher job classifications) in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and

practice of discrimination against African-American, Hispanic and other minority employees in

connection with the terms and conditions of their employment.

24

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 26 of 34
104. Defendant's system, policies and practices with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including promotions, transfers, evaluations and job classifications, have a disparate impact on minority employees. Defendant's system, policies and practices with respect to terms and conditions of employment are not job related or justified by business necessity, in violation of Title VII.
105. African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have been deterred from applying for promotions and transfers due to defendant's discriminatory practices.
106. The aforementioned conduct has resulted in damages to plaintiffs including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of benefits, emotional anguish, humiliation and embarrassment. The foregoing acts of defendant, its agents and employees, intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages.
107. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and as a class action against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2) and/or(b)(3). The class consists of all African-American, Hispanic and other minority persons employed by defendant at its facilities in Rockford or Rockton who have been discriminated against in connection with the terms and conditions oftheir employment (including the work environment and opportunities for promotions, transfers, training, increases in job classification or level or other opportunities for advancement) within the applicable limitations period, taking into account that defendant's conduct constitutes a continuing violation and that various of defendant's policies and practices constitute grounds for extending the applicable limitations period.
108. The members of this class are so numeroustl).at joinder of all class members is impracticable. While the exact number ofclass members can onlybe ascertained through discovery, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that there are in excess of 50 members of the class.
109. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including, inter alia, whether defendant's company-wide personnel system, practices and procedures discriminated against and
25

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 27 of 34
continue to discriminate against minority employees; whether defendant's conduct was and continues to be carried out with discriminatory intent; whether defendant's personnel system, practices and procedures have and continue to have a disparate impact against African-American Hispanic or other minority employees; whether defendant's personnel system, practices and procedures are job-related or justified by business necessity; whether defendant has common defenses; and whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for defendant's conduct.
110. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class . members inasmuch as they arise from the same course ofconduct and are bas~d upon the same legal
theory. 111. The representative plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs do not have interests which are antagonistic to or in conflict with the class. The representative plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in employment discrimination and class litigation.
112. The class can be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) in that defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
113. The class can also be properly certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) in that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The same discriminatory personnel system, practices and procedures were applied to members of the class and negatively affected the terms and conditions of their employment.
114. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There are no other considerations that would militate against the maintenance of this case as a class action.
115. In the event that a plaintiff class is not certified as requested in this Count, the Court should still enter systemic injunctive reliefto address defendant's unlawful conduct complained of herein.
26

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 28 of 34

116. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to ajury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With respect to Count IV, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Determine that this claim should proceed as a class claim on behalf of the class, defined herein;

B. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against each of the representative plaintiffs individually and against the class, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;

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

D. Order defendant to make whole the representative plaintiffs and class members by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct or employment practices;

E. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices
described above;

F. Order defendant to make whole each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct practices alleged herein, including humiliation, emotional distress and embarrassment, in amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Order defendant to pay to each of the representative plaintiffs individually and class members punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct and practices alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial;

H. Award each of the representative plaintiffs individually and the class attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action; and

I.

Grant such other and further relief as this Court deelTIs appropriate

COUNT V §1981- UNLAWFULTERMINA1:'IQN AND.l~E1:'ALI~1:'IQN
117. This Count V is brought by Plaintiff Buchanan individually, under 42 u.s.c. §1981.

118. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint.

119. Plaintiff Buchanan engaged in protected conduct.

27

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 29 of 34
120. Defendant's conduct toward Buchanan as alleged herein constituted unlawful retaliation.
121. Defendant's termination of Buchanan constitutes unlawftJ-l discrimination and unlawful retaliation.
122. Defendant's conduct towards Buchanan was intentional, willful and egregious and resulted in lost wages, emotional anguish and other compensatory damages.
123. Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to Count V, Plaintiff Buchanan respectfully requests that this Court: A. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against Buchanan in violation of 42 U.S.c. §1981; B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any conduct which discriminates on the basis of race; C. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, rightful place reinstatement; D. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment conduct alleged herein; E. Order defendant to make Buchanan whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Order defendant to pay Buchanan punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein in amounts to be determined at trial; G. Award Buchanan attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action; H. Enter an Order requiring defendant to reinstate plaintiff with all commensurate retroactive pay and benefits; and I. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
28

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 30 of 34
COUNT VI TITLE VIllEQUAL PAY ACT GENDER DISCru:~UNATIO~.~ <:QM~~~SATION
124. TJris Count VI is brought by Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins individually.3 125. Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1-3,16,20,24,25, 27-31,45,49,51-55 and 89-90. 126. In mid-July 2003, Sallis and Wilkins amended their EEOC Charges to including gender discrimination, see Exhibit 2, and timely assert their claims pursuant to their Right to Sue letters. 127. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination towards female employees, in compensation practices, including Sallis and Wilkins. Defendant's conduct towards Sallis and Wilkins and female employees is intentional and has a disparate impact on them. Defendant favors white males at the expense of African-Americans, Hispanics and females. 128. Defendant's conduct toward Sallis and Wilkins constitut~s gender discrimination (as well as race discrimination) in that they were paid less than similarly situated non-female employees and the reasons therefore are pretextual. 129. Defendant's conduct was intentional, egregious and resulted in emotional anguish. Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiffs' civil rights, thereby entitling them to punitive damages. 130. Defendant's conduct against Sallis and Wilkins with respect to compensation constitutes a continuing violation and discrimination based on gender in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant's conduct also violated the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Sect. 206(d), inasmuch defendants paid Sallis and Wilkins less than male employees who worked in
3 The Court set a deadline prior to completion of merits discovery of April 26, 2004 to add parties and claims to this litigation. Accordingly, Sallis and Wilkins requested and received their Right to Sue Letters. Prior todoing so, charging party and putative class member Lecie Wright amended her pending EEOC Charge to include individual and class-wide gender claims. As to all of the named plaintiffs' EEOC Charges, the EEOC has made a determination to continue to investigate them, even though Right to Sue Letters have been issued in aC90rd with the April 26, 2004 deadline. The female plaintiffs expressly reserve their rights to assert additional claims in other proceedings.
29

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 31 of 34

similar working conditions and performed comparable work, requiring comparable skills, effort and responsibility. Defendant's conduct was wilful and!or in reckless disregard of whether the conduct was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act.
131. Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins seek company-wide equitable reliefto eradicate gender discrimination, in addition to individual relief.
132. Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins demand trial by jury as to all questions properly tried to

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With respect to Count VI, Plaintiffs Sallis and Wilkins respectfully request that this Court:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment finding and declaring that defendant has discriminated against Sallis and Wilkins in compensation, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act;

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participating with it, from engaging in any employment practice with respect to compensation, which discriminates on the basis of gender;

C. Order defendant to make Sallis and Wilkins whole by providing backpay and prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant's unlawful employment practices;

D. Order defendant to make Sallis and Wilkins whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices alleged herein;

E. Order defendant to make Sallis and Wilkins .whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the
unlawful employment practices alleged herein, including humiliation,
emotional distress and embarrassment, in amounts to be determined at trial;

F. Order defendant to pay to Sallis and Wilkins damages as provided in 29 U.S.C. §216 (b) and other applicable statutory provisions;

G. Order defendant to pay Sallis and Wilkins punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct alleged herein, in amounts to be determined at trial;

H. Award Sallis and Wilkins attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action;

I.

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

30

n Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 32 of 34
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 26, 2004
Jennifer K. Soule James G. Bradtke Kelly K. Lambert Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4422
Robert D. Allison Steven P. Schneck Robert D. Allison & Associates 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-427-7600

Stephen G. Seliger Laurie S. Elkin Seliger & Elkin, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4244

C:\Core1\Cases\Woodward\PJeadings\CompJaint - 2nd Amended.wpd

31

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 33 of 34 ;,1 ;i'I.',.""

IN THE UNITED STATESJ)~STllJ:(:J'c;9(JBT, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

Bell, et. aI.,

Case No. 03 C 50190

Plaintiffs,

Class Action

vs.

Judge Philip Reinhard

Woodward Governor Company,

Magistrate Judge Mahoney

G,
Defendant. Jury Trial Demanded

NOTICE OF FILING
.,;:."'.
TO: SEE SERVICE LIST, ATTACHED HERETO

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, April 23, 2004 I caused the original and one copy ofthe Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, to be sent via Federal Express to the Clerk ofthe United States District Court for theNortl].~rnDistrt£t ofH!inois, Western Division, for the purposes of filing, by depositing same in the I:ederal Express Dropbox located at 155 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2004. A copy of said document is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Jennifer K. Soule, one ofplaintiffs' attorneys, certify that I caused a copy ofthis Notice of Filing and the above referenced document to be served upon the above referenced addressees via Federal Express by depositing same in the FedEx Dropbox located at 155 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois on April 23, 2004, on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m.

Soule, Bradtke & Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4422
Robert D. Allison & Associates 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-427-7600

Seliger & Elkin, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-616-4244

Case 3:03-cv-50190 Document 101 Filed 04/26/04 Page 34 of 34
SERVICE LIST
Robert M. O'Connell Laura A. O'Connell Picha & Salisbury
Edgebrook Court 1639 North Alpine Road, Suite 300
Rockford, Illinois 61107
Michele McKellar Boley & McKellar, P.C.
702 Randall Avenue P.O. Box 748
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-0748
Robert E. Reuterfors Kostantacos, Reuterfors, McWilliams, Brandt & Green P.e.
700 Talcott Building 321 West State Street
P.O. Box 14070 Rockford, Illinois 61105-4070

 
 Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1

Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 9
F!LED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 04 2006
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

MICHAEL W. DOCBINS, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06 C 5 0 1 78

)

v.

)

)

COMPLAINT

WOODWARD GOVERNOR

)

COMPANY,

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

Defendant.

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et ~ ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981 a, to

correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and national origin and to provide

appropriate relief to Van Avant, Larry Bates, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Cathy Brown,

Kimberly Buchanan, D. Todd Christopher, Hershey Ellis, Gregory Ford, Gilberto Gonzalez,

Antwon Hodges, Timothy Link, Eddie Manning, Detroy Marshall, Kim Nachampassak, Duane

Parks, Joyce Polk, Brenda Riley, Darnell Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Pang Sati, Barbara

Smith, Tony Triplett, Jose Vargas, Ruth Virgen, Dorothy Wallace, Janet Wilkins, Lecie Wright

and a class of Black, Hispanic, or Asian employees who were adversely affected by such

practices. EEOC alleges that Woodward Governor Company engaged in a pattern or practice of

discrimination at its Rockford and Rockton, Illinois facilities, by paying Black, Hispanic, and

Asian employees less than similarly situated white employees; failing to promote Black,

Hispanic, and Asian employees; and denying training to Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees.

In addition, this is an action under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 9
206 et seq. ("EPA"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Noreen Edmondson, Tonya Kahly, Sally McCabe, Robin Sallis, Janet Wilkins, Lecie Wright and a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. EEOC alleges that Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination at its Rockford and Rockton, Illinois facilities, by paying female employees less than similarly situated male employees; failing to promote female employees; and denying training to female employees, in violation of Title VII. EEOC further alleges that Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the EPA by paying female employees less than male employees for performing substantially equal work.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 16(c) and 17 ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 271, to enforce the requirements of the EPA, codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and pursuant to Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1), (3) and (6). This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were anCii are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and
2

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 3 of 9
enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. §§216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705, and by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I), (3) and (6).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Woodward Governor Company ("Defendant" or "Woodward"), has continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Illinois in the cities of Rockford and Rockton, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Woodward has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry atTecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and U) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) .
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this law.suit, Van Avant, Larry Bates, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Cathy Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, D. Todd Christopher, Hershey Ellis, Gregory Ford, Gilberto Gonzalez, Antwon Hodges, Timothy Link, Eddie Manning, Detroy Marshall, Kim Nachampassak, Duane Parks, Joyce Polk, Brenda Riley, Darnell Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Pang Sati, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Jose Vargas, Ruth Virgen, Dorothy Wallace, Janet Wilkins, and Lecie Wright ("Minority Charging
3

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 4 of 9
Parties") filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
9. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Noreen Edmondson, Tonya Kahly, Sally McCabe, Robin Sallis, Janet Wilkins, and Lecie Wright ("Female Charging Parties") filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the EPA. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
10. Since at least 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a), at its Rockford and Rockton, Illinois facilities. Such unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to:
(a) compensating the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees less than similarly situated white employees because of their race or national origin;
(b) compensating the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees less than similarly situated male employees because of their sex;
(c) failing to promote the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic and Asian employees because of their race or national origin;
(d) failing to promote the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees because of their sex;
(e) denying the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees training because of their race or national origin; and
(f) denying the Female Charging Parties and a class offemale employees 4

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 5 of 9
training because of their sex. II. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 10 above has been to deprive the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race or national origin. 12. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 10 above has been to deprive the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were and are intentional. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees. 15. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees. 16. Since at least 2003, Defendant has failed, in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-8(c), to preserve records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. 17. Since at least 2002, Defendant has violated Sections 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(I) and 215(a)(2), by paying wages to the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees at its Rockford and Rockton, Illinois facilities, at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs
5

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 6 of 9
the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.
18. As a result of the acts complained of in paragraph 17 above, Defendant unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees.
19. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 17 above were and are willful. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, or sex; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees regardless of race, national origin, or sex, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make and preserve all records, in accordance with the provisions of Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being
.
committed; D. Order Defendant to make whole the Minority Charging Parties and a class of
Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of it, unlawful employment practices, including but not limited io pay increases and promotions;
6

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 7 of 9

E. Order Defendant to make whole the Female Charging Parties and a class of

female employees, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be

proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

employment practices, including but not limited to pay increases and promotions;

F. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant to pay appropriate back wages in amounts

to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages or prejudgment interest in lieu

thereof to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts

complained of above, including the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees;

G. Order Defendant to make whole the Minority Charging Parties and a class of

Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary

losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices in amounts to be determined at trial;

H. Order Defendant to make whole the Female Charging Parties and a class of

female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from

those unlawful employment practices in amounts to be determined at trial;

1.

Order Defendant to make whole the Minority Charging Parties and a class of

Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees by providing compensation for past and future non-

pecuniary losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain,

suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined

at trial;

1. Order Defendant to make whole the Female Charging Parties and a class of

female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting

from those unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain, suffering, loss of

enjoyment of life, humiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial; 7

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 8 of 9 K. Order Defendant to pay the Minority Charging Parties and a class of Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct in amounts to be determined at trial; L. Order Defendant to pay the Female Charging Parties and a class of female employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct in amounts to be determined at trial; M. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and N. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
8

Case 3:06-cv-50178 Document 1 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 9 of 9
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Ronald Cooper General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-8558
9

 
 Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 1 of 61
CONSALL, MAHONEY, PROTO, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03−cv−50190

Bell, et al v. Woodward Gov Co, et al Assigned to: Honorable Philip G. Reinhard Referred to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/08/2003 Date Terminated: 02/16/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Demetric Bell individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule Soule, Bradtke &Lambert 155 N. Michigan Avenue 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616−4422 Fax: (312) 616−4422 Email: jenksoule@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick &Dym, Ltd. 70 West Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)580−0100 Fax: (312)580−1994 Email: amontgomery@ghsltd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke Soule, Bradtke &Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616−4422 Fax: (312) 616−4423 Email: jgbvjd@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh Hughes Socol Piers Resnick &Dym Ltd. 70 West Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)580−0100 Fax: 312.580.1994 Email: jkarsh@hsplegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert Soule, Bradtke &Lambert 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 504 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616−4422 Fax: (312) 616−4423 Email: kklambert@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 2 of 61

Laurie S. Elkin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353−7259 TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers Hughes Socol Piers Resnick &Dym Ltd. 70 West Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)580−0100 Fax: 312.580.1994 Email: mpiers@hsplegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle Law Offices of Peter Earle 700 North Water Street Suite 646 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−276−1076 Email: peter@earle−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison Robert D. Allison &Associates 122 S. Michigan Avenue Ste 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 427−4500 Email: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger Attorney at Law 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616−4244 Email: sseliger1@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck Robert D. Allison &Associates 122 South Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427−7600 Email: spschneckjazzlaw@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marilyn Berry individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 3 of 61

Plaintiff
Catherine Brown individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 4 of 61

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kimberly Buchanan individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 5 of 61

Plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Timmy Link individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 6 of 61

Plaintiff
Eddie Manning, Jr individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 7 of 61

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kim Nachampassack individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Duane Parks individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 8 of 61

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Brenda Riley individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 9 of 61

Plaintiff Darnel Royal individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Robin Sallis individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 10 of 61

Plaintiff
Velma Sanders individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 11 of 61

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Barbara Smith individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tony Triplett individually and on behalf of similarly

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 12 of 61

situated persons

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Janet Wilkins individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gerard Bradtke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly K. Lambert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 13 of 61

Plaintiff Della Jarrett
Plaintiff Fred Wynne TERMINATED: 10/26/2004

Laurie S. Elkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Allison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Paul Schneck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Earle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Kay Soule (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alex Reigart Montgomery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 14 of 61

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Earle Law Offices of Peter Earle 700 North Water Street Suite 646 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−276−1076 TERMINATED: 10/26/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353−8558 Fax: (312) 353−8555 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886−9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

V. Defendant Woodward Governor Company

represented by Michael W. Duffee Ford &Harrison 55 East Monroe Street Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60603−5709 (312) 332−0777 Email: MDuffee@fordharrison.com TERMINATED: 03/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel E Turner Ashe, Rafuse &Hill LLP 1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309−3232

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 15 of 61
404−253−6009 Email: danturner@asherafuse.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dax Lopez Ashe, Rafuse &Hill LLP 1355 Peachtree street, NE Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309−3232 404−253−6009 Email: daxlopez@asherafuse.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keenan Jakarta Saulter Baker &McKenzie LLP (Chicago) One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312)861−8035 Email: keenan.j.saulter@bakernet.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura A. O'Connell Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP 525 West Monroe Chicago, IL 60661 312−902−5200 Email: laura.oconnell@kattenlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/10/2006
Lawrence Schlam Northern Illinois University College of Law Swen Parson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115 (815) 753−0140 TERMINATED: 03/10/2006
Michele K McKellar Boley &McKellar, P.C. 702 Randall Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82001 (307) 637−5575 TERMINATED: 03/10/2006
Michelle Luthia Landon Picha and Salisbury Law Offices 1639 North Alpine Road Rockford, IL 61107 815−227−4300 Email: mlandon@pichasal.com TERMINATED: 03/10/2006
Nancy E. Rafuse Ashe, Rafuse &Hill, LLP 1355 Peachtree Street #500 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404)253−6000 Email: nancyrafuse@asherafuse.com
Robert Michael O'Connell Speranza &Bates 1401 N. Western Avenue

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 16 of 61
Suite 200 Lake Forest, IL 60045 847−615−1090 Fax: 847−615−1096 Email: roconnell1966@comcast.net TERMINATED: 03/10/2006
Thomas F Hurka Morgan Lewis &Bockius, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 324−1735 Email: thurka@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/08/2003
05/08/2003 05/08/2003 05/29/2003
06/20/2003
06/20/2003 06/26/2003 07/14/2003 07/18/2003 07/22/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Kelly K. Lambert, James Gerard Bradtke, Jennifer Kay Soule as attorney(s) for plaintiff Demetric Bell, plaintiff Marilyn Berry, plaintiff Catherine Brown, plaintiff Kimberly Buchanan, plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez, plaintiff Timmy Link, plaintiff Eddie Manning Jr, plaintiff Kim Nachampassack, plaintiff Duane Parks, plaintiff Brenda Riley, plaintiff Darnel Royal, plaintiff Robin Sallis, plaintiff Velma Sanders, plaintiff Barbara − Smith, plaintiff Tony Triplett, plaintiff Janet Wilkins ( 1 summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1−1 through 1−3) (clb) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 5/8/03 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 511. (clb) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11(d). (clb) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 5/29/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing set to 1:30 6/20/03. Plaintiff is directed to notify any party filing an appearance subsequent to the entry of this order of the status hearing. Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 6/20/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Parties to hold FRCP 26(f) conference. Case management order to be submitted on 7/22/03 . Initial Pretrial conference set to 1:30 7/23/03 No notice (glg) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
2 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant by Michele K McKellar; Order entered granting leave by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
3 MINUTE ORDER of 6/26/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for Michele McKellar to appear pro hac vice is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
4 ANSWER by defendant to class action complaint [1−1]. (fce) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
5 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave , to add appearances of additional counsel ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
6 PARTIES' proposed case management order by plaintiff, defendant (fce) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
7 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Michael W. Duffee, Michele K. McKellar, Robert E. Reuterfors. (fce) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Initial pretrial conference held. Plaintiffs' motion for leave [5−1], to file additional appearances is granted [5−2]. Case management order approved as stated. ADR reserved. Depositions are limited to a reasonable number with the court retaining authority to

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 17 of 61

07/28/2003
09/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/17/2003 09/17/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/06/2003 10/06/2003 10/07/2003 10/08/2003
10/09/2003 10/22/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/29/2003 10/29/2003

set a number. Interrogatories limited to 75. All discovery as to class certification closed by 1/23/04. Motion for class certification due 2/13/04. Amendment of pleadings due 11/14/03. Discovery conference continued to 1:30 pm on 10/8/03. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning Jr, Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara − Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins by Stephen G. Seliger, Laurie S. Elkin, Robert D. Allison, Steven P. Schneck; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 07/28/2003)
10 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant for leave to file additional appearances . (fce) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
11 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Robert Michael O'Connell, Laura A. O'Connell (fce) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
12 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for leave to file additional appearances is granted [10−1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
13 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Woodward Gov Co by Robert M. O'Connell, Laura A. O'Connell. (fce) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
14 MOTION by defendant for protective order (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
15 MOTION by plaintiffs' for order compelling disclosures under rule 26(a)(1) (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
16 MOTION by defendant to modify case management order (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
17 MOTION by defendant to limit discovery (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
18 REQUEST by plaintiff for a briefing schedule with respect to defendant's motions ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 10/8/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Filed Parties' discovery motions [18−1], [17−1]. Answer brief to motion due 10/22/03. Reply to answer brief due 10/29/03. Discovery conference held. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Parties are to file any Rule 37 motions 48 business hours prior to any hearing; and the court will take argument and rule at the scheduled hearing. Telephonic status hearing to set hearing date set for 11:30 a.m. on 10/9/03. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 10/9/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing held. Discovery conference and hearing on motions set for 1:30 11/4/03 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
20 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' motion for order compelling disclosures under rule 26(a)(1) [15−1](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
21 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to motion for protective order [14−1]. (fce) Modified on 10/23/2003 (Entered: 10/23/2003)
22 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to limit discovery [17−1](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
23 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to modify case management order [16−1](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
24 REPLY by defendant Woodward Governor Co in support of their motion for protective order [14−1]. (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
25 REPLY by defendant in support of their motion to modify case management order [16−1] (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 18 of 61

10/29/2003 10/30/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/04/2003
11/04/2003

26 REPLY by defendant in support of their motion to limit discovery [17−1] (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
27 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter stipulated protective order. Entered stipulated protective order Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
28 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs' to extend case management orer . (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
29 REPORT on litigation status as of 10/31/03 by plaintiff (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
30 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel production of work force data (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
31 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of EEO−1 Reports, affirmative action plans and documents relating to OFCCP audits (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
32 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel class action discovery regarding charging parties not currently named as plaintiffs (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
33 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel class discovery regarding company−wide organizational charts, employment policies, practices and procedures, and job descriptions (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
34 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel production of documents submitted to the EEOC (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
35 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/8/03 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
36 MOTION by defendant to compel more precise disclosures (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
37 REQUEST by defendant for protective order and briefing schedule with respect to plaintiffs' new motions . (fce) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
38 OBJECTION by defendant to plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend case management order [28−1]. (fce) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
39 MINUTE ORDER of 11/4/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held. Defendant's motion for protective order is moot [37−1]. Defendant's motion to compel is denied [36−1]. Defendant's motion to modify CMO is granted in part [16−1]. Defendant given 15 interrogatories per plaintiff and 20 general interrogatories. Defendant's motion to limit discovery is granted in part and denied in part [17−1]. Defendant to produce data base for the past 2 years. Plaintiff's motion to extend CMO is granted in part [28−1]. Amended complaint due 12/5/03. Plaintiff's motion to compel FRCP 26(a)(1) is moot [15−1]. Plaintiff's motion to compel production of work force data is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice as to 5 year request [30−1]. Defendant to 12/2/03 to file response for the past 2 years. Plaintiff's motion to compel organizational charts etc is granted in part [33−1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
40 MINUTE ORDER of 11/4/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion to compel production of EEO−1 Reports, is granted [31−1]. Defendants to produce material and file a privilege log by 11/25/03. Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents submitted to the EEOC is granted [34−1]. #7 limited to named plaintiffs to be responded to be 11/25/03. Plaintiffs' motion to compel class discovery regarding charging parties is granted in part [32−1]. As to Document request #1, other than medical files to be produced by 11/25/03; #2 to be produced by 11/25/03; #3 Job descriptions to be produced since 1998 by 11/25/03; #4 defendant to provide corporate organizational structures as stated in open court by 11/25/03. As to interrogatory #2, response back to 1998 as to charging parties due 11/25/03; #3 respond by 11/25/03 back to 1998; #4 as to age and sex, objection sustained. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/05/2003)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 19 of 61

11/04/2003
11/05/2003 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 11/26/2003 12/05/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/11/2003
12/16/2003 12/17/2003
01/12/2004 01/12/2004 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/14/2004

41 MINUTE ORDER of 11/4/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As to interrogatory #5, Defendant may respond by production of documents back to 1998 by 11/25/03; #6 defendant to respond back to 1998 by 12/2/03. As to #12, defendant to respond by 11/25/03; #13 defendant to respond to salary comparisons by 11/25/03. Discovery conference continud to 1:30 p.m. on 12/11/03. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
42 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/4/03 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
43 PRIVILEGED document log by defendant. (fce) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
44 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/20/03 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
45 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/23/03 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
46 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff; adding Della Jarrett, Fred Wynne (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
47 REPORT by plaintiffs' on litigation status as of 12/8/03. (fce) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
48 SUPPLEMENTAL memorandum by plaintiffs' in support of their motion to compel production of EEO−1 Reports, affirmative action plans and documents relating to OFCCP audits [31−1](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
49 MOTION by plaintiffs' to enforce 11/4/03 order regarding documetn requests #1−2,7,12−13, and interrogatories #2−5 (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
50 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel discovery regarding photographs of plaintiff Darnel Royal (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 12/11/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Due to court's schedule, Telephonic Status hearing set to 10:30 12/17/03 to set new deadlines. Discovery conference and noticed motion reset for 1:30 1/22/04 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
51 REPORT by defendant regarding status of case. (fce) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
52 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/03 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's three pending motions filed. Answer brief to motion due 1/13/04. Reply to answer brief due 1/20/04. Ruling on plaintiff's three pending motions will be by mail. Status hearing held. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Defendants given to 1/14/04 to respond to amended complaint. The court will set a date for class certification motion on 1/22/04 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 12/18/2003)
53 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for additional time to respond to plaintiff's first amended complaint ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/12/2004)
54 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to compel the deposition of plaintiff, Darnell Royal (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 01/13/2004)
55 OPPOSITION by Woodward Gov Co to production of EEO−1 reports, affirmative actions plans and OFCCP audit documents, motion for protective order and brief in support of self−critial analysis privilege ; (Exhibits) (jmm (Entered: 01/14/2004)
56 OPPOSITION by Woodward Gov Co to motion to compel discovery regarding photographs of plaintiff Darnel Royal [50−1] and motion to enforce 11/4/03 order and [49−1] for a protective order (jmm (Entered: 01/14/2004)
57 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff, Darnell Royal [54−1] ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/14/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 20 of 61

01/14/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/22/2004 01/22/2004
01/26/2004
01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 02/03/2004

58 MINUTE ORDER of 1/14/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to compel the deposition of Darnell Royal is granted [54−1] in part. Depositions of Royal and Gonzalez to be held on 1/30/04 at 9:30 as stated in open court. No notices required, advised in open court. (jmm (Entered: 01/15/2004)
59 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiff in support of motion to compel discovery regarding photographs of plaintiff Darnel Royal [50−1] ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/20/2004)
60 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiff in support of motion to enforce 11/4/03 order regarding document requests #1−2,7,12−13, and interrogatories #2−5 [49−1] ; (Attachment) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/20/2004)
61 REPORT by plaintiff on litigation status as of 1/22/04 ; (Attachment) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/20/2004)
62 REPLY Brief by plaintiff in support of motion to compal production of EEO−1 reports, affirmative action plans and OFCCP audits ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/20/2004)
63 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to permit class discovery in accord with amended Rule 23 and Seventh Circuit case law ; Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 01/20/2004)
64 ANSWER by Woodward Gov Co and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint [46−1] ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/21/2004)
65 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to dismiss , transfer , or stay claims of Fred Wynne based on improper venue (Exhibits); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 01/21/2004)
66 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's "motion to permit class discovery in accord with amended Rule 23 and Seventh Circuit case law" [63−1] ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/22/2004)
67 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to dismiss, transfer or stay claims of Fred Wynne filed. Answer brief to motion due 2/12/04. Reply to answer brief due 2/19/04. Ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss, transfer or stay claims of Fred Wynne will be by mail. Discovery conference held. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Plaintiff's motion to enforce 11/4/03 order is withdrawn [49−1] without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to compel is withdrawn [50−1] without prejudice based upon representations made in open court. Plaintiff's motion to extend is granted. Fact discovery cutoff as to class certification closed 4/30/04. Class certification motion due 5/14/04. Defendant's motion to permit class discovery is granted [63−1] in part and denied in part. Discovery conference continued to 2/26/04 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 01/22/2004)
68 MINUTE ORDER of 1/26/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiff's motion to compel reports is granted. Defendant is ordered to procude the material within 14 days of this order. (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.) Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 01/26/2004)
69 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/14/04 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm (Entered: 01/27/2004)
70 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/22/04 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm (Entered: 01/27/2004)
71 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for additional time to reply in support of its motion to dismiss, transfer or stay claims of Fred Wynne ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 01/27/2004)
72 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel compliance with deposition schedule (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 02/03/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 21 of 61

02/05/2004 02/06/2004 02/10/2004 02/12/2004 02/13/2004 02/20/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/25/2004 02/26/2004 02/26/2004
03/11/2004 03/17/2004
03/18/2004

73 OPPOSITION by Woodward Gov Co to motion to compel compliance with deposition schedule ; (Attachments) (jmm (Entered: 02/05/2004)
74 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with deposition schedule is granted [72−1] in part and denied in part. Parties to schedule depositions as stated on the record. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 02/06/2004)
75 MINUTE ORDER of 2/10/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's unopposed motion for additional time to 2/26/04 to reply in support of motion to dismiss is granted [71−1]. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 02/10/2004)
76 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to dismiss [65−1], transfer [65−2], or stay claims of Fred Wynne [65−3] ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing ; (one attachment FILED UNDER SEAL) (jmm (Entered: 02/12/2004)
77 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend date to add parties or claims ; Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 02/17/2004)
78 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/06/04 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm (Entered: 02/20/2004)
79 REPORT by plaintiff on litigation status as of 2/23/04 ; (Attachment) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 02/24/2004)
80 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel production of data redacted from employee work force data base (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 02/24/2004)
81 MOTION by plaintiffs to quash and objections to subpoenas duces tecum served by defendant (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 02/24/2004)
82 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to dismiss plaintiff's unripe claims , or to require plaintiffs to add parties and claims now , or to stay discovery until plaintiffs and their claims are identified (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 02/25/2004)
83 STATUS REPORT by Woodward Gov Co for 2/26/04 discovery conference ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 02/25/2004)
84 REPLY by Woodward Gov Co in support of its motion to dismiss [65−1], transfer or stay claims of Fred Wynne based on improper venue ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 02/26/2004)
85 MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion to compel production of data redacted from data base filed. Brief in support of motion due 3/04/04. Answer brief to motion due 3/11/04. Ruling on plaintiff's motion to compel production of data redacted from data base will be by mail. Discovery conference held. Magistrate Judge will rule. Plaintiff's motion to quash and objections is denied without prejudice as premature. Parties to hold FRCP 37.2 conference by 3/04/04. Plaintiff's motion to extend date to add parties or claims to 4/26/04 is granted [77−1]. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's unripe claims is granted [82−1] in part as stated in open court. Discovery conference continued to 3/22/04 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 02/26/2004)
86 RESPONSE by Woodward Gov Co to plaintiffs' 3/04/04 correspondence to the court ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 03/12/2004)
87 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Based on the material submitted to this court by Plaintiffs' expert, and the representations made by Plaintiffs' expert in the material, this court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compal Production of Data Redacted from Employee Work Force Data. Defendant is ordered to produce the gender and age information from its work force data to Plaintiffs within a reasonable time. The material submitted to this court by Plaintiffs' expert will be returned to Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to preserve the material. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 03/17/2004)
88 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel the depositions of James Halbrook and Thomas Gendron (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 03/18/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 22 of 61

03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/30/2004 04/07/2004 04/09/2004 04/12/2004
04/26/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/11/2004 05/11/2004

89 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for protective order , and to quash deposition notices for Woodward Governor's CEO and President (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 03/18/2004)
90 MOTION by plaintiff to compel the scheduling of depositions within the period for class discovery (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 03/19/2004)
91 REPORT by plaintiffs on litigation status as of 3/18/04 ; (Attachments) ; (Notice of filing) (jmm (Entered: 03/19/2004)
92 STATUS REPORT by Woodward Gov Co for 3/22/04 discovery conference (jmm (Entered: 03/22/2004)
93 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion for protective order [89−1] regarding depositions of John Halbrook and Thomas Gendron ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 03/22/2004)
94 MINUTE ORDER of 3/22/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Plaintiff's motion to compel the scheduling of depositions [90−1] is moot. Plaintiff's motion to compel the depositions of Halbrook and Gendron is denied [88−1] without prejudice. Defendant's motion for protective order [89−1] and to quash is denied [89−2] as stated in open court. Discovery conference continued to 5/11/04 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 03/23/2004)
95 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/26/04 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm (Entered: 03/23/2004)
96 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/22/04 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm (Entered: 03/23/2004)
97 OBJECTIONS by Woodward Gov Co to Magistrate Judge's Order [87−1] (attachments); notice of filing (jat) Modified on 03/31/2004 (Entered: 03/31/2004)
98 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's objections to magistrate judge's order [97−1] (attachments); notice of filing (jat) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
99 LETTER from Jennifer Soule (jmm (Entered: 04/12/2004)
100 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/04 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Defendant's motion to dismiss [65−1], stay [65−3] or transfer [65−2] the claims of Fred Wynne based on improper venue is denied without prejudice as premature. Motion is premised on defendant's argument that venue for Wynn's Title VII claim is not proper in this court and that venue for Title VII claims (42 USC, section 2000e−5 (f)(3)) controls even if venue for Wynne's section 1981 claim is proper here. However, Wynne does not have a pending Title VII claim in this court. Defendant may renew the motion if Wynne brings a Title VII claim. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
101 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [46−1] by plaintiffs; jury demand [given leave to file in 2/26/04 minute order] (exhibits) (jat) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
102 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
103 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to dismiss or to transfer claims of Fred Wynne based on improper venue (attachments); notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
104 ANSWER by Woodward Gov Co to second amended complaint [101−1] and affirmative defenses (jat) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
105 STATUS REPORT by Woodward Gov Co; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
106 MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Filed motion of Defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer. Answer brief to motion due 5/25/04. Reply to answer brief due 6/2/04. Ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer will be by mail. If a party is not going t file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Discovery conference held. Plaintiff's motion for class certification due 5/14/04. Telephonic motion hearing to set briefing set for 5/17/04 at 9:30am. Fact discovery cutoff set for 1/31/05. Dispositive motions due 3/31/05.

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 23 of 61

05/11/2004
05/13/2004 05/14/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004
05/25/2004 05/28/2004 06/07/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004

Discovery conference continued to 6/22/04 at 1:30pm. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
107 MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/04 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Defendant, Woodward Governor Co. objects per FRCP 72(a) to the magistrate judge's order of 3/17/04 ordering defendant to produce gender and age information for its employees. Defendant argues this discovery should have been denied because the magistrate did not require plaintiff to disclose the identity of the expert who advised the magistrate that the information was required for a proper analysis in this race discrimination case. Defendant says this denied it due process. A magistrate's ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter may be reconsidered only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28USC, 636(b)(1)(A); US v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1499, 1503 (7th cir.), cert. denied, 519 US 875 (1996). The record does not reflect defendant ever asked the magistrate for disclosre of the consultant by simply asked him to deny the request based on non−disclosure. The magistrate considered defendant's arguments and concluded the information was discoverable. It seems logical that a statistical analysis would require controlling of other factors to prove race was the basis for discrimination. The magistrate's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Defendant's objection is denied [97−1]. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
108 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/11/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
109 agreed MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for additional time to file reply brief in support of renewed motion to dismiss or transfer claims of Fred Wynne ; notice of filing (jat) Modified on 05/17/2004 (Entered: 05/17/2004)
110 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to strike undisclosed documents and expert analyses (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 05/17/2004)
111 MOTION by Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning Jr, Kim Nachampassack, Tony Triplett for class certification ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 05/17/2004)
112 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave , to file a memorandum in excess of 15 pages in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification ; (jmm (Entered: 05/17/2004)
113 MINUTE ORDER of 5/17/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion to strike undisclosed documents and expert analyses is denied [110−1]. Plaintiffs are ordered to produce all 26(a)(2) material of Thomas A. DiPrete within a reasonable time to defendant. Deposition of Thomas DiPrete to take place by 6/16/04. Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due 7/16/04. Plaintiffs' reply is due 7/30/04. judge's staff mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
114 RESPONSE by plaintiff to renewed motion to dismiss [103−1], motion to transfer claims [103−2] of Fred Wynne; notice of filing (attachments: exhibits 1,2 attached, exhibit 3 sealed in vault) (jat) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
115 MINUTE ORDER of 5/28/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's agreed motion for additional time to 6/07/04 to file a reply in support of motion to dismiss or transfer claims of Fred Wynne is granted [109−1]. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 06/01/2004)
116 REPLY by Woodward Gov Co in support of motion to dismiss [103−1], motion to transfer claims [103−2]; notice of filing (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
117 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
118 MOTION by plaintiff to enforce compliance with the district court's 5/11/04 order (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
119 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of documents relating to OFCCP conciliation agreement (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 24 of 61

06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/22/2004
07/01/2004
07/01/2004 07/07/2004 07/12/2004
07/13/2004

120 MOTION by plaintiff to compel depositions (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
121 MOTION by plaintiff to compel supplementation of discovery responses (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
122 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file corrected motion for class certification (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
123 Notice of Motion by plaintiff re: motions [118−122] (jat) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
124 MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a memorandum in excess of 15 pages (60 pages) in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted 112 . mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
125 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support motion for class certification [111−1] (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
126 EXHIBITS (volume ONE) by plaintiff memorandum [125−1] (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
127 EXHIBITS (volume TWO) by plaintiff memorandum [125−1] (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
128 EXHIBITS (volume THREE) by plaintiff memorandum [125−1] (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
129 EXHIBITS (volume FOUR) by plaintiff memorandum [125−1] (jat) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
130 MINUTE ORDER of 6/22/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Filed motion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel Buffalo documents. Answer brief to motion due 6/29/04. Reply to answer brief due 7/7/04. Ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to compel Buffalo documents will be by mail. Discovery conference held. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Magistrate Judge will rule. Plaintiff's motion to compel supplementation of discovery responses is denied [121−1]. Plaintiff's motion to enforce compliance with Judge Reinhard's order is withdrawn [118−1] without prejudice. Plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions is granted in part [120−1]. Parties to exchange deposition schedule of 10 defpositions each by 7/14/04 37.2 conference to be held on scheduling. Schedule to be submitted to the the court by 7/26/04. Defendants given to 7/20/04 to respond to motion for class certification. Reply due 8/3/04. Discovery conference continued to 7/27/04 at 1:30pm. . mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
131 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/04 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard : For the reasons stated on the reverse Memorandum Opinion and Order, Woodward's motion to dismiss [103−1] or transfer the claims of Fred Wynne based on improper venue is denied [103−2]. (For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.) Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 07/02/2004)
132 OPPOSITION by Woodward Gov Co to discovery regarding the Buffalo conciliation agreement ; (Attachments) ; Notice of filing (jmm (Entered: 07/02/2004)
133 REPLY brief by plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of OFCCP conciliation agreement [119−1]; (attachments), notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
141 MINUTE ORDER of 7/12/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse, Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted [119−1]. Defendant is ordered to produce the Conciliation Agreement of 9/21/01 within 21 days of this order. For further detail see order on reverse side of the original minute order. telephone notice (jat) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
134 agreed MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to extend regarding briefing schedule on motion for class certification (jat) (Entered: 07/13/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 25 of 61

07/19/2004
07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/27/2004
07/27/2004 08/02/2004 08/06/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/17/2004 08/17/2004 08/18/2004 08/18/2004 08/18/2004 08/19/2004
08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004

135 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's agreed motion regarding briefing schedule on motion for class certification is granted [134−1]. Response due 7/27/04. Reply due 8/17/04. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 07/20/2004)
136 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
137 MOTION by plaintiff to admit P. Earle pro hac vice and to add his appearance ; notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
138 STATUS REPORT and REQUEST for additional time by Woodward Gov Co; notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
139 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Plaintiff's application for Peter G. Earle leave to appear pro hac vice is granted. Defendant's motion for additional time is granted. Response to class motion due 8/17/04. Reply due 9/10/04. Telephonic status hearing regarding setting of depositions set for 8/6/04 at 10:30am. Discovery conference continued to 8/19/04 at 2:30am. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
140 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiff by Peter Earle; Order entered granting leave by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
142 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Peter Earle; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 8/6/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
143 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/22/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
144 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/27/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
145 MOTION by plaintiff to enforce and modify previous order requiring production of position statements submitted by defendant to the EEOC ; notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
146 MOTION by plaintiff to compel defendant to certify that electronic documents responsive to plaintiffs' discovery requests have been searched for and produced ; notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
147 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to file a memorandum in excess of 15 pages (in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification) ; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
148 AFFIDAVIT of R. O'Connell (jat) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
149 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs [8/19/04]; attachments, notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
150 MINUTE ORDER of 8/19/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Defendant's motion for leave to file a memorandum in excess of 15 pages is granted [147−1] in part. Defendant given to 8/27/04 to file a 63 page response to motion to certify class. Reply, limited to 14 pages, due 9/14/04. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to certify is denied [146−1] as stated in open court. Plaintiff's motion to enforce and modify [145−1] is mooted as represented by counsel. Parties to exchange proposed October deposition schedule by 9/17/04. Schedule to be submitted to the court by 9/22/04. Discovery conference continued to 9/28/04 at 2:00 pm. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 08/20/2004)
151 RESPONSE/ memorandum in opposition by Woodward Gov Co to motion for class certification [111−1]; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
152 EXHIBITS (volume 1) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) Modified on 08/30/2004 (Entered: 08/30/2004)
153 EXHIBITS (volume 2) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 26 of 61

08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 09/14/2004 09/17/2004 09/22/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004
09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/28/2004
09/28/2004

154 EXHIBITS (volume 3) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
155 EXHIBITS (volume 4) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
156 EXHIBITS (volume 5) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
157 EXHIBITS (volume 6) by Woodward Gov Co response [151−1] (jat) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
158 REPLY memorandum by plaintiffs in support to motion for class certification [111−1]; notice of filing, attachments (jat) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
159 AMENDED ANSWER [104−1] by Woodward Gov Co and affirmative defenses; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
160 COMPILATION of tentative deposition schedule beginning 10/04 by plaintiffs; notice of filing [court requested] (jat) (Entered: 09/22/2004)
161 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for protection (attachments); notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
162 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co for protective order regarding deposition of T. Gendron (attachments); notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
163 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file amendment to claims of plaintiff Wynne ; notice of motionS (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
164 MOTION by plaintiff for protective order regarding the scope of the second depositions of the named plaintiffs (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
165 MOTION by plaintiff to compel supplemental interrogatory answers , to enforce 11/4/03 order ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
166 MOTION by plaintiff to compel discovery relating to charging parties , to enforce court's 11/4/03 order , for protective order with regard to the depositions of charging parties ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
167 MOTION by plaintiff to compel responses to plaintiffs' 7/15/04 request for production of documents ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
168 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of further information relating to defendant's work force ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
169 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of job descriptions , to enforce court's 11/4/03 order ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
170 MOTION by plaintiff to supplement production of documents of plaintiffs and charging parties ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
171 STATUS REPORT (9/28/04) by plaintiffs; notice of filing, (attachment) (jat) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
172 partial RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for protection [161−1]; notice of filing, (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
173 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Plaintiff's motion to supplement production of documents is granted [170−1]. Defendants to produce as to charging parties by 10/12/04 as stated in open court. Plaintiff's motion to compel production of job descriptions is granted [169−1]. Defendant given to 10/12/04 to produce any not previously produced. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of further information in relation to workforce [168−1] is granted in part. Plaintiffs to provide their own personnel to search and copy as stated in open court. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
174 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to 7/15/04 request [167−1] is denied without prejudice, based upon representation of the parties. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery [166−1]

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 27 of 61

09/28/2004
10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/20/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004
10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/26/2004
10/26/2004

and for protective order regarding depositions of charging parties [166−3] is granted. Defendant to produce personnel filed and FRCP 26(a)(1) materials 14 days prior to deposition. Plaintiff's motion to compel supplemental interrogatory answers [165−1] is granted in part. Defendant given to 10/19/04 to respond. Plaintiff's motion for protective order regarding scope of deposition [164−1] is granted, as was previously. Plaintiff's motion to file amended complaint as to plaintiff Wynne is granted [163−1]. Response due 10/19/04. Defendant's motion for protective order [162−1] is granted in part as stated in open court. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
175 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion regarding transcript is denied [161−1]. Discovery conference continued to 10/26/04 at 2:00pm. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
176 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/19/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
177 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/28/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
178 ANSWER by Woodward Gov Co to second amended complaint [101−1]; and affirmative defenses, notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
179 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel response to 7/29/04 request for production of documents (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 10/22/2004)
180 MOTION by plaintiffs' for instructions regarding personnel file review (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 10/22/2004)
181 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel production of job opening lists (Attachments); Notice of motion (jmm (Entered: 10/22/2004)
182 AMENDMENT by plaintiff regarding second amended complaint [101−1] re: Fred Wynne; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
183 voluntary MOTION by Fred Wynne for dismissal ; notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
184 STATUS REPORT (10/26/04) by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
185 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to consolidate cases (with case 04cv50006) (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
186 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to honor case management order/ for order to enforce the seven hour time limit for depositions (attachments); (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
187 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to require plaintiffs to bear their own photocopying costs (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
188 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to compel verified and full answers to interrogatories (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
189 Notice of motion re: motions [185−188] by Woodward Gov Co (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
190 STATUS REPORT (10/26/04) by Woodward Gov Co; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
191 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to compel verified and full answers to interrogatories [188−1], motion to require plaintiffs to bear their own photocopying costs [187−1], motion to honor case management order/ for order to enforce the seven hour time limit for depositions [186−1], motion to consolidate cases [185−1]; notice of filing, (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
192 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Defendant's motion to honor case management order [186−1] is granted in part. Plaintiffs given 2 1/2 more deposition hours with Turner.

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 28 of 61

10/26/2004
11/05/2004 11/09/2004 11/17/2004 11/18/2004
11/19/2004 11/19/2004 11/19/2004 11/19/2004 11/19/2004 11/22/2004 11/22/2004 11/22/2004 11/23/2004

Defendant's motion to consolidate case is denied [185−1]. Plaintiffs' motion for instructions regarding personnel file review [180−1] and defendants' motion to require plaintiffs to bear their own copying costs [187−1] are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs to pay half of the cost of bate stamping as stated in open court. Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Fred Wynne with prejudice is granted [183−1]. terminating party Fred Wynne mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
193 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed motion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of job opening lists. Excerpts from depositions in support of motion due 11/9/04. Answer brief to motion due 11/16/04. Reply to answer brief due. Ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of job opening lists will be by mail. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Plaintiffs' motion to compel response to 7/29/04 request for production is granted [179−1]. Response due 11/16/04. Defendant's motion to compel verified full answers to interrogatories is granted [188−1]. Plaintiffs to provide verification 48 hours prior to deposition or by 11/16/04 whichever comes first. Discovery conference continued to 11/23/04 at 2:00pm. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
194 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/26/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
195 supplemental EXHIBIT E1 by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
196 RESPONSE by Woodward Gov Co to motion to compel production of job opening lists [181−1] (attached affidavit of C. Smith); notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
197 MINUTE ORDER of 11/18/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse, plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted [181−1] to the extent that plaintiffs are willing to bear the reasonable costs of searching defendant's back−up tapes. If plaintiffs are willing to proceed on this basis, they should notify the court and defendant, as which time the court will order the parties to submit a reasonable estimate of costs and a plan for production. For further detail see order on reverse side of the original minute order. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
198 MOTION by plaintiff to enforce court order requiring supplemental responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories (attachments); (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
199 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of documents and to enforce court orders requiring the production of documents (attachments); (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
200 MOTION by plaintiff to compel defendant to permit use of responsible and cost−efficient service for scanning of personnel files (attachments); (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
201 MOTION by plaintiff to compel defendant to compensate plaintiffs' expert for deposition time (attachments); (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
202 Notice of Motions [198−201] by plaintiff (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
203 Compilation of Tentative Deposition Schedule beginning 11/15/04 by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
204 STATUS REPORT (11/23/04) by plaintiffs; (attachments), notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
205 STATUS REPORT (11/23/04) by Woodward Gov Co; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
206 MINUTE ORDER of 11/23/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed motion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents/enforce court order of same. Answer brief to motion due 12/7/04. Reply to answer brief due 12/14/04. Ruling on

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 29 of 61

11/24/2004 11/30/2004 12/02/2004 12/07/2004 12/08/2004 12/08/2004 12/10/2004
12/10/2004
12/16/2004 12/20/2004
01/03/2005

Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents/enforce court order of same will be by mail. Discovery conference held. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Magistrate Judge will rule. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to compensate plaintiffs' expert is granted [201−1]. Payment due by 12/14/04. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to permit use of responsible service for scanning is denied [200−1]. Plaintiff's motion to enforce court order requiring supplemental responses is granted [198−1]. Responses due 12/22/04. Discovery conference continued to 1/13/05 at 2:00pm. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
207 BILL OF COSTS submitted with affidavit of R. O'Connell; (attachments), notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
208 OBJECTIONS by Fred Wynne to bill of costs [207−1]; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
209 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/23/04 Before Honorable Mahoney (jat) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
210 REPLY by Woodward Gov Co to objection to bill of costs [208−1]; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
211 RESPONSE by Woodward Gov Co to motion to compel production of documents and to enforce court orders requiring the production of documents [199−1]; (attachments), notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
212 MOTION by plaintiff to require defendant to transmit designated documents for copying (attachments); notice of motion (jat) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
213 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to require defendant to transmit designated documents for copying is granted [212−1] as stated in open court. Defendant is given to 12/17/04 to deliver the files designated in Exhibits 1 and 2 to DTI for scanning. Defendant places on record that they believe that they have complied with 90% of the files already. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
214 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/04 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard : Defendant submitted a bill of costs as to plaintiff, Fred Wynne,who voluntarily dismissed his claims against defendant. Wynne objects to the bill of costs. The court strikes the bill of costs [207−1] as premature. No costs shall be considered prior to the entry of a final judgment disposing of all claims and all parties in this case. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
215 REPLY by plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents and to enforce court orders requiring the production of documents [199−1]; (attachments), notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
216 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part [199−1]. Defendant is directed to comply with the court's 10/27/04 order and produce documents responsive to plaintiffs' request regarding succession documents within twenty−one days of receipt of this order. Regarding documents identified in Turner's deposition, defendant is directed to: (1)confirm that a reasonable search for documents (a−1)was conducted and indicate what the manner of the serch was, (2)produce responsive documents, (3)confirm if no responsive documents exist, and (4)confirm instances where the documetns have been destroyed, indicating by whom and when, if possible, within seven days of receipt of this order. Plaintiffs' motion to compel further production of job descriptions is denied. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
217 MINUTE ORDER of 1/3/05 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard : For the reasons stated on the reverse memorandum Opinion and Order, movants motion for class certification is granted in part. Bell, Berry, Buchanan, Gonzalez, Link and Triplett are certified as class representatives. Plaintiff's counsel are appointed class counsel. Two classes are certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 30 of 61

01/03/2005 01/06/2005
01/10/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/11/2005
01/11/2005 01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/13/2005 01/13/2005

purposes and Rule 23(b)(3) for puposes of determining liablility for discrimination injuries, but not individual damages: A compensation class consisting of all African−American, Hispanic and Asian employees employed by defendant during the applicable limitations period and an advancement class consisting of all African−American, Hispanic and Asian employees passed over for unposted promotions during the applicable limitations period. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for purposes of administering notice to the class members and opt−out rights. For further detail see order on reverse side of the original minute order. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
218 STATUS REPORT by Woodward Gov Co re: Turner Documents; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
219 MINUTE ORDER of 1/6/05 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery tele−conference held 1/6/05. Due to the inability of the parties to arrange for the production of documents related to Phil Turner's deposition (per the court's order of 12/20/04), parties are ordered to re−schedule the 1/11/05 deposition of Mr. Phil Turner. Mr. Turner's deposition is to be scheduled prior to the close of fact discovery (1/31/05) at a reasonable time and a reasonable place. If the parties cannot schedule the deposition of Mr. Turner before the end of the month, the Magistrate Judge will set a date next month. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
220 LETTER from Booker Woodard to Attorney Soule (jmm (Entered: 01/10/2005)
221 Notice of motion by plaintiffs (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
222 MOTION by plaintiff to compel response regarding the identity of working leads ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
223 MOTION by plaintiff to compel response regarding job level interrogatory ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
224 MOTION by plaintiff to enforce 12/20/04 order requiring production of documents ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
225 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production and/or identification of documents relating to affirmative defenses ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
226 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of MEC documents ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
227 MOTION by plaintiff to deem admitted defendant's inability to articulate with sufficient clarity claimed bases for compensation and advancement decisions concerning plaintiffs and charging parties ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
228 MOTION by plaintiff to extend fact discovery cut−off and to set concurrent class notice and opt−out schedule ; (attachments) (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
229 STATUS REPORT [1/13/05] by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
230 MOTION by Woodward Gov Co to extend scheduled deadlines and to substitute Woodward's status report regarding Turner documents ; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
231 STATUS REPORT by Woodward Gov Co regarding Turner documents (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
232 partial RESPONSE by plaintiff to report [231−1]; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
233 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/05 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : mailed notice: In accordance with Judge Reinhard's order of 1/3/05, parties are to proceed with administering notice to class members in the manner stated on the reverse. For further detail see order on reverse side of the original minute order. (jat) (Entered: 01/14/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 31 of 61

01/13/2005
01/13/2005
01/13/2005 01/18/2005
01/19/2005 01/20/2005 01/20/2005 01/21/2005 01/24/2005 01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/31/2005

234 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/05 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed motion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel response regarding working leads. Answer brief to motion due 1/20/05. Reply to answer brief due 1/24/05. Ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to compel response regarding working leads will be by mail. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Discovery conference held. Motions to extend [230−1], [228−1] fact discovery is granted. Fact Discovery extended to 6/20/05. Dispositive motions due 8/31/05. Plaintiffs' FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 6/20/05. Depositions by 7/22/05. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 8/8/05. Depositions by 9/8/05. Parties to submit a deposition schedule for February, March and April by 2/7/05. Discovery conference continued to 2/8/05 at 2:00pm. mailed notice (jat) Modified on 01/14/2005 (Entered: 01/14/2005)
235 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/05 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed motion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel response regarding job level interrogatory 2 and 6. Answer brief to motion due 2/1/05. Ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to compel response regarding job level interrogatory will be by mail. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of MEC documents is withdrawn without prejudice. [226−1] Plaintiffs given to 1/20/05 to serve supplemental request #26. Magistrate Judge will rule on plaintiffs' motion to enforce 12/20/04 order requiring production of documents from Turner's deposition. Defendant given to 1/18/05 to respond and show burden on plaintiff's motion to compel production of identification of documents regarding affirmative defenses. mailed notice (jat) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
236 STATUS REPORT [1/13/05] by Woodward Gov Co; notice of filing (jat) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
237 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to substitute Woodward's status report regarding Turner Document is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is given leave to file its supplemental status report, but defendant is not granted leave to withdraw the original status report filed on 1/3/05. The last sentence of the court's minute order of 1/13/05 regarding Plaintiff's motion to compel production re: affirmative defenses is stricken. Plaintiff is given until 1/26/05 to show in support of their motion that documents were not produced in the ordinary course of business or to withdraw the motion. (jat, ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
238 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 01/13/2005; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
239 MOTION by Plaintiffs for an order limiting defendant's contact with class members and directing issuance of a corrective notice (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
240 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of MOTION 239 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/26/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
241 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by Woodward Governor Company and REQUEST for protective order regarding working lead interrogatory (jat, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
242 REPLY by Plaintiffs to supplement 241 regarding defendant's 1/20/05 submission concerning working leaders; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
243 Exhibit E to Plaintiffs' motion for an order limiting defendant's contact with class members and directing issuance of a corrective notice 239 by plaintiffs ; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
244 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Motion for an order limiting contact 239 is denied. Defendant given to 2/1/05 to submit in writing representation regarding contact with employees as stated in open court. Parties' comments regarding the notice is due 1/31/05. Mailed notice. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
245 Comments on the court's proposed notices to the class by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 32 of 61

02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005
02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/03/2005 02/03/2005
02/03/2005 02/04/2005 02/07/2005
02/07/2005 02/07/2005

246 STATUS (1/31/05) concerning discovery issues and pending motions; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
247 Notice of filing; Cover letter to Judge Mahoney; Explanation of proposed changes to class notices and mechanics; Proposed notice for publication, Proposed mailed notice; Proposed exclusion form by plaintiffs (jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
248 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the Order of 1/13/05, parties submitted comments and proposals regarding class notice forms. After reviewing all suggestions, the court approves the attached legal notice, mailed notice, and exclusion forms in response to the 1/3/05 Order of the District Court to administer notice to class members. Class counsel are to proceed with publication and mailing by 2/10/05. Plaintiffs' proposed class action website is approved by the court. Defendant is directed to provide its Answer to Plaintiffs in electronic format by 2/8/05. [For further detail see attached order.] [Notices mailed by judge's staff.] (jat, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
249 Defendant's explanation regarding interrogatories 2 and 6 and Request for a protective order and guidance from the court; notice of filing by Woodward Governor Company (jat, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
250 LETTER from Jennifer Soule to Judge Mahoney dated 2/1/05. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
251 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs' motion to enforce 12/20/04 Order requiring production of documents 224 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is ordered to comply with this Order and the court's 12/20 Order within 21 days. [For further detail see attached order.] [Notices mailed by judge's staff.] (jat, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
252 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 2/2/2005: (jat, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
253 LETTER from Robert O'Connell to Magistrate Mahoney dated 2/1/05. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
254 Notice of filing; Plaintiffs' list of known/potential class members (jat, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
255 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 222 is granted. Defendant's request for a Protective Order is denied. Defendant is ordered to make a reasonable inquiry regarding "working leads" and provide responsive information to the Plaintiffs within 45 days of this order. [For further detail see attached order.] [Notices mailed by judge's staff.] (jat, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
256 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 2/3/2005: (jat, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
257 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's explanation regarding interrogatories 2 and 6 and request for protective order and guidance from court 249 ; (Exhibits) (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
258 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to deem admitted 227 is denied. Defendant's Request for a protective order is denied. Defendant's answers to Interrogatories 2 and 6 are stricken. Defendant is ordered to respond anew to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories 2 and 6, with due respect to the guidance set forth in the Order, within thirty days of receipt of this Order. [For further detail see attached order.] [Notices mailed by judge's staff.] (jat, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
259 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 2/7/2005: (jat, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
260 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 223 is granted in part. The court strikes Defendant's answer to Plaintiffs' job level Interrogatory, and orders that a new answer be submitted within thirty days of receipt of this Order. [For further details see text

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 33 of 61

02/07/2005 02/08/2005
02/11/2005 02/11/2005 02/11/2005 02/11/2005
02/22/2005 02/23/2005 02/25/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/03/2005 03/03/2005 03/03/2005 03/03/2005 03/08/2005 03/08/2005

below.] [Notices mailed by judge's staff.] (jat, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
261 STATUS Report by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
262 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held on 2/8/2005. Orders entered 2/7/05 amended as follows: Defendants given 45 days to answer interrogatories and respond. Discovery Hearing set for 3/31/2005 at 02:00 PM. Status hearing as to whether the court will take over deposition schedule set for 3/10/2005 at 02:00 PM. Mailed notice. (glg, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
263 emergency MOTION by Plaintiffs for rule to show cause (jat, ) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
264 NOTICE of Motion by all plaintiffs for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 263 before Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 2/11/2005 at 03:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
265 OPPOSITION by Woodward Governor Company to plaintiff's emergency motion ; (Attachment); Notice of filing 263 (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
266 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Plaintiffs' emergency motion for rule to show cause 263 presented. Opposition filed. Court grants relief in part as stated in open court. Motion referred to Magistrate Mahoney for further determination. (No notices required.) (jat, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
267 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to Plaintiffs' motion to show cause 263 ; notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
268 MOTION by Laurie Elkin for Plaintiffs to withdraw as attorney ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
269 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Oral argument held. Motion for RULE to show cause 263 is taken under advisement. No notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
270 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 1/26/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
271 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 2/8/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
272 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 2/11/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
273 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 2/25/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
274 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories regarding job descriptions (jat, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
275 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel production of voluntary disclosure forms (jat, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
276 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel production of updated EEO−1 data and related information (jat, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
277 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to compel 275 , motion to compel 274 , motion to compel 276 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 3/10/2005 at 02:00 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
278 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to complete deposition of plaintiff Schaid (plaintiff in 04cv50006) ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
279 For the reasons stated on the attached MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to hold defendant in contempt 263 is denied. [For further detail see attached order.] Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 3/8/2005: judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 03/09/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 34 of 61

03/09/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005
03/28/2005 03/28/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/31/2005 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/04/2005 04/14/2005 04/15/2005 04/15/2005

280 Plaintiffs' 3/8/05 STATUS Report; notice of filing (jat, ) Modified on 3/9/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 03/09/2005)
281 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to complete deposition of plaintiff Schaid (in 04cv50006) 278 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
282 3/10/05 STATUS Report by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
283 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Plaintiffs' Motion for Laurie Elkin to withdraw 268 is granted. Counsel to block off weeks of 4/16/05 and 5/2/05. Plaintiff given week of 4/16/05 to notice of depositions. Depositions may be double tracked. Defendant given week of 5/2/05 to notice depositions. Parties to submit names of deponents to court by 3/28/05. Plaintiffs' Motion to compel responses 274 is taken under advisement. Plaintiffs' Motions to compel voluntary disclosure and EEO−1 275 , 276 are granted. Defendant's Motion to complete deposition 278 is granted in part. Discovery conference contined to 3/31/2005 at 02:00 PM. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
284 Plaintiffs' deposition schedule for the week of 4/16/05; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
285 Defendant's list of depositions for the week of 5/2/05 (jat, ) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
286 DECLARATION of Jennifer K. Soule re: potential plaintiffs who have and have not timely requested exlusion; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
287 STATUS Report concerning plaintiffs' two track deposition election: week of 4/18/05; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
288 Plaintiffs' STATUS Report concerning written discovery and depositions; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
289 MOTION by Plaintiffs to extend fact discovery cut−off (jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
290 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to extend fact discovery cut−off 289 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 3/31/2005 at 02:00 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
291 STATUS Report (for 3/31/05) by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
292 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Motion for extension of time 289 is entered and continued to 5/12/05. Discovery hearing held on 3/31/2005. Court approves parties' deposition schedules. Plaintiffs given the week of 5/23/05 for the next round of deposition schedules. Defendants given the week of 6/6/05 for the next round of deposition schedules. Discovery Hearing set for 5/12/2005 at 01:30 PM. Judge's staff mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
293 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 3/31/2005; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
294 Defendant's list of depositions for the week of 5/2/05 (revised based upon opt−out information); notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
295 Plaintiffs' STATUS and substituted schedule of depositions pursuant to court order of 3/31/05; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
296 Plaintiffs' 4/7/05 SECOND SUBSTITUTED NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS 295 pursuant to the court's order of 3/31/05; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
297 Plaintiffs' MOTION to provide notice to five additional class members and to extend the time for them to determine whether they wish to opt−out or remain in the class (jat, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
298 Plaintiffs' MOTION for a protective order regarding the depositions of class members (jat, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 35 of 61

04/15/2005 04/18/2005 04/19/2005 04/19/2005 04/20/2005 04/26/2005 04/28/2005
04/28/2005
04/28/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005

299 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion for protective order 298 , motion to provide notice/to extend time 297 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 4/20/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
300 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 3/10/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
301 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's letter dated 4/14/05 is taken as a motion for aid in discovery and is denied as stated in the telephonic conference. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
302 LETTER from Steven P. Schneck, one of plaintiffs' attorneys, to Magistrate Judge Mahoney dated 4/14/05. (jat, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
303 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Stephen G. Seliger for presentment of motion for protective order 298 and motion to provide notice 297 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 4/27/2005 at 1:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
304 MEMORANDUM by Woodward Governor Company in Opposition to plaintiff's motion for a protective order regarding the depositions of class members 298 ; notice of filing (Attachments: # 1 part 1)(jat, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
305 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to provide notice to five additional class members 297 is granted. Court authorized notice to be sent by 5/4/05. Class members have until 6/3/05 to opt−out. Updated class member lists to be filed with the court by 6/6/05. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order regarding the depositions of class members 298 is granted in part and denied in part. Five class members receiving notice shall not be deposed in this case until they have opted−out or until 6/4/05. Defendant may continue with depositions set week of 5/2/05, but is limited to depostions of 10 absent class members (1.5 hours each maximum time limit). Parties to be prepared to set deposition number and limits 5/12/05. Defendant's unopposed moton to admit Michelle Landon pro hac vice and for leave to add her appearance was granted instanter as noted in open court. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
306 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Woodward Governor Company by Michelle Luthia Landon; Order entered granting leave by P. Michael Mahoney. Filing fee $ 50 paid, receipt number 1853 (Defendant's unopposed motion to admit pro hac vice and for leave to add appearance is attached) (jat, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
307 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 4/27/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
308 MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to add appearances of additional counsel for plaintiffs (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
309 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel production of pre−2004 voluntary identification forms (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
310 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel defendant to provide information regarding the payroll period used in preparing defendant's 2003 form EEO−1 report (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
311 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel privilege log relating to plaintiffs' request for production of Halbrook and Gendron documents (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
312 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel response to February 15, 2005 request for production of documents (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
313 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel production of MEC documents (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
314 MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to depose Phil Turner for a second complete day (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
315 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to compel 312 , motion to depose 314 , motion to compel 311 , motion for leave to add appearances 308 , motion to compel 309 , motion to compel 310 , motion to compel 313 before Honorable P.

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 36 of 61

05/11/2005 05/11/2005 05/11/2005 05/11/2005 05/11/2005 05/12/2005 05/12/2005
05/12/2005
05/12/2005
05/12/2005 05/16/2005 05/25/2005
05/27/2005

Michael Mahoney on 5/12/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
316 plaintiffs' May 12, 2005 STATUS Report ; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
317 MOTION by Defendant to compel plaintiffs' responses to its December 31,2004 discovery requests; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
318 NOTICE by defendant for presentment of motion to compel 317 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/12/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
319 MOTION by Defendant for leave to file additional appearance of Lawrence Schlam (jat, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
320 NOTICE by defendant for presentment of motion for leave to file 319 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/12/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
321 May 12, 2005 STATUS Report by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
322 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held. Plaintiffs and defendant's motions to file additional appearances 308 319 are granted. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of Pre2004 forms 309 is withdrawn. Plaintiffs' motion to compel info re payroll 310 is granted. Response due 5/26/05. As stated in open court, Plaintiffs' motions to compel 311 312 and 313 are granted. Response due 6/13/05. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Phil Turner 314 for 4 hours is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to extend fact discovery to 9/30/05 289 is granted. Dispositive motions due 11/14/05. Plaintiffs' FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 9/30/05. Depositions by 10/31/05. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 11/14/05. Depositions by 12/15/05. Fact depositions limited to 6 hours and 40 depositions each. Absent class members depositions limited to 1 1/2 hours. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
323 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs given leave to send class notice to D. Sananysay. Individual given to 6/13/05 to opt out. Defendant's motion to compel 317 is granted. Response to interrogatories due 6/27/05. Response to document requests due 6/13/05. Plaintiffs given the week of 6/27/05 to schedule depositions. Defendants given the week 7/11/05 to schedule depositions. Discovery conference continued to 6/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
324 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Fred Wynne, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack by Alex Reigart Montgomery, Joshua Karsh, Matthew J. Piers; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
325 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Woodward Governor Company by Lawrence Schlam (jat, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
326 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 5/12/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
327 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Given Plaintiffs' and Defendant's inability to schedule and take depositions in this case, and given their inability to schedule and take depositions when the court sets aside weeks of depositons for the parties, the court now assumes supervision of the deposition schedule in this case through the end of fact discovery, set to end 9/30/05. It is the Order of the court that parties maintain strict compliance with the deposition schedule set forth in the attached Opinion and Order. [For further detail see attached order.] judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Opinion and Order) (jat, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
328 MOTION by Plaintiffs for protective order regarding depositions and conduct thereafter (jat, ) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 37 of 61

05/27/2005 05/27/2005 05/31/2005 05/31/2005 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 06/01/2005 06/02/2005
06/02/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/07/2005
06/08/2005 06/15/2005 06/16/2005

329 NOTICE by all plaintiffs for presentment of motion for protective order 328 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 6/1/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
330 Defendant's list of deponents and suggested deposition schedule for the week of June 6−10; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
331 DECLARATION of Genaro Perez by plaintiffs; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
332 Plaintiffs' May 27, 2005 notice of depositions to be taken during the week of June 27, 2005 pursuant to the court's order of May 12, 2005; notice of filing(jat, ) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
333 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Motion for protective order 328 is taken under advisement. Set deadlines as to motion for protective order 328 : Responses due by 6/15/2005 Replies due by 6/22/2005. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is tht party's obligation, wtihin the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Judge's staff mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
334 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's suggested deposition schedule for the week of June 6th 330 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
335 Defendant's submission of facts regarding its proposed deposition schedule for the week of June 6−10; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
336 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the Order of the court that defendant's deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward June 6−10, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
337 REPLY by Plaintiffs to defendant's submission regarding its proposed deposition schedule 335 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
338 MOTION by Plaintiffs for protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c) concerning production of consulting expert for deposition (jat, ) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
339 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion for protective order 338 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 6/8/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
340 RESPONSE by Defendant to plaintiffs' suggested deposition schedule for the week of June 27, 2005 332 ;notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
341 June 6, 2005 Updated Class List by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
342 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the Order of the court that plaintiffs' deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward June 27−July 1, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
343 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Motion for protective order 338 is denied as stated in open court. Deposition to be held at the courthouse on 6/10/05 at 10:30 am. No notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
344 Defendant's list of deponents and suggested deposition schedule for the week of July 11−15; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
345 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order regarding depositions and conduct thereafter 328 (jat, ) (Entered: 06/16/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 38 of 61

06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005
06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/21/2005
06/21/2005 06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005

346 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel response to 3/18/05 interrogatories regarding job postings (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
347 MOTION by Plaintiffs to enforce the court's 5/12/05 order (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
348 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel response to 5/2/05 interrogatories regarding coding information (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
349 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to enforce 347 , motion to compel 348 , motion to compel 346 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 6/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
350 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's suggested deposition schedule for the week of July 11th 344 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
351 STATUS Report of 6/21/05 by Woodward Governor Company; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
352 MOTION by Defendant to enforce case management order and for a protective order regarding plaintiffs' interrogatories in excess of seventy−five ; notice of filing (Attachments: # 1 part 1# 2 part 2# 3 part 3)(jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
353 MOTION by Defendant for protective order regarding plaintiffs' proposed depositions of Woodward's top officers and executives ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
354 June 21, 2005 STATUS Report by Plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
355 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the Order of the court that defendant's deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward July 11−15, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
356 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to plaintiffs' motion to compel response to 5/2/05 interrogatories regarding coding information 348 (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
357 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to Plaintiffs' motion to enforce court's 5/12/05 order 347 and to compel response to 3/18/05 interrogatories 346 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
358 MINUTE entry before Judge Patrick M. Mahoney : Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 346 is withdrawn as resolved. Plaintiffs' Motion to enforce 347 re: coding is taken under advisement. Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 348 is taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion to enforce 352 is taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for protective order 353 is granted in part and denied in part. Discovery hearing held on 6/21/2005. Plaintiffs' week for depositions is changed to 8/1/05 through 8/5/05. Plaintiff to name deponents by 7/6/06. Defendants to respond by 7/12/05. Court will enter order on 7/13/05. Discovery Hearing set for 8/26/2005 at 02:30 PM. Judge's staff mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
359 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's status report regarding depositions 351 and preliminary RESPONSE to motion for protective order regarding proposed depositions 353 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
360 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to enforce case management order and for a protective order 352 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
361 REPLY memorandum by Plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' motion for a protective order regarding depositions and conduct thereafter 328 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
362 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 6/1/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 39 of 61

06/22/2005 06/22/2005 06/29/2005
06/30/2005
07/05/2005 07/12/2005 07/12/2005 07/13/2005
07/13/2005 07/13/2005
07/19/2005
07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/21/2005

363 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 6/8/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
364 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 6/21/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
365 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 6/29/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' 5/27/05 motion for a protective order 328 is denied. [For further detail see attached order.]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Opinion and Order)(jat, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
366 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 6/30/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, defendant's 6/17/05 motion to enforce case management order and for a protective order regarding plaintiffs' interrogatories in excess of seventy−five 352 is denied. [For further detail see attached order.] judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Opinion and Order)(jat, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
367 Plaintiffs' 7/1/05 notice of depositions to be taken during the week of 8/1/05 pursuant to the court's order of 6/21/05 (jat, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
368 Defendant's list of deponents and suggested deposition schedule for the week of August 8−12; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
369 RESPONSE by Defendant to plaintiffs' suggested deposition schedule for the week of August 1, 2005 367 and agreed schedule; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
370 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the Order of the court that plaintiffs' deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward August 1−5, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
371 Woodward's revised Response to plaintiffs' suggested deposition schedule for the week of August 1, 2005 and agreed schedule 369 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
372 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Based on the 7/13/05 representations of defendant, it is the Order of the court that plaintiffs' deposition schedule, as revised below, go forward August 1−5, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
373 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the order of the court that defendant's deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward August 8−12, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
374 MOTION by Plaintiffs to provide notice to potential additional class members and to extend the time for them to determine whether they wish to opt−out or remain in the class (jat, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
375 MOTION by Plaintiffs for leave to depose John Halbrook, Thomas Gendron, Rick Holm, Steve Meyer, Dennis Benning, James Hoyt and Carol Smith (Attachments: # 1 part 1# 2 part 2# 3 part 3)(jat, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
376 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to provide notice 374 , motion to depose 375 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 7/22/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
377 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Soule for presentment of motion to provide notice 374 and motion to take deposition 375 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 7/27/2005 at 1:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 40 of 61

07/21/2005 07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005
07/29/2005 08/02/2005
08/09/2005 08/11/2005 08/12/2005 08/16/2005 08/17/2005 08/17/2005

378 AMENDED EXHIBIT 3 to plaintiff's motion for leave to depose John Halbrook, Thomas Gendron, Rick Holm, Steve Meyer, Dennis Benning, James Hoyt and Carol Smith 375 ; Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
379 NOTICE by plaintiffs of depositions to be taken during the week of 8/22/05 pursuant to the court's order dated 6/21/05; Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
380 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for additional time to respond to interrogatories and for briefing schedule regarding motions noticed during counsel's absence; Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
381 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' 6/17/05 Motion to compel response to 5/2/05 interrogatories regarding coding information 348 is denied without prejudice. Parties to hold 37.2 conference in light of the court's 6/30/05 ruling. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
382 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' Motion to provide notice to additional class member 374 is entered and continued. Parties to hold FRCP 37.2 conference. Plaintiffs' Motion to take deposition of higher level managment 375 is taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for extension of time to file response to interrogatories to 8/17/05 is granted in part. Set briefing on plaintiffs' motion to take deposition 375 of higher level management: Responses due by 8/9/2005 Replies due by 8/12/2005. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Magistrate Judge will rule. Judge's staff mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
383 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to plaintiffs' suggested deposition schedule for the week of 8/22/05 379 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
384 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the order of the court that plaintiffs' deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward August 22−26, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
385 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to plaintiff's motion for leave to depose John Halbrook, Thomas Gendron, Rick Holm, Steve Meyer, Dennis Benning, James Hoyt and Carol Smith 375 ; notice of filing (Attachments: # 1 part 1)(jat, ) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
386 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Docket entry of 6/21/05 is amended as follows: Plaintiff's Motion to enforce 347 is withdrawn as resolved. No notice (glg, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
387 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in Support of MOTION for leave to depose John Halbrook, Thomas Gendron, Rick Holm, Steve Meyer, Dennis Benning, James Hoyt and Carol Smith 375 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
388 PROPOSED List by Woodward Governor Company of deponents and suggested deposition schedule for the week of September 12−16, 2005; Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
389 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 7/27/2005; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
390 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Depose 375 is granted in part. Plaintiffs are given leave to depose John Halbrook for 3.5 hours, Thomas Gendron for 3 hours, Rick Holm for 6 hours, Steve Meyer for 3 hours, Dennis Benning for 3 hours, James Hoyt for 1.5 hours and Carol Smith for 3.5 hours. The scope of the depositions should be confined to those issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion, and the depositions should be held at reasonable times and reasonable places, to be worked out by the parties. (For further detail see attached order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff. (jmm−r, ) Additional attachment(s) added

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 41 of 61

08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005
08/19/2005 08/22/2005
08/22/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005

on 8/17/2005 (jmm−r, ). (Entered: 08/17/2005)
391 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's proposed list of deponents and deposition schedule for the week of September 12−16, 2005 388 ; Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
392 MOTION by Plaintiffs for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) concerning defendant's deposition schedule for the week of September 12−16, 2005; (Exhibits) (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
393 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Soule for presentment of motion for protective order 392 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/26/2005 at 1:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
394 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the Order of the court that Defendant's deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward 9/12−16,05. Plaintiff's 8/18/05 Motion for a Protective Order regarding the depositions of Sallis and Triplett 392 is considered presented. Defendant is given 14 days to respond; Plaintiffs 7 days to reply. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this Order, to so notify the court in writing. Defendant's proposed 30(b)(6) depositions are struck as not authorized by the Federal Rules. (For further details see text below.) Notices mailed by judge's staff. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
395 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Soule for presentment of motion for a protective order 392 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/26/2005 at 2:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) Modified on 8/19/2005 (jmm−r, ). (Entered: 08/19/2005)
396 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Production of Documents Containing Representations of Compliance with Federal−Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
397 NOTICE of Motion by Joshua Karsh for presentment of before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/26/2005 at 02:30 PM. (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
398 MOTION by Plaintiffs to extend time for filing expert disclosures (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
399 MOTION by Plaintiffs to provide notice to additional class members (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
400 MOTION (August 26, 2005) by Plaintiffs to compel (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
401 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel certification that production of documents is complete (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
402 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to compel 400 , motion to compel 401 , motion to extend time 398 , motion to provide 399 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/26/2005 at 02:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
403 MOTION by Defendant to extend the time for filing its rule 56 motion for summary judgment (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
404 MOTION by Defendant to enforce this court's 5/25/05 order (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
405 MOTION by Defendant to compel plaintiffs to provide full and complete responses to its 12/31/04 interrogatories and for time to answer plaintiffs' 12/28/04 interrogatories regarding affirmative defenses after plaintiffs have answered (Attachments: # 1 part 1)(jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
406 NOTICE by defendant for presentment of motion to compel, 405 , motion to enforce 404 , motion for extension of time 403 before Honorable P. Michael

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 42 of 61

08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/29/2005
08/29/2005
08/31/2005

Mahoney on 8/26/2005 at 02:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
407 STATUS Report [8/26/05] by plaintiffs; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
408 STATUS Report [8/26/05] by Woodward Governor Company (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
409 MOTION by Defendant for protective order regarding plaintiffs' counsel's interference with Woodward's relationship with the third parties [and response]; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
410 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to MOTION to compel production of documents regarding compliance with federal contractor affirmative action obligations 396 ; [and motion]; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
411 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's MOTION for a protective order 409 ; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
412 Plaintiffs' proposed designation notice of depositions to be taken during the week of 9/19/05, pursuant to previous order of court; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
413 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Woodward's MOTION to enforce court's 5/25/05 order 404 (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
414 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion to extend the time for filing its motion for summary judgment 403 (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
415 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Woodward's MOTION to compel responses to interrogatories and for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiffs' interrogatories regarding affirmative defenses 405 (jat, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
416 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held 8/26/05. Fact discovery cutoff extended to 11/11/05. Dispositive motions due 12/21/05. Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) disclosures due 12/1/05; depositions by 1/23/06. Defendant's 26(a)(2) disclosures due 2/6/06; depositions by 3/6/06. Discovery hearing set for 10/11/05 at 1:30pm. Parties to file agreed master deposition schedule by 9/9/05. Plaintiffs' 8/24/05 motion to provide notice 399 is withdrawn; parties to submit Agreed Order by 9/6/05 and inform the court of any changes to the class list after 28 day opt−out period. Plaintiffs' 8/24/05 motion to compel certification 401 is granted in part. All parties are required to certify that production of documents is complete according to the Federal Rules by 11/28/05. Plaintiffs' 8/24/05 August 26, 2005 motion to compel 400 is denied without prejudice. Parties to conduct a meaningful 37.2 conference within 21 days. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
417 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held 8/26/5. Plaintiffs' 7/20/05 motion to provide notice and Plaintiffs' 8/18/05 motion for a protective order (re: Sallis and Triplett) are withdrawn as moot. Plaintiffs' 8/24/05 motion to extend time for filing expert disclosures, Defendant's 8/24/05 motion to enforce, and Defendant's 8/24/05 motion to extend time are denied as mooted by the court's scheduling extensions. Plaintiffs' 8/24/05 motion to compel production of documents, Defendant's 8/24/05 motion to compel complete responses, and Defendant's 8/25/05 motion for a protective order are taken under advisement. Magistrate Judge will rule. 374 , 392 , 396 , 398 , 403 , 404 , 405 , 409 judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
418 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 8/31/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court grants plaintiffs' 8/22/05 motion to compel 396 in part and orders defendant to produce all documents responsive to plaintiffs' 5/2/05 document request. However, the court limits the production in two ways. First, the court gives defendant permission to redact the identifying information of private, non−governmental entities contained in documents produced. Second, the court grants defendant's 8/25/05 motion for a protective order 409 in part by restricting plaintiffs from releasing to private, non−governmental entities information and documents produced by defendant regarding certifications. [For further detail see

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 43 of 61

09/01/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/06/2005
09/06/2005
09/06/2005 09/08/2005
09/09/2005 09/12/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005

attached order.] judge's staff mailed notice(jat, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
419 Defendant's list of deponents and suggested deposition schedule for the week of September 27−28; notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
420 plaintiffs' 9/2/05 STATUS Report concerning deposition schedule and response to defendant's 8/30/05 proposed deposition notice; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
421 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to provide a copy of the class notice to the following individuals: Jose Inostroza, Atanasio Cruz, Anita Perez, Sara Velasquez, Linda Sanchez, Hermelinda Thompson, and Alex Rodriguez. The foregoing individuals shall have 28 days to exercise their option to opt−out of the class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs' counsel to send updated class list at the end of the opt−out period. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
422 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the order of the court that plaintiffs' deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward September 16−23, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
423 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to the court's 5/25/05 assumption of scheduling depositions in this case, it is the order of the court that defendant's deposition schedule, as set forth below, go forward September 27−28, 2005. If a party intends to move for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c), it is that party's obligation to so notify the court. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
424 STATUS Report by Woodward Governor Company regarding plaintiffs' proposed deposition schedule for September; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
425 MEMORANDUM Opinion and OrderSigned by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 9/8/2005: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, and in the attached breakdown of interrogatories and responses, defendant's 8/24/05 motion to compel plaintiffs to provide full and complete responses 405 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are ordered to supplement interrogatories #1,2 and 5 and to respond anew to interrogatories #3 and 4 within twenty−one days of receipt of this order. The court strikes interrogatory #6 as overly burdensome. [For further detail see attached order.]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER# 2 ATTACHMENT)(jat, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
426 Plaintiff's 9/9/05 STATUS concerning master agreed deposition schedule, notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
427 STATUS Report for 9/09/05 by Woodward Governor Company concerning master agreed deposition schedule; (Attachment); Notice of filing (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
428 MOTION by Plaintiffs for instructions concerning previously privileged documents and request for protective order; (Attachments) (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
429 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Soule for presentment of motion for instructions 428 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/11/2005 at 1:30 PM. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
430 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's 9/14/05 Motion for Instructions Concerning Previously Privilieged Documents and Request for Protective Order will be presented 10/11/05, at 1:30 p.m. It is the Order of the court that Plaintiff's counsel send notice of the Motion and hearing to Mr. Box so that Mr. Box (and/or counsel for Mr. Box) may appear. Notices mailed by judge's staff. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 44 of 61

09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/21/2005 09/22/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005 10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/06/2005
10/06/2005

431 MOTION by Plaintiffs to compel defendant's counsel to comply with court orders, provide discovery materials and information and for sanctions (jat, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
432 NOTICE by plaintiffs for presentment of motion to compel, motion for sanctions 431 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 9/23/2005 at 01:30 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
433 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 8/26/05; Before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (jat, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
434 SUPPLEMENT by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to motion to compel, motion for sanctions 431 , including exhibits and Notice of Filing (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
435 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to depose Bong Yoon on 11/2/05 and for additional deposition time; notice of filing (jat, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
436 NOTICE by Woodward Governor Company for presentment of motion to depose 435 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 9/23/2005 at 02:00 PM. (jat, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
437 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's applications for D. Lopez and D. Turner to appear pro hac vice are granted. Defendant to comply with all outstanding discovery by 10/7/05. Plaintiff's motion to compel, comply and for sanctions presented. Response due 10/3/05. Reply due 10/11/05. Magistrate Judge will rule. Defendant's motion to depose Bong Yoon on 11/2/05 and for additional deposition time 435 is granted. Deposition limited to 3 hours. docketing mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
438 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Woodward Governor Company by Daniel E Turner; Order entered granting leave by P. Michael Mahoney. Filing fee $ 50 paid, receipt number 2149 (jat, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
439 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Woodward Governor Company by Dax Lopez; Order entered granting leave by P. Michael Mahoney. Filing fee $ 50 paid, receipt number 2149 (jat, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
440 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Woodward Governor Company by Dax Lopez, Daniel E Turner (jat, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
441 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Comply with Court Orders, Provide Discovery Materials and Information and for Sanctions (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
442 by Woodward Governor Company Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Response to Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit Exhibits to Response to Motion to Compel# 3 Exhibit Exhibits to Response to Motion)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
443 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to bar Defendant from Taking Depositions Not Presently Scheduled (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
444 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiffs' August 11, 2005 Interrogatories and August 11, 2005 Request for Produciton of Documents (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 45 of 61

10/06/2005
10/06/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005
10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005

(Entered: 10/06/2005)
445 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Production of Documents Relating to Incident Regarding Class Member Bobby Cates (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
446 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to bar, 443 , motion to compel, 445 , motion to compel, 444 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/11/2005 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) Modified on 10/7/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/06/2005)
447 STATUS Report for the October 11, 2005 Hearing by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
448 NOTICE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack re status report, 447 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
449 REPLY by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant's Counsel to Comply with Court Orders, Provide Discovery Materials and Information and for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − G# 2 Exhibit H − J# 3 Exhibit K − P)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
450 NOTICE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack re reply,, 449 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
451 Woodward's Motion for Additional Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' December 28, 2004 Interrogatories Regarding Affirmative Defenses (O'Connell, Robert) [document is signed by Michelle Landon] Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
452 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit A regarding Woodward's Motion for Additional Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' December 28, 2004 Interrogatories Regarding Affirmative Defenses 451 (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
453 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit B regarding Woodward's Motion for Additional Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' December 28, 2004 Interrogatories Regarding Affirmative Defenses 451 (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
454 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibt C regarding Woodward's Motion for Additional Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' December 28, 2004 Interrogatories Regarding Affirmative Defenses 451 (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
455 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit D regarding Woodward's Motion for Additional Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' December 28, 2004 Interrogatories Regarding Affirmative Defenses 451 (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
456 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to motion 428 Woodward's Response to Plaintiff's Motion For Instructions Concerning

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 46 of 61

10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005
10/07/2005
10/07/2005
10/07/2005
10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005

Previously Privileged Documents and Request For Protective Order (O'Connell, Robert)[signed by Michelle Landon] Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
457 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibits A through D regarding Response, 456 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
458 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to clarify The Court's March 8, 2005 Order and to Allow Interrogatories to Absent Class Members (O'Connell, Robert)[signed by Michelle Landon] Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
459 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibits A−E regarding MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to clarify The Court's March 8, 2005 Order and to Allow Interrogatories to Absent Class Members 458 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
460 NOTICE by Woodward Governor Company re MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to clarify The Court's March 8, 2005 Order and to Allow Interrogatories to Absent Class Members 458 , exhibit, 459 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
461 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel Woodward's Renewed Motion to Compel Answers To Its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories, or Alternatively, For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
462 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit A regarding MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel Woodward's Renewed Motion to Compel Answers To Its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories, or Alternatively, For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order 461 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
463 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibt B Part One regarding MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel Woodward's Renewed Motion to Compel Answers To Its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories, or Alternatively, For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order 461 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
464 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit B Part Two regarding MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel Woodward's Renewed Motion to Compel Answers To Its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories, or Alternatively, For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order 461 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
465 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibits C through F regarding MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel Woodward's Renewed Motion to Compel Answers To Its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories, or Alternatively, For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order 461 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
466 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion by plaintiff to clarify 458 , motion to compel, 461 , motion for additional time 451 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/11/2005 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
467 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to clarify 458 , motion to compel, 461 , motion for discovery 451 Plaintiffs' Preliminary Response to Defendant's Untimely October 7, 2005 Filings (Soule, Jennifer) Modified on 10/12/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/11/2005)
468 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re Response, 467 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
469 STATUS Report of OCTOBER 11, 2005 by Woodward Governor Company (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
470 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held on 10/11/2005. Set deadlines as to parties' motions 443 , 458 , 461 , 431 , 428 , 445 ,

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 47 of 61

10/11/2005 10/12/2005
10/13/2005 10/13/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005

444 , 451 : 3 page per issue Responses due by 10/18/2005. Magistrate Judge will rule. Fact discovery closed 11/30/05. DIpsositive motions due 2/10/06. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(2) disclosure due 2/1/06. Depositions by 2/28/06. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 3/13/06. Depositions by 4/21/06. Discovery hearing set for 11/21/05 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings Fact Discovery ordered closed by 11/30/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 2/10/2006. Discovery Hearing set for 11/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
471 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 10/12/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' 9/19/05 Motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, though the court reserves ruling on plaintiffs' Request 3 pending the seven day response period set by the court at the 10/11/05 hearing. Plaintiffs' Motion to bar depositions not presently scheduled is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion to compel production of documents regarding Bobby Cates is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 8/11/04 interrogatories and production request responses is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs' 9/14/05 Motion for instructions regarding previously privileged documents and request for protective order is denied without prejudice. Defendant's Motion for additional time to respond to interrogatories regarding affirmative defenses is denied without prejudice. Defendant's Motion to clarify 3/3/05 order and allow interrogatories to absent class members is under advisement pending the seven day response period set by the court at the 10/11/05 hearing; as is defendant's renewed Motion to compel answers to 12/31/05 interrogatories of reconsideration of the court's 9/8/05 order. The certification date is extended to 12/9/05. 428 , 431 , 443 , 444 , 445 , 451 , 458 , 461 [For further detail see attached order.]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
472 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 9/23/05 (Volumes 1). (jat, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
473 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 10/11/05 (Volumes 1). (jat, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
474 Plaintiffs' Supplementary Submission Regarding Pending Motions (re: supplement 434 , reply 449 and response 467 to motions 458 , 461 ) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A# 2 Exhibit Exs. B−E# 3 Exhibit Ex. F − Part 1# 4 Exhibit Ex. F − Part 2# 5 Exhibit Ex. G)(Soule, Jennifer) Modified on 10/19/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
475 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re supplement,, 474 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
476 SUPPLEMENTAL Report by Woodward Governor Company on the Production of Government Certifications (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/19/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
477 Woodward Governor Company's Supplemental Brief In Support Of Its October 8, 2005 Motions To Clarify And To Serve Interrogatories 458 , 459 And For Reconsideration Of This Court's September 8, 2005 Order 461 , 462 , 463 , 464 , 465 And Response To Plaintiffs' Motion To Bar Additional Unscheduled Depositions 443 (O'Connell, Robert) Modified on 10/19/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
478 STATUS Report dated October 24, 2005 Concerning Compliance with August 26 and September 23 Orders (with exhibit) by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
479 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re status report, 478 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 48 of 61

10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 10/31/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005
10/31/2005
10/31/2005
10/31/2005 11/01/2005 11/02/2005
11/03/2005

480 OBJECTIONS Woodward's Objection to the Magistrate Court's October 12, 2005, Memorandum Opinion and Order (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
481 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for extension of time Woodward's Motion to Extend the Current Rule 56 Deadline for Filing the Parties' Dispositive Motions (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
482 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor CompanyTo Reschedule The Deposition Of Thomas Gendron to November 8, 2005 (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
483 Woodward's NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 482 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/2/2005 at 10:00 AM. (O'Connell, Robert) Judge Association Modified on 10/28/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 10/27/2005)
484 RESPONSE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for extension of time Woodward's Motion to Extend the Current Rule 56 Deadline for Filing the Parties' Dispositive Motions 481 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
485 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re response to motion, 484 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
486 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for sanctions for Failure to Produce Affirmative Action Materials (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B − Part A# 3 Exhibit B − Part B)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
487 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to bar Defendant from Using or Referring to Untimely Produced Documents Relating to Kimberly Buchanan and for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D# 2 Exhibit E − F)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
488 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Deposition of Thomas Gendron and for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
489 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to compel, 488 , motion to bar, 487 , motion for sanctions, 486 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/2/2005 at 10:00 AM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
490 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion for extension of time 481 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) Judge Association/Text Modified on 11/1/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/01/2005)
491 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court has reviewed motions by both parties noticed up for 11/2/05 (plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, plaintiffs' motion to bar, plaintiffs' motion to compel, defendant's motion to reschedule). Finding none of the motions to be emergency motions, the court considers them presented and resets them for 11/21/05 at 1:30pm. Parties are reminded that only emergency motions are allowed on the court's regular call days. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
492 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett,

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 49 of 61

11/03/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005
11/09/2005 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005
11/17/2005

Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to objections 480 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3# 2 Exhibit 4−6)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
493 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re Response, 492 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
494 REPLY by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to motion for extension of time 481 , response to motion, 484 Woodward's Reply in Further Support of Its Motion to Extend the Current Rule 56 Deadline for Filing the Parties Dispositive Motions (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
495 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 11/7/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's Motion to clarify the court's 3/8/05 Order and to allow interrogatories to absent class members 458 is denied. [For further detail see attached order.] judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
496 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 11/7/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' 9/19/05 Motion to compel defendant's counsel to comply with court order, provide discovery materials and information 431 is granted in part and denied in part with regards to request 2(c). Full production in accordance with the court's outstanding orders regarding affirmative action certifications to occur by 11/30/05. [For further detail see attached order.] judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
497 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 11/9/2005: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, defendant's motion to compel answers to its 12/31/04 interrogatories, or alternatively, for reconsideration of the court's 9/8/05 order 461 is denied. judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
498 REPLY by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to memorandum opinion and order 471 , objections 480 , Response, 492 Defendant's Reply In Further Support Of Its Objection To Magistrate Court's October 12, 2005, Memorandum Opinion and Order (O'Connell, Robert) Text Modified on 11/15/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/15/2005)
499 Re−Notice of Motions USDC Docket Nos. 428 and 445 (previously filed and denied without prejudice) NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
500 STATUS Report for November 21, 2005 Status Hearing by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
501 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re status report, 500 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
502 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Defendant's Counsel to Comply with Court Orders, Provide Discovery Responses and Produce Witnesses for Depositions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F# 2 Exhibit G−K)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
503 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to compel, 502 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/17/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 50 of 61

11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005
11/23/2005 11/28/2005

504 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for extension of time Woodward Governor Company's Motion for an Extension of the Fact Discovery Deadline and Bifurcation of the Document Certification Deadline (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
505 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for sanctions Woodward's Motion to Hold Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Civil Contempt and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
506 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion for extension of time 504 , motion for sanctions 505 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/21/2005 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
507 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Defendant's objection 480 to the magistrate judges order of 10/12/05 is denied. [For further detail see text below] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
508 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company to MOTION by Plaintiffs 487 Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar Defendant From Using or Referring to Untimely Produced Documents Relating to Kimberly Buchanan and For Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7)(O'Connell, Robert)(document signed by Laura O'Connell) Text Modified on 11/21/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/18/2005)
509 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to motion for sanctions 505 with Exhibits (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
510 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re Response, 509 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
511 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : All motions noticed up for presentment should be electronically filed and delivered in hard copy format to the court at least 48 hours prior to the motion date. Under Fed.R.Civ.P.6, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the computation of time. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
512 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held 11/21/05. Fact Discovery cut−off 1/6/06; Certification by 1/17/06. Dispositive Motions and Defendant's 26(a)(2) disclosures due 3/30/06. Discovery hearing set for 1/19/06 at 1:30pm. Plaintiffs' November motion to compel defendant to comply with court orders and provide discovery is taken under advisement. Plaintiffs to notify the court which sections need rulings by 11/28/05. Defendant given until 12/5/05 to respond; plaintiffs' 12/12/05 to reply. Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions for failure to produce affirmative action materials is granted in part and denied in part; production to occur by 12/5/05. Plaintiffs' motion to bar defendant from using is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition of Gendron is granted in part and denied in part; deposition to occur on 12/16/05 in Rockford at a reasonable times and places. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents re: Bobby Cates is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for instructions and protective order is denied as moot. Defendant's motion to reschedule Gendron deposition, motion for extension of fact discovery and bifurcation, and motion to extend Rule 56 deadline are denied as mooted by the court's order. Defendant's motion for sanctions is denied. 428 445 481 482 486 487 488 502 504 505 judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
513 OBJECTIONS Woodward Governor Company's Objection to the Magistrate Court's November 7, 2005 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Attachments: # 1)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
514 STATUS Report Submission Regarding Status of Items Addressed in Plaintiffs' November 21, 2005 Motion to Compel by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 51 of 61

11/28/2005 11/29/2005
11/29/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005
12/06/2005 12/06/2005 12/06/2005 12/08/2005
12/08/2005 12/09/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005

515 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re status report, 514 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
516 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to objections 513 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B − Part 1# 3 Exhibit B − Part 2# 4 Exhibit B − Part 3# 5 Exhibit B − Part 4# 6 Exhibit C)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
517 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re Response, 516 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
518 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to motion to compel, 502 , status report, 514 Woodward's Response to Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Status of Items Addressed in Plaintiffs' November 21, 2005 Motion to Compel (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
519 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for leave to file a Corrected Copy of Woodward's Response to Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Status of Items Addressed in Plaintiffs' November 21, 2005 Motion to Compel (O'Connell, Robert) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
520 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion for leave to file, 519 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/19/2006 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) Judge Association/Text Modified on 12/6/2005 (jat, ). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
521 Document not considered filed by the court; pending court decision on Motion 519 (Entered: 12/06/2005)
522 Document not considered filed by the court; pending court decision on Motion 519 (Entered: 12/06/2005)
523 REPLY by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to Response, 518 Plaintiffs' Reply Regarding the Status of Items Addressed in Plaintiffs' November 21, 2005 Motion to Compel (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
524 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re reply, 523 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
525 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's 12/6/05 Motion for leave to file a Corrected Copy of Woodward's Response to Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Status of Items Addressed in Plaintiffs' November 21, 2005 Motion to Compel 519 is considered presented and is allowed. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
526 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Defendant to Comply with Court Orders and to Provide Response to May 20, 2005 Interrogatory No. 1 (exhibits attached) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
527 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Response to Plaintiffs' October 31, 2005 Interrogatories and Plaintiffs' October 31, 2005 Request for Production of Documents (exhibits attached) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
528 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 52 of 61

12/14/2005
12/14/2005 12/14/2005 12/14/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/21/2005

Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Plaintiffs' December 14, 2005 Motion to Compel Depositions (exhibits attached) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
529 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to enforce November 7, 2005 Order and to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E# 2 Exhibit F, Part 1# 3 Exhibit Part 2# 4 Exhibit F, Part 3# 5 Exhibit Part 4# 6 Exhibit F, Part 5# 7 Exhibit F, Part 6# 8 Exhibit F, Part 7# 9 Exhibit F, Part 8# 10 Exhibit F, Part 9# 11 Errata F, Part 10# 12 Exhibit F, Part 11# 13 Exhibit F, Part 12# 14 Exhibit F, Part 13# 15 Exhibit F, Part 14# 16 Exhibit F, Part 15# 17 Exhibit F, Part 16# 18 Exhibit F, Part 17# 19 Exhibit F, Part 18# 20 Exhibit G − J# 21 Exhibit K − R)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
530 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to compel, 526 , motion to compel, 527 , motion to compel, 528 , motion to enforce,,, 529 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 12/16/2005 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
531 Plaintiffs' Rule 37 Certification and Notice of Filing by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
532 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 11/21/05 (Volumes 1). (jat, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
533 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 12/15/2005: Plaintiffs' 11/21/05 Motion to compel 502 is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order. [For further detail see separate order.]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
534 REPLY by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to order on motion to clarify, memorandum opinion and order, terminate motions,,, 495 , objections 513 Defendant's Reply Brief in Further Support of Its Objection to the Magistrate Court's November 7, 2005, Memorandum Opinion and Order (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
535 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to compel, 527 , motion to compel, 528 , motion to enforce,,, 529 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 12/21/2005 at 02:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
536 STATUS Report Concerning EEOC Class Determination (with exhibit) by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
537 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re status report, 536 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
538 SUPPLEMENT by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to motion to enforce,,, 529 with exhibits (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
539 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re supplement, 538 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
540 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 526 , Motion to compel 527 , Motion to compel 528 , Motion to enforce 529 are taken under advisement. Set deadlines as to motion to enforce,,, 529 , motion to

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 53 of 61

12/30/2005 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/10/2006 01/10/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006
01/17/2006
01/17/2006

compel, 526 , motion to compel, 527 , motion to compel, 528 : Responses due by 1/9/2006 Replies due by 1/17/2006. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. (glg, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
541 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Defendant's objection to the magistrate judge's order of 11/7/05 is denied. [For further details see text below.] judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
542 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for extension of time Motion to Extend Deadlines for Certification (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
543 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion for extension of time 542 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/11/2006 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
544 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to order on motion to compel, order on motion to enforce, motion hearing 540 Defendant's Reponse to the Issues Presented to the Court at the December 21, 2005 Court Hearing (O'Connell, Robert) Text Modified on 1/10/2006 (jat, ). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
545 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibit A−C regarding Response, 544 , order on motion to compel, order on motion to enforce, motion hearing 540 (O'Connell, Robert) Text Modified on 1/10/2006 (jat, ). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
546 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibits D−E regarding Response, 544 , exhibit 545 , order on motion to compel, order on motion to enforce, motion hearing 540 (O'Connell, Robert) Text Modified on 1/10/2006 (jat, ). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
547 EXHIBIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company Exhibits F−K regarding Response, 544 , exhibit, 546 , exhibit 545 , order on motion to compel, order on motion to enforce, motion hearing 540 (O'Connell, Robert) Text Modified on 1/10/2006 (jat, ). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
548 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' Motion for extension of time to extend deadlines for certification to 1/31/06 542 is granted. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
549 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for order Plaintiffs' Motion for Court to Enter Order Setting Schedule for Defendant to Comply with Certain Discovery Requests (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
550 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Responses to Plaintiffs' December 1, 2005 Discovery Requests (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G# 2 Exhibit H−I)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
551 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for extension of time Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
552 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to enforce December 15, 2005 Order (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 54 of 61

01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006
01/17/2006 01/17/2006

553 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Requests to Admit Facts (with exhibits) (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
554 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to compel, 553 , motion for extension of time, 551 , motion to enforce, 552 , motion to compel, 550 , motion for order, 549 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/19/2006 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
555 DECLARATION of Jennifer K. Soule regarding motion to compel, 553 , motion for extension of time, 551 , motion for order, 549 , motion to enforce, 552 , motion to compel, 550 by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
556 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re declaration, 555 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
557 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel the Depositions of Kim Buchanan, Timothy Link, and Tony Triplett and Brief in Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − December 7, 2005 letter# 2 Exhibit B − December 16, 2005 letter# 3 Exhibit C − December 19, 2005 letter# 4 Exhibit D − December 20, 2005 letter# 5 Exhibit E − Notice of Deposition for Kimberly Buchanan# 6 Exhibit F − Notice of Deposition of Timmy Link# 7 Exhibit G − Notice of Deposition of Tony Triplett# 8 Exhibit H − December 30, 2005 letter# 9 Exhibit I − January 5, 2006 letter)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
558 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for protective order Preventing Discovery of Electronic Data (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Woodward's Motion for Protective Order Preventing Discovery of Electronic Data# 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' October 31 Request for Production# 3 Exhibit B − Affidavit of Sandy Schmit)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
559 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for protective order Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs' May 2, 2005 Document Request (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
560 STATUS Report Woodward's January 19, 2006 Status Report by Woodward Governor Company (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
561 REPLY by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motions to Compel and Motion to Enforce Presented to the Court on December 21, 2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B# 2 Exhibit C# 3 Exhibit D−G# 4 Exhibit H−J# 5 Exhibit K−P)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
562 SUPPLEMENT by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to reply,, 561 Post Script to the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motions to Compel and Motion to Enforce Presented to the Court on December 21, 2005 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
563 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re supplement, 562 , reply,, 561 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
564 STATUS Report for January 19, 2006 Hearing by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 55 of 61

01/17/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006
01/19/2006
01/19/2006

Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
565 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re status report, 564 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
566 RESPONSE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company for protective order Preventing Discovery of Electronic Data 558 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
567 RESPONSE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to compel the Depositions of Kim Buchanan, Timothy Link, and Tony Triplett and Brief in Support Thereof 557 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B# 2 Exhibit C# 3 Exhibit D−G)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
568 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re response to motion, 566 , response to motion,, 567 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
569 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for protective order regarding 5/2/05 document request 559 is withdrawn. Defendant's motion to compel depositions 557 is granted in part, depositions limited to two hours each and are confined to issues raised in plaintiffs' supplemental response to contention interrogatories. Defendant's motion for protective order preventing discovery of electronic data 558 is granted as stated in open court. Counsels for the parties will be contacted by the District Court Judge regarding status with the District Court. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
570 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion for court to enter order setting schedule for defendant to comply is mooted by defendant's representations of production by 1/31/06. Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to 12/1/05 discovery is mooted by defendant's representations; any remaining issues with 12/1/05 interrogatory #1 should be addressed by both parties in conjunction with comments on 10/31/05 interrogatory #3 due 1/26/06. Plaintiffs' motion to extend deadline for disclosures is mooted by the court's order. Plaintiffs' motion to enforce 12/15/05 order is mooted by representations of defendant. Plaintiffs' motion to determine the sufficiency of responses to request to admit is taken under advisement. Response due 1/27/06; Reply due 2/3/06. If a party does not intend to respond or reply, it is that party's obligation to so 549 , 550 , 551 , 552 , 553 judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
571 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' Motion to compel 527 responses to 10/31/05 interrogatories and production requests remains under advisement with respect to interrogatory #3. Both parties given until 1/26/06 to comment on issues raised in open court. With respect to production request #10 and #11, plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice based on defendant's representation that it will produce by 1/31/06. With respect to production request #7, plaintiffs' motion is denied. With respect to production request #6, plaintiffs' motion is mooted based on defendant's representation that it will produce by 1/31/06. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
572 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held 1/19/06. Dispositive Motion due date moved to 5/1/06. Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) disclosures due 3/1/06; depositions by 3/31/06. Defendant's 26(a)(2) disclosures due 4/28/06; depositions by 5/19/06. Discovery conference set for 2/23/06; 1:30pm. Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the court's 11/7/05 order is denied without prejudice based on defendant's representations. Plaintiffs' motion to compel compliance with court ordered production of response to 5/20/05 interrogatory #1 is withdrawn as moot. Plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions is granted in part, as stated in open court. 526 , 528 , 529 judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 56 of 61

01/23/2006 01/26/2006 01/26/2006
01/27/2006
01/30/2006
01/30/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006

573 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing before Judge Reinhard set for 2/1/2006 at 11:30 AM. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
574 RESPONSE by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to order on motion to compel, text entry,,,, 571 to the Court's Request Relating to the Number of Interrogatories Plaintiffs Have Expended to Date (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
575 REPLY by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to Response 574 including Ex. A and Notice of Filing (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
576 RESPONSE by Woodward Governor Company in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie 553 to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Requests to Admit Facts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' October 31, 2005 Requests to Admit Facts# 2 Exhibit B − Woodward's Response to Plaintiffs' October 31, 2005 Requests to Admit to Defendant# 3 Exhibit C − Transcript of January 19, 2006 Hearing)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
577 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 1/30/2006: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' 12/14/05 Motion to compel a response to their 10/31/05 interrogatory #3 527 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is ordered to respond to interrogatory #3, sub−parts 1−10, by 2/20/06. [For further detail see separate order.]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
578 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to withdraw Laura A. O'Connell's Agreed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Woodward Governor Company (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
579 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael O'Connell for presentment of motion to withdraw 578 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 2/23/2006 at 01:30 PM. (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
580 Document Certification by Woodward Governor Company (O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
581 MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to withdraw and to Substitute Local Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(O'Connell, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
582 Plaintiffs' January 31, 2006 Document Certification by Jennifer K. Soule by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack and Notice of Filing/Certificate of Service (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
583 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 12/21/05. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
584 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 1/11/06. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
585 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 1/19/06. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
589 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing held and continued for telephone conference on 2/16/2006 at 03:30 PM. Plaintiff to arrange call. open court notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 57 of 61

02/02/2006
02/03/2006
02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/14/2006
02/14/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/17/2006
03/09/2006 03/10/2006

586 RESPONSE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor Company to withdraw and to Substitute Local Counsel 581 and Notice of Filing/Certificate of Service (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
587 REPLY by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Fred Wynne, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack in Support of Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Requests to Admit 553 (Karsh, Joshua) Motion Linked on 2/6/2006 (jat, ). (Entered: 02/03/2006)
588 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re reply, 587 (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
590 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's agreed motion for Nancy E. Rafuse to appear pro hac vice and for leave to add her appearance for defendant is granted. docketing mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
591 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Woodward Governor Company by Nancy E. Rafuse; Order entered granting leave by P. Michael Mahoney. Filing fee $ 50 paid, receipt number 2377 (agreed motion to admit pro hac vice attached) (jat, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
592 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for extension of time Agreed Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Schedule (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
593 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion for extension of time, 592 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 2/17/2006 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
594 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 2/16/2006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 3/29/2006 at 10:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
595 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Parties' agreed Motion for extension of time 592 is granted. Defendant given to 3/16/06 to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 5/1/06. Depositions by 5/31/06. Defendant's FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure due 7/1/06. Deposition by 7/20/06. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
596 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Telephonic conference with attorneys for the parties held. The court will meet with the attorneys and representatives of the parties separately, and has reserved 3/9/06 and 3/10/06 at 3:30pm for each session. Counsel shall confirm those dates with the court's secretary or minute clerk. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
597 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 2/17/2006: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiffs' 1/17/06 Motion to determine the sufficiency of responses to request to admit facts 553 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is given until 2/28/06 to amend responses to requests to admit #'s 2,3,11,12,15−19 and 36. [For further detail see separate order.] judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER)(jat, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
598 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing held. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
599 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing held. The clerk is directed to terminate the following attorneys from the docket sheet as they should no longer be receiving notices in this case. Michael W. Duffe, Laura A. O'Connell, Lawrence Schlam, Michele K. McKellar, Michelle Luthia Landon, and Robert

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 58 of 61

03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/29/2006
04/28/2006 05/05/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006 07/11/2006 08/18/2006 09/14/2006
09/21/2006 10/03/2006 10/04/2006

Michael O'Connell. At the telephonic discovery hearing set with Magistrate Mahoney on 3/29/06 at 10:30am, parties are to address which attorneys are still active in the case and whether or not they should be receiving notices. The court grants Laura O'Connell's agreed motion to withdraw # 578 . judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
600 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge P. Michael Mahoney held on 2/1/06. (jat, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
601 not considered filed by the court (Entered: 03/22/2006)
602 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Woodward Governor Company by Keenan Jakarta Saulter (Saulter, Keenan) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
603 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Woodward Governor Company by Thomas F Hurka (Hurka, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
604 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Defendant's Motion for leave to withdraw and to substitute counsel 581 is granted. R. O'Connell, C.Hartline, W. Meister and M. Landon given leave to withdraw. T. Hurka and K. Saulter given leave to file appearance. Parties are in mediation. Telephonic discovery hearing to set expert discovery set for 4/28/2006 at 10:30 AM. telephone notice (jat, ) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
605 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of counsel, Telephonic Discovery Hearing reset for 5/5/2006 at 09:45 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
606 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 5/5/2006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 5/31/2006 at 09:45 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
607 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 5/31/2006 Discovery Hearing set for 6/29/2006 at 01:30 PM. Trial Counsel to appear. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
608 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of counsel, Discovery Hearing reset for 7/11/2006 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
609 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held on 7/11/2006. Discovery Hearing set for 8/17/2006 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
610 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery Conference held on 8/17/2006. Discovery Conference/ Settlement Conference set for 9/19/2006 at 02:00 PM. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
611 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing before Magistrate Judge Mahoney set for 9/19/06 is cancelled. Status before Judge Reinhard is set for 9/21/2006 at 02:00 PM. Counsel for the EEOC is requested to attend. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
612 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing held off the record and continued for status hearing at 1:30pm on 2/5/2007. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
613 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : The court amends the minute order of 9/21/06 to reflect the next status hearing is 10/05/06 at 1:30 p.m., not 2/05/07. Notified counsel by telephone. (jmm−r, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
614 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack to consolidate cases (Soule, Jennifer) Modified on 10/5/2006 (jat, ). [Case Caption stated as 06 C 50178] (Entered: 10/04/2006)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 59 of 61

10/04/2006
10/05/2006
10/05/2006 10/06/2006
10/06/2006
10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/17/2006 01/16/2007 02/12/2007

615 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, Approving Notices to Class Members and Directing that Claims and Fee Procedures Set Forth in the Consent Decree Proceed (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2 − Part One# 3 Exhibit 2 − Part Two)(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
616 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Status hearing held. Parties agreed motion to consolidate this case with case number 06 C 50178 614 is granted. Agreed motion for order preliminarily approving notices to class members, and directing that claims and fee procedure set forth in the Consent Decree proceed 615 is granted. Enter Order. Enter Consent Decree. Enter Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Claims Procedure for a Class of Minorities. Transcript of proceedings today to stand as this court's finding of fact and conclusions of law. Fairness hearing set for 1:30 pm on 2/16/07. judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
617 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 10/5/2006:(jat, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
618 For Judge's Signature, Updated Class Notices, Exhibits A(i) and B(i) to Consent Decree (to including February 16, 2007, 1:30 p.m., Fairness Hearing and related dates) by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
619 For Judge's Signature, Revised Exhibit 1, Order of Preliminary Approval (to finalize and include date of Fairness Hearing), to Agreed Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, Approving Notices to Class Members and Directing that Claims and Fee Procedures Set Forth in the Consent Decree Proceed by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
620 NOTICE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack re other, 618 , other,, 619 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
621 ORDER preliminarily approving settlement, approving notice and claims forms, and directing that claims and fee procedures in the proposed consent decree proceed: Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 10/6/2006:(jat, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
622 ORDER/ "This is a notice of a proposed class action settlement and claims procedure for a class of women" : Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 10/6/2006:(jat, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
623 ORDER/ "This is a notice of a proposed class action settlement and claims procedure for a class of minorities": Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 10/6/2006:(jat, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
624 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Woodward Governor Company(Lopez, Dax) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
625 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 10/5/06; Before the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard (las, ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
626 MOTION by Plaintiffs Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack for order

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 60 of 61

02/12/2007 02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/14/2007
02/14/2007 02/16/2007
03/14/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 02/10/2009 02/10/2009

AGREED Motion for Final Order Approving Consent Decree, Approving the Fairness of the Settlement under F.R.C.P. 23, Approving the Amounts to be Distributed to Class Members, Approving the Arbitrated Determination of Attorney's Fees, and Directing that the Provisions of the Consent Decree Shall Become Effective (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2 − Part One# 3 Exhibit 2 − Part Two# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4 − Part One# 6 Exhibit 4 − Part Two# 7 Exhibit 4 − Part Three# 8 Exhibit 4 − Part Four# 9 Exhibit 5)Associated Cases: 3:03−cv−50190, 3:06−cv−50178(Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
627 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion for order,,,,,,, 626 before Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 2/16/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
628 MEMORANDUM by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack in support of motion for order,,,,,,, 626 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
629 NOTICE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack re memorandum in support of motion, 628 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
630 Notification to Court of Arbitrator's February 13, 2007 Supplemental Award of Fees and Costs by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
631 NOTICE by Duane Parks, Brenda Riley, Darnel Royal, Robin Sallis, Velma Sanders, Barbara Smith, Tony Triplett, Janet Wilkins, Della Jarrett, Demetric Bell, Marilyn Berry, Catherine Brown, Kimberly Buchanan, Gilberto Gonzalez, Timmy Link, Eddie Manning, Jr, Kim Nachampassack re other, 630 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
632 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Fairness hearing held. The court affirms the awards of the EEOC. Plaintiffs' agreed motion Document # 626 for final approval of the fairness of the settlement, the amounts to be distributed, the arbitrated determination of attorney fees, and directing the provisions of the Consent Decree effective is granted. Enter Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Decree. [Order entered; see attached]judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
633 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge Philip G. Reinhard held on 2/16/07. (jat, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
634 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard :Enter agreed order concerning supplemental award by fee arbitrator. The court approves the supplemental award of the arbitrator of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $281,264.00.judge's staff mailed notice (jat, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
635 ORDER concerning supplemental award by fee arbitrator Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 4/3/2007:(jat, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
636 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time Until March 31, 2009 for Nancy Kreiter to Complete Her Twenty−four Month Report Required by the Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
637 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard:Joint motion for an extension of time until March 31, 2009 for Nancy Kreiter to complete her twenty−four month report required by the consent decree 636 is granted.Electronic notice (jat, ) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

Case: 3:03-cv-50190 As of: 03/27/2010 01:58 PM CDT 61 of 61

02/09/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010
02/17/2010

638 MINUTE entry before Honorable Philip G. Reinhard: Telephonic status conference held with attorneys. Final report of Nancy Kreiter, who has been overseeing implementations and compliance with the decree of February 16, 2007, expected to be submitted February 16, 2010. Electronic Notices. (jat, ) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
639 Unopposed MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor CompanyTermination of Consent Decree (Rafuse, Nancy)Text Modified on 2/17/2010 (jat, ). (Entered: 02/16/2010)
640 AFFIDAVIT by Defendant Woodward Governor Company in Support of MOTION by Defendant Woodward Governor CompanyTermination of Consent Decree 639 Final Report of Consent Decree Advisor/Monitor Nancy B. Kreiter (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Rafuse, Nancy) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
641 MINUTE entry before Honorable Philip G. Reinhard: Defendant, Woodward Governor Co., has filed an unopposed motion for termination of the consent decree entered by this court on February 16, 2007. The court has reviewed the final report of Nancy B. Kreiter and based on Ms. Kreiter's determination in her report to the court dated February 11, 2010, that defendant has satisfied the terms of the decree and that the decree should be terminated at this time. The court hereby terminates the decree and relinquishes jurisdiction over this matter.Electronic notice (pg, ) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-50178 As of: 03/19/2010 02:19 PM CDT 1 of 2
CONSALL, MAHONEY, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−50178

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Woodward Governor Company Assigned to: Honorable Philip G. Reinhard Referred to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/04/2006 Date Terminated: 02/16/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353−8558 Fax: (312) 353−8555 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886−9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

V. Defendant Woodward Governor Company

Date Filed 10/04/2006
10/04/2006 10/04/2006
10/04/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand.(jat, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (jat, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ann M Henry (jat, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson (jat, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-50178 As of: 03/19/2010 02:19 PM CDT 2 of 2

10/04/2006 10/05/2006 02/12/2007

5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Gregory M. Gochanour (jat, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
6 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Cases consolidated. [All further entries will be made in lead case only 03cv50190] (jat, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
7 Motion is being considered filed in Lead Case only [3:03−cv−50190] (jat, ). (Entered: 02/12/2007)