Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_____________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

v.

)

COMPLAINT AND

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion, and to provide appropriate relief to Ronnis Mason (“Mason”) who was adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
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

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 2 of 5
enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, United Parcel Service (“UPS”), has continuously been a New York corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, UPS has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mason filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by UPS. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Mason is a Rastafarian. As a Rastafarian, he believes that he must wear a beard to observe his religion. 8. In or around November 18, 2004, Mason applied for a seasonal driver helper position with UPS at its facility in Secaucus, New Jersey. 9. As part of the application process, UPS explained its appearance guidelines applicable for the entire company , which, among other things, prohibited beards and goatees. 10. After learning this, Mason interviewed for the position of driver helper. UPS explained the appearance guidelines again, and that he could not work as a driver helper unless he shaved his beard. Mason told UPS that he could not shave his beard because of his religion. UPS then told Mason that he could apply for an “inside” position that would not have contact with the public if he wanted to keep his beard.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 3 of 5
11. The “inside” positions suggested by UPS to Mason paid less than the driver helper position.
12. UPS refused to consider Mason for the higher paying driver helper position because he refused to shave his beard. UPS refused to hire Mason in a position requiring public contact because he wears a beard in observance of his religion and thereby UPS refused to accommodate Mason and his sincerely held religious beliefs.
13. As a result, UPS has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(a) and (b) against Mason.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mason.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining UPS, 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 religion; B. Order UPS to allow men whose religion requires them to wear a beard to serve in public contact positions; C. Order UPS to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees engaging in protected activity, and which eradicate the effects of UPS’s past and present unlawful employment practices; D. Order UPS to make Mason whole for the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 4 of 5
determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of UPS’s unlawful employment practices.
E. Order UPS to make Mason whole for the unlawful employment practices described above by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including pain, suffering and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order UPS to pay Mason for the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 5 of 5
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Dated: March 27, 2006 New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
___S/ Elizabeth Grossman_________________ Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney
___S/ Judy Keenan________________________ Judy Keenan Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
___S/ Michael Ranis________________________ Michael Ranis (3757) Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor NY, NY 10004-2112 (212) 336-3696 Michael.Ranis@eeoc.gov

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 1 of 4

HARRIET HEUER MILLER, ESQ. (4508) 955 West Side Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 201.333.3344 Attorney for Plaintiff Roniss G. Mason

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_________________________________________

) Civ. No 2:06-cv-1453 (JAP)(MCA)

RONISS G. MASON,

)

Plaintiff;

)

)

v.

)

COMPLAINT and

)

JURY DEMAND

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

NATURE OF ACTION

Plaintiff Roniss Mason brings this action against United Parcel Service, Inc., (UPS or defendant) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages resulting from unlawful religious discrimination in hiring.
JURISDICTION
1. This action is brought under, and jurisdiction is vested in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. section 1331 through 42 U.S.C.A. section 2000e (Title VII) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. section 1367 as to the pendent state law claim of unlawful discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1. The amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, interest and attorneys fees, exceeds $75,000.00.
VENUE
2. Venue is proper because the unlawful employment practices were and are being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the venue of this action is properly placed in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. section 1391.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Roniss C. Mason resides at 845 Bergen Avenue, in the City of Jersey City, County of Hudson, State of New Jersey.
4. Defendant UPS is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, was a business organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and was operating and maintaining a business for the delivery of packages at 493 County Avenue, in the Town of

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 2 of 4
Secaucus, County of Hudson, State of New Jersey and at numerous other locations in the United States and abroad.
5. At all relevant times UPS has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. sections 2000e, and has more than 15 employees employed at its Secaucus facility.
6. At all relevant times UPS has been an employer within the definition of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
7. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative procedures under 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e, in that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action against UPS on or about March 27, 2006, after issuing a Determination on June 13, 2005 that UPS discriminated against plaintiff and against other individuals of plaintiff’s religion and of certain other religions as a class (Exhibit A). Plaintiff had filed with the EEOC a Charge of Religious Discrimination against defendant on or about February 14, 2005 (Exhibit B).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
FIRST COUNT (Title VII and NJLAD)
8. On or about November 18, 2004 plaintiff applied for the job of seasonal driver’s helper at the UPS facility located at 493 County Avenue, Secaucus, New Jersey.
9. Plaintiff was at all times fully qualified for the position of seasonal driver’s helper.
10. Plaintiff completed the written application and was interviewed for the job.
11. During the November 18, 2004 hiring process, Plaintiff was advised by UPS that he was required to shave his beard to qualify for the position of seasonal driver’s helper.
12. Plaintiff explained to UPS that he could trim his beard, but he could not remove it because of his religion.
13. Plaintiff is a Rastafarian, and as a Rastafarian he sincerely believes that he must wear a beard to observe his religion.
14. During the hiring process on November 18, 2004, UPS advised plaintiff that he could not complete the application for the seasonal driver’s helper position because he refused to shave his beard, as UPS had guideline requirements which prohibited beards and goatees for certain positions including that of seasonal driver’s helper.
2

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 3 of 4

15. UPS further advised plaintiff that he could apply for an “inside” position because an “inside” position would not involve contact with the public.
16. The “inside” position paid less than that the seasonal driver’s helper’s position.
17. Defendant UPS refused to enter the interactive process of reasonably accommodating plaintiff’s religious observance.
18. Defendant UPS refused to hire plaintiff and/or to consider plaintiff for hiring because he was unable for religious reasons to shave off his beard.
19. These refusal constituted unlawful discrimination based on plaintiff’s religion.
20. As a consequence of Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff has been deprived of income, benefits, pension, and suffered anxiety, detriment to their health,, humiliation, pain and suffering and other damages.
Wherefore, plaintiff requests judgment as follows:
A. This court issue a declaratory judgment that defendant's acts, policies, practices and procedures complained of herein violated plaintiffs' rights as secured by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (NJLAD), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. section 2000e, as amended; and
B. This court enjoin defendant's acts, policies, practices and procedures complained of herein; and
C. This court award plaintiff actual and compensatory damages including lost wages, front pay, fringe benefits, social security, seniority rights and other remuneration; and
D. This court award plaintiff punitive damages because of defendant’s intentional acts in defiance of the NJLAD and Title VII which acts, if allowed to persist, would effectively thwart the public policy of the United States and the State of New Jersey; and
E. This court award plaintiff costs of suit, interest and attorneys' fees; and F. This court award such other relief as this court determines appropriate.

DATED: May 18, 2006

s/Harriet Heuer Miller HARRIET HEUER MILLER

3

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 4 of 4

JURY DEMAND
The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury on all of the triable issues of this complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

DATED: May 18, 2006

s/Harriet Heuer Miller HARRIET HEUER MILLER

4

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5-2 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5-2 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 5-2 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

Civil Action No. 06-1453 (JAP) ORDER

This matter, having been opened upon Motion by Wendy Johnson Lario, Esq., Counsel for Defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) for a Protective Order pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c)(7) [Docket Entry No. 13]; and Defendant seeking to safeguard the confidentiality of its “ intranet, computer systems, software, applications, network, and vendor provided systems, software, and networks”; and Defendant asserting that its so-called GEMS system “contains personal and confidential information about all UPS employees,” to wit, names, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, job titles and dates, and salary and bonus information; and defendant further asserting that only “District-level Human Resources managers and above are the only employees” with access to manipulate the GEMS data; and Defendant further asserting that its so-called CATS system, which is maintained by an entity that is not a party in this litigation, “contains [job] applicant flow data; information which is supplied by candidates applying for UPS job positions”; and Defendant further asserting that the information stored on the CATS system is transferred to the GEMS system only once a prospective applicant is hired, and otherwise is maintained on the CATS system; and defendant further asserting that the data from GEMS and CATS “contains personal and confidential information, the disclosure of which would violate the privacy interests of affected

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
individuals”; and Defendant further asserting that the “systems themselves are proprietary,” as they were custom-created by UPS and its vendors in response to its demands; and Defendants further asserting that the systems “reveal operational and structural information and capabilities of UPS, security measures, and proprietary business information”; and Defendant further asserting that should this private information be disclosed to the public, Defendant would be harmed by the loss of the time, effort, and expense invested in creating the intricate systems should they be compromised; and Defendant further asserting that the GEMS and CATS systems contain personal information of applicants and employees, such as social security numbers, salary information, home addresses, telephone numbers, and that those nonparty individuals would be harmed if the information were released; and Plaintiff asserting that Defendant “in effect proposes the closing of the courtroom during the trial of this matter”; and Plaintiff further asserting that any confidentiality Order “should remain in effect only during discovery”; and Plaintiff further asserting that “the EEOC litigates on the public’s behalf, and ... [any] litigation should be presumptively public”; and the Court noting that Plaintiff does not appear to raise any substantive objection to Defendant’s proposed parameters; and the Court further noting that Plaintiff’s opposition rests on the premise that Defendant should not be allowed to keep information deemed relevant for trial hidden from the public; and the Court further noting that the information sought to be protected and maintained by these systems relates to non-parties and includes highly personal information such as social security numbers and salary information; and the Court further noting that should Defendant wish to rely on the materials proposed to be protected for a motion or at trial, it would be Defendant’s responsibility and burden to have the materials sealed pursuant to L.Civ.R. 5.3(c)(6); and the Court further noting that, pursuant to L.Civ.R. 5.3(b)(2), any application for a discovery confidentiality order must describe “(a) the nature of the materials to be kept confidential, (b) the legitimate private or public interests which
2

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
warrant confidentiality, and (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result should the order no be entered” (L.Civ.R. 5.3(b)(2)); and the Court further noting that any dispute regarding the entry or confidentiality of discovery materials shall be brought before the Magistrate Judge (id.); and the Court finding that Defendant’s submission sufficiently described the nature of the materials sought to be kept confidential; and the Court further finding that there exist strong and obvious interests, both public and private, in keeping personal and employment information such as social security and telephone numbers of UPS employees and prospective employees out of the public eye during discovery, especially in this age of identity theft; and the Court further finding that Defendant would be seriously injured not only if its proprietary software were compromised, but also if its ability to keep sensitive personal information private were likewise compromised; and this matter having been considered pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 78; and for good cause having been shown;
IT IS on this 5th day of April, 2007, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Order entering a Protective Order is hereby GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that this Order solely governs the production of the material during discovery, and it is further ORDERED that the parties should confer on appropriate form of Protective Order, and submit a proposed Order to this Court for review no later than April 16, 2007.

s/ Tonianne J. Bongiovanni HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

3

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 24 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

Civil Action No. 06-1453 (JAP) PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) having requested entry of a protective order; and

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) having objected to several

provisions contained in EEOC’s proposed Order; and the Court, having reviewed the submissions

of the parties and heard oral argument on May 17, 2007; and for good cause having been shown (see

Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994)) and for the reasons stated on the

Record, it is, on this 31st day of May, 2007, hereby

ORDERED that the following documents and types of documents shall remain confidential

between the parties pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c):

(a) the names, acronyms, and identity of UPS computer systems, databases, programs, and software;

(b) the identity of UPS intranet sites;

(c) methods of access, usage requirements, and limitations relating to UPS computer systems,

databases, programs, software, and Intranet;

(d) any modifications, additions, and exclusions relating to UPS computer systems, databases,

programs, software, and intranet;

(e) the identity, description, methods of access, usage requirements, and limitations relating to

computer systems, databases, programs, and software used by UPS, but provided, maintained or

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 24 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
transmitted by third-parties; (f) the identity of any third-parties with whom UPS works or contracts to obtain, maintain, store, or transmit information relating to job applicants and employees; (g) contracts and other confidential or proprietary information between or among UPS and any thirdparty relating to computer systems, databases, programs, software, web-based applications, and its intranet; (h)data fields relating to any system, database, program, web-based application, or software maintained by UPS or utilized by UPS; (i) data dictionaries or record layout; (j) field or data elements; (k) explanatory codes/values; (j) explanatory tables; (l) codebooks; (m) table descriptors; (n) the location of documents on UPS computer systems and/or intranet; (o) online/Web-based non-personnel manuals; and (p) Web listings; (q) names, addresses, social security numbers, and phone numbers of UPS employees and applicants as found in the confidential fields in the GEMS and CATS systems; (r) UPS employees’ job titles and relative dates of employment; (s) confidential compensation information, including employee salaries, bonuses and benefits. Human Resources professionals are the only employees who have viewing access to GEMS data; and it is further
2

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 24 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
ORDERED that at the conclusion of this litigation, upon demand, all confidential material protected by this Order produced in this litigation, including any copies thereof and summaries or descriptions thereof contained in other documents, shall be returned to the counsel for the party that produced it; and it is further
ORDERED that alternatively, the party holding such materials may elect to destroy them (in lieu of returning the confidential material) or the parties’ counsel may maintain one copy of the confidential documents in their respective file; and it is further
ORDERED that if counsel for a party elects to maintain the confidential material after the conclusion of the litigation, counsel must continue to maintain them as confidential unless and until they are destroyed; and it is further
ORDERED that should Plaintiff seek to rely on any material deemed confidential in any filing with the Court, Plaintiff must give Defendant no fewer than ten days’ notice of Plaintiff’s intent to do so; and it is further
ORDERED that should Defendant seek to seal any confidential material used in connection with any filing with the Court, it must move pursuant to L.Civ.R. 5.3 for an Order sealing said material; and it is further
ORDERED that the telephone conference with this Court scheduled for June 1, 2007 at 10:30 A.M. is hereby ADJOURNED.
s/ Tonianne J. Bongiovanni HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 06-1453 (JAP) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

BONGIOVANNI, United States Magistrate Judge This matter comes before the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff-Intervenor Roniss G. Mason
(“Mr. Mason” or “Intervenor”) for Interest, Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. [Docket Entry No. 132]. Defendant United Parcel Service (“Defendant” or “UPS”) opposes the Motion. The Court has fully reviewed and considered all of the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to Mr. Mason’s Motion,1 as well as counsel’s argument heard on September 23, 2009. For the reasons set forth more fully below, Mr. Mason’s Motion for Interest, Attorney’s Fees and Expenses shall be GRANTED IN PART.

1The Court has received documents from Mr. Mason, which were submitted substantially past the deadline for the filing of any Reply papers. Mr. Mason did not seek the Court’s permission to file same. Defendant requests that Mr. Mason’s supplemental submissions be stricken from the record. Defendant also requests that the Court not consider documents submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in deciding the instant Motion. The Court finds it unnecessary to consider Defendant’s request to strike because neither the supplemental documents submitted by Mr. Mason nor the EEOC’s submission affected the Court’s decision of the pending Motion in any way.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 27, 2006, the EEOC filed the underlying Complaint in this action, pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title I”). [Docket Entry No. 1]. On April 24, 2006, Mr. Mason filed a Motion to Intervene as a plaintiff in this matter. [Docket Entry No. 3]. On May 18, 2006, Mr. Mason’s Motion to Intervene was granted and, on the same date, Mr. Mason filed his Complaint, alleging violations of Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”). [Docket Entry Nos. 4 & 5]. After completing discovery, this matter proceeded to trial before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J. and on January 29, 2009, a jury returned a verdict for Mr. Mason, awarding him $10,000.00 as compensation for “any emotional distress, inconvenience, mental anguish or loss of enjoyment of life he suffered as a result of Defendant’s violation of Title VII and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination.” [Docket Entry No. 119]. Subsequent to the verdict in Mr. Mason’s favor, the District Court conducted two settlement conferences where all remaining issues were resolved and the parties agreed that the issue of attorney’s fees would be decided by this Court. The instant Motion for attorney’s fees and expenses followed. In said Motion, Mr. Mason’s attorney, Ms. Miller, seeks the following: $198,375.00 in legal fees (lodestar of $132,250.00 which consists of 529 hours of legal work compensated at $250.00 per hour, plus a fifty percent contingency enhancement of $66,125.00); $1,449.46 in expenses; and $1,533.33 in prejudgment interest.2
2It is this Court’s understanding that pursuant to the terms set forth during the parties’ post-verdict settlement conferences with the District Court, the question of attorney’s fees and expenses was the only issue to be decided by this Court. Therefore, to the extent Ms. Miller seeks payment for prejudgment interest, that request is DENIED.
2

II. ANALYSIS A. Intervenor’s Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees
A prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses under both Title VII and the LAD. Blakey v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 2 F.Supp.2d 598, 601 (D.N.J. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1). A plaintiff is “prevailing” and thereby entitled to a fee award if he or she has succeeded on “any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the part[y] sought in bringing suit.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the present case, the jury found in favor of Mr. Mason in the amount of $10,000.00, with no differentiation between the claims brought pursuant to Title VII or the LAD. As such, Mr. Mason is a “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. Nevertheless, Defendant argues that the instant Motion should fail, not because Mr. Mason is not a prevailing party, but because his attorney’s efforts were “‘merely duplicative’ of those of the primary plaintiff” and therefore should “not result in an award of attorneys fees.” (Def.’s Opp’n at 9 (citations omitted)).
In this regard, Defendant argues that pursuant to the holding in Donnell v. United States of Am., 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982), “Congress did not intend that a fee award for intervenors be ‘as nearly automatic as it is for a party prevailing in his own right.’” (Def.’s Opp’n at 9 (Donnell, 682 F.2d at 247)). Defendant claims that it is obvious that “if an intervenor did nothing but simply show up at depositions, hearings and the trial itself . . . an award of attorneys’ fees would be inappropriate.” (Id. at 10 (quoting Donnell, 682 F.2d at 249) (internal quotation marks omitted))). Defendant claims that the same would hold true here, where the intervenor’s efforts “have been subordinate and cumulative to the efforts of the EEOC.” (Id.) Indeed, Defendant argues that Mr.
3

Mason’s attorney, Ms. Miller, took a secondary role to counsel for the EEOC. In addition, Defendant claims that had Mr. Mason not intervened in this litigation, there would have been no significant change in the outcome. Given Mr. Mason’s alleged limited role in this litigation, Defendant argues against the award of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 14).
The Court declines to adopt Defendant’s argument that Ms. Miller is not entitled to recover any attorney’s fees. The Court notes that in support of its argument that no fees should be awarded, Defendant relies primarily on a twenty-seven year old District of Columbia Circuit Court Case. Defendant does not provide the Court with any decision from the Third Circuit in support of its argument. While the Court agrees with the holding in Donnell that Congress did not intend a fee award for intervenors to be “as nearly automatic as it is for a party prevailing in his own right[,]” the Court finds that Ms. Miller’s contributions to this case were substantial and not merely duplicative of those of the EEOC.3 682 F.2d at 246; see Commonwealth of Pa. v. Flaherty, 40 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that award of fees to intervenor in § 1988 case justified only where intervening defendant made substantial contribution to successful result). As a result, the Court finds that Ms. Miller is entitled to recoup some measure of attorney’s fees. The Court’s analysis regarding the exact measure to be awarded follows. B. Calculation of Fees
The procedure for calculating attorney’s fees is generally the same under both Title VII and the LAD, with the exception of contingency enhancements, which are provided for under the LAD but not permitted under Title VII. Here, the jury did not make separate findings on the Title VII and
3The Court notes that at oral argument Defendant conceded that Ms. Miller was entitled to recoup some measure of attorney’s fees.
4

the LAD claims. Thus, because Mr. Mason “prevailed on claims that exist under LAD, New Jersey law will be used where applicable.” Blakey, 2 F.Supp.2d at 602. 1. Lodestar Fee
The first step in calculating reasonable attorneys fees under the LAD and Title VII requires the Court to determine the lodestar fee, which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The party requesting the fees bears the burden of proving that the request is reasonable. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1990). The opposing party must make specific objections to the requested fee. Id. “Once the adverse party raises objections to the fee request, the district court has a great deal of discretion to adjust the fee award in light of those objections.” Id.. However, the district court cannot decrease a fee award based on factors not raised at all by the opposing party. Id. a. Number of Hours Reasonably Expended
The Supreme Court has held that counsel is expected to exercise “billing judgment” and that district courts “should exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not ‘reasonably expended’” including “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” work. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Mr. Mason’s submitted billing indicates that Ms. Miller expended 529 hours on this case. As described below in Section c. “Adjustments to Lodestar,” Defendant requests that these hours be reduced for several reasons. b. Reasonable Rate
In order to determine a reasonable hourly rate, the Court must assess the “skill and experience of the prevailing attorneys and compare their rates to the rates in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blakey, 2
5

F.Supp.2d at 602 (citing Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 337 (1995)). In the instant matter, Mr. Mason seeks an hourly rate of $250.00, which Defendant does not oppose. c. Adjustments to Lodestar
Using the figures submitted by Mr. Mason for the number of hours Ms. Miller expended (529), as well as Ms. Miller’s proposed reasonable market billing rate ($250.00 per hour), the lodestar is $132,250.00. Defendant, however, requests several reductions to this lodestar. These requests are considered below. i. Billing for Travel
Defendant opposes Mr. Mason’s request to have Ms. Miller’s travel time billed at $250.00 per hour. Defendant argues that counsel’s travel time should be billed at fifty-percent of the reasonable hourly rate. (Def.’s Opp’n at 17). Mr. Mason, however, argues that pursuant to the Third Circuit’s decision in Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 426 F. 3d 694, 711 (3d Cir. 2005), “travel time . . . [is] compensated as part of attorneys fees and costs based on the prevailing rate in the forum of the litigation.” (Pl.’s Reply at 9). As such, Mr. Mason argues that Ms. Miller should be compensated at her full billing rate. Defendant does not disagree with the standard put forth by Mr. Mason, but instead argues that absent a showing that an attorney performed legal work while traveling to and from meetings, conferences, depositions and trial, he or she is not entitled to reimbursement for travel time at premium rates. (Def.’s Opp’n at 17 (citing Daggett v. Kimmelman, 617 F. Supp. 1269, 1282 (D.N.J. 1985)). Instead, Defendant argues that the prevailing rate for travel time in New Jersey is fifty percent of the attorney’s reasonable rate. (Id. (citing Erhart v. City of Atl. City, Civil Action No. 00-6209, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57709, *23 (D.N.J. August 17, 2006)).
“[I]n order to determine the rate at which attorneys may be compensated for their travel time,
6

a court must look to the practice in the local community.” Interfaith Cmty. Org., 426 F.3d at 711 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the Court looks at the prevailing rates at which travel time is compensated in the forum state, which in this matter is New Jersey. Here, while Mr. Mason argues that Ms. Miller should be compensated at the prevailing rates, he does not provide the Court with any support for the proposition that in New Jersey the prevailing rate at which travel time is compensated is an attorney’s full billing rate. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true. Recent case law from the District of New Jersey establishes that the prevailing rate for travel time in New Jersey is fifty percent of the attorney’s reasonable market rate. See Glass v. Snellbaker, Civil Action No. 05-1971 (JBS), 2008 WL 4416450, *9-10 (D.N.J. Sep 23, 2008); Erhart, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57709, *23; Posa v. City of East Orange, No. Civ. 03-233 (FSH), 2005 WL 2205786, *5-6 (D.N.J. Sep 08, 2005). As a result, Ms. Miller shall be compensated at this rate, which equates to $125.00 per hour for travel time. Thus, the proposed lodestar shall be reduced by $7,687.50, the difference between the requested fee for travel time and the amended fee based on New Jersey’s prevailing rate at which travel time is billed. The adjusted lodestar is therefore $124,562.50. A chart depicting all effected time entries follows:

Date 11/06/06 12/06/06 5/17/07 7/10/07 9/05/07

Description
Travel to and from Fed. R.Civ.P. 16 Conference Travel to RU Law Library Travel to and from court Travel to and from Mason dep Travel to and from settlement conf.

Hours Requested Fee Amended Fee with 50% Rate

3

$750.00

$375.00

.75 $187.50

3.25 $812.50

2

$500.00

$93.75 $406.25 $250.00

3

$750.00

$375.00

7

Date 9/27/07 1/02/08 4/15/08 6/13/08 6/16/08 10/02/08 11/10/08 11/12/08 12/04/08 12/09/08 12/15/08 12/17/09 1/20/09 1/22/09 1/23/09 1/26/09 1/27/09 1/29/09

Description

Hours Requested Fee Amended Fee with 50% Rate

Travel to and from RU Law .75 Library

$187.50

$93.75

Travel to and from Mason .75 continued dep.

$187.50

$93.75

Travel to RU Law Lib

.75 $187.50

$93.75

Travel to and from Wiley .75 dep

$187.50

$93.75

Travel to and from court

3

$750.00

$375.00

Travel to and from PTO Conference

2.75 $687.50

$343.75

Travel to and from Trenton 3.5 Conference

$875.00

$437.50

Travel to and from RU Law .75 Library

$187.50

$93.75

Travel to and from Rutgers 1 Law Library

$250.00

$125.00

Travel to and from Rutgers 1 Law Library

$250.00

$125.00

Travel to and from Downs 2.5 dep.

$625.00

$312.50

Travel to and from Fed. D.C. Library Newark

.75 $187.50

$93.75

Travel to and from Trenton 3.75 $937.50

$468.75

Travel to and from Trenton 3.75 $937.50

$468.75

Travel to and from Trenton 4

$1000.00

$500.00

Travel to and from Trenton 3.75 $937.50

$468.75

Travel to and from Trenton 3.75 $937.50

$468.75

Travel to and from Trenton 3.5 $875.00

$437.50

8

Date

Description

2/06/09 Travel to RU Law Lib.

Hours Requested Fee Amended Fee with 50% Rate

.75 $187.50

$93.75

2/19/09 2/23/09
2/25/09 3/19/09
Totals:

Travel to and from Trenton 3.25
Travel to and from RU Law .75 Lib.
Travel to and from Court 3.25
Travel to and from RU Law .75 Lib
52.75

$812.50 $187.50
$812.50 $187.50
$15,375.00

$406.25 $93.75
$406.25 $93.75
$7,687.50

ii. Specificity of Entries The burden of establishing the lodestar rests on the fee applicant, who must provide
appropriate documentation of the hours spent and the market rate. If the documentation is inadequate, a court may reduce the award accordingly. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
The Third Circuit has defined what constitutes appropriate documentation by stating that a fee petition should include “fairly definite information as to the hours devoted to various general activities, e.g., pretrial discovery, settlement negotiations, and the hours spent by various classes of attorneys[.]’” Rode, 892 F.2d at 1190 (quoting Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 167 (3d Cir. 1973)). However, the Third Circuit explicitly rejected the requirement of time summaries, stating that a chronological listing of time spent per task is sufficient. Id. Indeed, the Third Circuit stated that, “it is not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney.” Id. (quoting Lindy Bros. 497 F.2d at 167) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, to be successful, “[a] fee petition is required to be specific enough to allow the district

9

court ‘to determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed.’” Id. (quoting Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 713 F.2d 972, 978 (3d Cir. 1983)).
Here, Defendant challenges twenty-eight of the time entries submitted by Mr. Mason, arguing that they lack the requisite specificity. Twenty-one of the disputed entries reflect that Mr. Mason’s attorney, Ms. Miller, either called or otherwise conferred with Mr. Mason and/or Mr. Ranis, counsel for the EEOC. Three reflect that Ms. Miller either wrote a letter or an email to Mr. Mason. Two indicate telephone calls between Ms. Miller and Mr. Mason’s mother, Ieerline Wiley. One entry reflects that Ms. Miller reviewed documents and an email from Mr. Ranis, and one entry reflects that Ms. Miller reviewed case law.
Mr. Mason claims that no additional information regarding these entries could be provided without breaching the attorney-client and community-of-interest privileges.4 The Court, however, is unpersuaded by this argument. In this District, broad claims of privilege are not sufficient. Instead, as evidenced by the law surrounding the sufficiency of privilege logs, where a claim of privilege is made, the party claiming same must not only identify the individuals involved in the communication, the date of the communication and the privilege asserted, but the party must also identify the general subject matter of the communication at issue. See, e.g., Torres v. Kuzniasz, 936 F.Supp. 1201, 1208-09 (D.N.J. 1996). The twenty-six disputed entries, which simply contain information such as “Tel w/M. Ranis[,]” “Tel. W/client[,]” “Letter to client”and “Reviewing case law” are insufficient. (Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 20-22). Additional information regarding the subject of
4In his Reply filed in further support of the instant Motion, Mr. Mason explains that the telephone calls between Ms. Miller and Ms. Wiley were made to arrange for Ms. Wiley’s deposition. With this clarification, the Court finds that these entries are specific enough for the Court to determine that the time spent on same was reasonable. As such, the Court shall not exclude these entries in its calculation of the lodestar.
10

the telephone calls, letters and case law reviewed is lacking. Other entries, however, such as the January 10, 2007 entry, which states “Tel. w/Rains re Protective Order[,]” include this detail. (Ex. A to Miller Cert. at 2). While Ms. Miller’s time entries need not have been overwrought with detail to be sufficient, they did need to contain sufficient information for the Court to determine whether the hours spent on the tasks in question were reasonable. The twenty-six unsupplemented, disputed entries lack this specificity. Consequently, the Court shall exclude the fees associated with same from the fee award. The lodestar will, therefore, be reduced by $4,000.00, making the adjusted lodestar $120,562.50. A chart depicting the disallowed time entries follows:

Date 5/11/06 10/23/06 10/24/06 10/24/06 10/26/06 11/08/06 11/10/06 12/13/06 6/27/07 7/09/07 7/22/07 8/03/07 9/04/07 10/18/07 12/05/07

Description

Hours

Tel w/M. Ranis

.25

Tel/ w client

.25

Tel M. Ranis

.75

Review of docs. & Ranis email .25

Tel. M.Ranis

.25

Tel. W/client

.25

Tel. w/Ranis

.25

Conf. W/Ranis

.5

Conf. W/ M. Ranis

.5

Conf. W/client

2.0

Tel. W/ Client

.25

Letter to client

.25

Tel/w client

.25

Conf. W/M. Ranis

.5

Tel. W/client

.25

Requested Fee $62.50 $62.50 $187.50 $62.50 $62.50 $62.50 $62.50 $125.00 $125.00 $500.00 $62.50 $62.50 $62.50 $125.00 $62.50

11

Date 1/08/08 1/16/08 1/22/08 4/21/08 6/04/08 8/18/08 8/25/08 11/06/08 1/05/09 1/20/09 1/22/09 Totals:

Description Tel. W/Ranis Tel. w/Ranis Tel. W/Ranis Letter to client Tel. W/Ranis Conf. W/ Client & Ranis Tel. Conf. W/Ranis Tel. W/client Reviewing case law Conf. w/ client E-mail to client

Hours .5 .5 .5 .25 .5 1.5 1.0 .5 1.0 2.5 .5 16.0

Requested Fee $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $62.50 $125.00 $375.00 $250.00 $125.00 $250.00 $625.00 $125.00 $4,000.00

iii. Limited Success in the Litigation In certain cases, a court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward to arrive at the
appropriate fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Incomplete success is one of the most common bases for a downward adjustment in a fee award. In such cases, a plaintiff advances discrete, unrelated claims, and prevails on some but not others. Id. The Third Circuit has rejected, however, the downward adjustment of the lodestar for unsuccessful but related claims, finding that the successful and unsuccessful claims were legally or factually intertwined. Northeast Women’s Ctr. v. McMonagle, 889 F.2d 466, 476-77 (3d Cir. 1989); Rode, 892 F.2d. at 1185-86 (holding that hours expended on claims against dismissed defendants are compensable “if plaintiff can establish that such hours also were fairly devoted to the prosecution of the claim[s] against the defendants over whom plaintiff prevailed . . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

12

Another basis for a downward adjustment is a party’s limited success in the litigation. Indeed, “if the level of success achieved in the litigation is limited as compared to the relief sought,” then the “court should reduce the lodestar fee.” Rendine, 141 N.J. at 336. Unlike with a reduction based on a party’s incomplete success, a reduction for limited success can be appropriate “‘even where the plaintiff’s claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous and raised in good faith.’” Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). Thus, despite the fact that there need not be proportionality between the damages awarded and the attorney’s fees recovered, “[i]f . . . a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product or hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount’” justifying a reduction in the fee award. Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436).
Defendant requests that Ms. Miller’s overall lodestar be reduced by fifty percent after the above-discussed deductions. Defendant bases this request in part on “the level of Intervenor’s limited success as compared to his original demands[.]” (Def.’s Opp’n at 16). Defendant argues that “Intervenor began the litigation seeking an award of back pay spanning five years, significant punitive damages and a large award for emotional distress. Ultimately, Intervenor reduced his claim for back-pay to only the 2004 season, this Court dismissed his claim for punitive damages, and the jury awarded a mere $10,000 for emotional distress.” (Id.) Given this limited success, Defendant requests the aforementioned fifty percent reduction.
Mr. Mason, however, argues that no reduction is warranted. In this regard, Mr. Mason claims that “there is no need for proportionality of damages with attorneys fees under LAD.” (Pl.’s Reply at 7). Indeed, Mr. Mason argues that if such a requirement existed, then attorneys representing wealthy individuals in discrimination cases “would always be compensated more than those who
13

represent” less affluent clients “who are the least able . . . to find representation to protect their civil rights.” (Id. at 8). Further, Mr. Mason claims that the success achieved in this matter was not limited as compared to the relief sought. Instead, Mr. Mason claims that he “was successful in the relief sought: emotional distress damages, injunctive relief and back pay.” (Id.) Mr. Mason also argues that with respect to the injunctive relief awarded, “the public interest will be well served because” that relief “will over time affect hundreds of thousands of UPS job applicants who will no longer have to decide whether to follow their religious observances or work.” (Id. at 7). In addition, Mr. Mason argues that he “alleged only one cause of action -- failure to accommodate --, and he succeeded on that count.” (Id. at 8).
The Court agrees with Mr. Mason that there does not need to be any proportionality between the damages awarded and the attorney’s fees requested. The Court, however, also recognizes that under certain circumstances a reduction in the fee award may be warranted because the lodestar is excessive in light of the success achieved by the prevailing party. See Rendine, 141 N.J. at 336. Here, Mr. Mason did not advance discrete, unrelated claims which would warrant a reduction in the lodestar based on the fact that certain claims were unsuccessful. Instead, Mr. Mason pursued related Title VII and LAD claims on which he achieved a measure of success as evidenced by the $10,000.00 jury award. Though Mr. Mason certainly did not succeed in recovering all of the damages he initially pursued, Mr. Mason did obtain much of the relief sought in his Complaint: damages for emotional distress, back pay and injunctive relief. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the level of success achieved by Mr. Mason is not so limited as to warrant a reduction of Ms. Miller’s proposed lodestar.
14

iv. Reduction for Unnecessary and/or Duplicative Work As already stated, in determining the appropriate fee award, the Court “has a great deal of
discretion to adjust the award.” Blakey, 2 F.Supp.2d at 602. One basis for making a downward adjustment is that the work performed by the attorney seeking the fee award was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary[.]” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.
Defendant argues that the Court should exercise its discretion to reduce “the requested lodestar . . . by fifty percent, after other applicable deductions” because Ms. Miller’s “efforts were largely cumulative (and consistently subordinate) to those of the EEOC.” (Def.’s Opp’n at 15-16). In this regard, Defendant claims that since the time of intervention, Ms. Miller took a backseat to the EEOC. For example, Defendant argues that (1) out of the twelve discovery depositions, Ms. Miller led only one (not even her client’s) and did not even appear in person at all of the others; (2) in June 2007, the EEOC filed an extensive motion to compel, in response to which Ms. Miller filed a short letter with the Court relying on the EEOC’s motion and raising an insignificant issue with regard to the propriety of an interrogatory certification; and (3) at trial, Ms. Miller took the lead in examining only one witness, John Ganley, and her examination lasted only twenty-five minutes with the EEOC following with nearly an additional twenty minutes of questioning.
Further, Defendant argues that had Mr. Mason “not intervened in the EEOC’s lawsuit against UPS there would have been no change in the outcome.” (Id. at 13). Defendant notes that “the recovery obtained in this lawsuit (compensatory damages, back-pay and injunctive relief) were all sought by the EEOC in its primary Complaint” and that “[e]ven without Mason’s intervention, the EEOC would have obtained an award of compensatory damages for Mason and would have
15

negotiated the payment of back-pay and the terms of the injunctive relief sought in the EEOC’s original Complaint.” (Id. at 13-14).
In contrast, Mr. Mason argues that the fee award should not be reduced because the work performed by Ms. Miller was not duplicative or unnecessary. Mr. Mason argues that “it is ‘ill grace’” for Defendant “to argue that the ‘plaintiff should be expected to proceed with a lesser staff to prosecute his claim’” where Defendant had two local attorneys and at least two in-house counsel involved in defending this matter. (Pl.’s Reply at 2 (quoting Lockley v. Turner, 344 N.J. Super. 1, 28 (App. Div. 2001))). Further, Mr. Mason argues that Ms. Miller was not merely passively involved in the litigation but, instead, actively litigated the case making at least ten applications to the court to compel discovery and transmitting at least twenty-five letters to Defendant regarding discovery issues. Indeed, as argued by counsel during the Court’s September 23, 2009 hearing, Ms. Miller not only actively participated in this matter, but, in fact, got the case moving by raising many of the aforementioned discovery issues while this litigation was still in its infancy.
In addition, Mr. Mason argues that Ms. Miller’s efforts were neither subordinate to those of the EEOC nor were they unnecessary. For example, during oral argument on the instant Motion, Ms. Miller argued that, unlike the EEOC, which focused on Defendant’s national policies, her efforts focused on the facts of this case. In this regard, Ms. Miller claimed that she elicited several significant facts, including that Mr. Mason was the only job applicant with a beard and that UPS had no other bearded employees in public contact positions between 2002 and the trial in this matter. Ms. Miller also argued that she obtained UPS’s admission that there was no business necessity that required drivers’ helpers to be beardless. Further, Mr. Mason claims that by simply comparing the differences between either Ms. Miller’s and the EEOC’s contested facts included in the Pre-Trial
16

Order, or their trial briefs, one can readily determine that Ms. Miller did not merely bootstrap her legal work to that performed by the EEOC. Additionally, Mr. Mason claims that the Court’s adoption of the “interactive process” jury instruction proposed by Ms. Miller is further evidence of her contributions to the prosecution of this matter. (See Pl.’s Reply at 12).
The Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose a blanket reduction in Ms. Miller’s fees based on the alleged “redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” nature of her work. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. While the results achieved in this litigation may have been the same if Ms. Miller never intervened in this matter on behalf of Mr. Mason, there is no way to know that that would have been the case; nor would such a result necessitate a finding that Ms. Miller’s contributions were unnecessary. It appears to the Court that there were clear differences between the approach taken by the EEOC and Ms. Miller in pursuing this litigation. As such, the Court cannot find as a general matter that the worked performed by Ms. Miller was redundant or otherwise unnecessary. Further, Defendant did not challenge any of Ms. Miller’s specific time entries as being “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. As a result, the Court shall not reduce the lodestar fee on this basis. 2. Fee Enhancement
Contingency enhancements are not available under Title VII, but rather only under the LAD. Blakey, 2 F.Supp.2d at 607. Under the LAD, once the base lodestar fee has been determined, the Court should “consider whether to increase that fee to reflect the risk of nonpayment in all cases in which the attorney's compensation entirely or substantially is contingent on a successful outcome.” Rendine, 141 N.J. at 337. “[A] court's job simply will be to determine whether a case was taken on a contingent basis, whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way, and whether other economic risks were aggravated by the contingency of payment[.]” Id. at 339 (quoting
17

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 747, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987).
The risk of nonpayment can be mitigated in several ways. For example, “[a]n attorney who has entered into a contingent fee contract in a suit seeking substantial damages has . . . significantly reduced his risk, for he has obtained, in exchange for his acceptance of the risk of nonpayment, the prospect of compensation greater than the prospective ‘lodestar’ amount.” Id. at 340 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, in cases in which the likelihood of success is unusually strong, a court may properly consider the inherent strength of the prevailing party's claim as a mitigating factor. Id. at 341 (citing Hall v. Borough of Roselle, 747 F.2d 838, 843-44 (3d Cir. 1984) (“[O]ne can fairly conclude that from the outset the plaintiff had a very strong case and ‘objectively viewed, the risk that plaintiff['s] counsel would come away empty handed was remote.’”) (quoting McMullan v. Thornburgh, 570 F.Supp. 1070, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1983))). Further, contingency enhancements normally range between five and fifty-percent of the lodestar fee, with the enhancement in typical contingency cases ranging between twenty and thirty-five percent of the lodestar. Id. at 343.
Here, Mr. Mason is seeking a contingency-fee enhancement of fifty-percent. The Court finds that to be excessive and not appropriate in this case. At the outset, as stated by the Court in Rendine, enhancements in contingency cases typically range between twenty and thirty-five percent of the lodestar. The Court does not see any reason why this case would warrant a higher than average enhancement. Indeed, for the reasons explained below, the Court finds the opposite to be true.
Though Mr. Mason’s attorney did take this case on a one hundred percent contingency basis, she was able to mitigate her risk of coming away with nothing. In this regard, most compelling is
18

the fact that Mr. Mason had a strong likelihood of success of prevailing in this matter. At the time Mr. Mason intervened in this case, the EEOC had already issued a probable cause finding and had initiated this litigation. By intervening in an action that was the subject of a probable cause finding by the EEOC and that was, in fact, already being litigated by the EEOC, Ms. Miller significantly reduced the risk of non-payment. The fact that Mr. Mason and Ms. Miller entered into a contingency agreement in April 2005, approximately one year prior to Mr. Mason’s intervention in this case, has no bearing on the Court’s analysis. Ms. Miller does not seek fees for any legal work performed prior to Mr. Mason’s intervention in this matter; nor rightfully could she. At issue, here, are only those fees generated on or after Mr. Mason’s intervention, and, given the EEOC’s involvement in this litigation prior to Mr. Mason’s intervention, when Mr. Mason did intervene he had a strong likelihood of prevailing on his claims.
In addition, Ms. Miller’s risk of non-payment was also mitigated by Mr. Mason’s potential for a large recovery. When he intervened, Mr. Mason sought a substantial recovery from Defendant UPS, which is one of the largest employers in the United States. If Mr. Mason had been successful on all of his claims to the degree sought, he would have received significant compensation from Defendant. This potential for a large recovery, therefore, also mitigated Ms. Miller’s risk of nonpayment.
Given Ms. Miller’s ability to mitigate her risk of coming away with nothing, the Court finds that a below-average fee enhancement is warranted. Consequently, the Court shall apply a five percent enhancement in this matter. Thus, using the adjusted lodestar of $120,562.50 and adding a five percent contingency enhancement, which equals $6,028.13, Ms. Miller shall be awarded $126,590.63 in attorney’s fees.
19

3. Expenses In addition to the above-described attorney’s fees, Mr. Mason seeks $1,449.46 in expenses.
Defendant has not objected to Mr. Mason’s claim for expenses, which the Court finds to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court shall award Mr. Mason $1,449.46 in expenses. III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is on this 30th day of September, 2009, hereby ORDERED that Mr. Mason’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant shall pay Mr. Mason’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $126,590.63 and expenses in the amount of $1,449.46.
s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 2965

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
-----------------------------------------------------)(
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY : COMMISSION,
Plaintiff and
RONISS G. MASON Intervenor Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action. No. 06-cv-01453 (JAP)(TJB)
CONSENT JUDGMENT

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------)(
This action was initiated on March 27, 2006 by Plaintiff, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff' or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States Government,
I
alleging that Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("Defendant" or "UPS") failed to

accommodate Intervenor Plaintiff Roniss Mason ("Intervenor" or "Mason") on the basis of his

religion (Rastafarian) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A, and the

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. by failing to hire Mason for a

vacant position as a driver's helper and refusing Mason's request for religious accommodation to

permit him to wear a beard as required by his religious beliefs. A jury trial was conducted on

January 22, 2009 through January 29, 2009. The jury found for the EEOC and Mason, and

awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress.

The parties desire to conclude this matter and hereby agree to withdraw all pending post-

trial motions, and stipulate and consent to the entry of this Consent Judgment as final and

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2966
binding between the parties, and Defendant's successors, assigns, and any other corporation or other entity into which Defendant may merge or with which Defendant may consolidate. The parties have agreed that this Consent Judgment may be entered into without findings of fact and conclusions of law having been made and entered by the Court.
In consideration of the mutual promises of each party to this Consent Judgment, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, and the Court finds appropriate, and it is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED: A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This Consent Judgment resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Number 1712005-00226, in the EEOC's Complaint in this matter, and in the Complaint oflntervenor Plaintiff Mason. This Consent Judgment, which follows a jury verdict in this matter at the United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey and the withdrawal of all pending post-trial
':l
motions, as well as the stipulated waiver of all appeals relevant to the jury verdict, will not constitute an admission or acknowledgment of any wrongdoing by UPS, or any UPS employees, agents, consultants, officers or directors, parent or subsidiary companies, predecessors or successors in interest or related entities, or the UPS employee benefits plans, the same being expressly denied. This Consent Judgment does not resolve any charge of discrimination that is currently pending before the EEOC, or any charge that may be filed in the future other than the charge listed above. The EEOC reserves all rights to proceed regarding matters or charges not covered in this Consent Judgment.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 2967
2. If the EEOC determines that UPS has materially breached any term of this Consent Judgment, the EEOC will provide written notice of the alleged breach to UPS within fifteen business days of its identification or discovery of the breach. The EEOC will not petition the Court for enforcement of this Consent Judgment for at least fifteen business days after UPS has received the EEOC's written notice and has failed to address or cure the alleged breach. This fifteen business day waiting period will be used by the parties to engage in good faith efforts to resolve the dispute. The 15 business day waiting period may be extended upon consent ofboth the EEOC and UPS provided that good faith efforts are being made to obtain data or information, or to take corrective action, or to negotiate an appropriate cure or resolution. Any uncured breach of any term of this Consent Judgment will be deemed a material breach of this Consent Judgment. The EEOC is authorized to seek compliance with this Consent Judgment in the United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey only if the alleged breach has not been
~
cured following the expiration of the fifteen business-day or other agreed-upon waiting period. UPS will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to enforce this Consent Judgment and its terms, or the right of the EEOC to bring an enforcement suit upon the uncured material breach of any of the terms of this Consent Judgment by UPS.
3. In the event that UPS is purchased or acquired by, or it merges or consolidates with, another corporation or entity within the duration of this Consent Judgment, UPS agrees to provide notice and a copy of this Consent Judgment to any successors, assigns, and to any other

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 2968
corporation or other entity into which UPS may merge or with which it may consolidate, and to any other corporation or entity that purchases or acquires UPS. B. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4. During the term of this Consent Decree, UPS is hereby enjoined from violating Title VII by failing to accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs or practices of which it is made aware by any applicant for a driver helper position at its Meadowlands, New Jersey Hub. C. POLICIES & PROCEDURES, AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
5. UPS currently utilizes an automated nationwide employment application form that is accessed through its public website on the Internet, www.ups.com. Within thirty days of the entry of this Consent Judgment, UPS agrees that the electronic employment application form will be revised to notify applicants for employment for all customer service positions subject to the UPS Uniform and Personal Appearance Guidelines ("Appearance Guidelines") that they may
-fl
request an exception to, or accommodation of, the Appearance Guidelines because of a sincerely-held religious belief or practice. The EEOC understands and agrees that applicants and employees who may have completed online applications prior to the implementation date of these changes (including those who may have applied in previous years) may still be considered for driver helper or other positions on a going-forward basis without completing a new application. The EEOC's enforcement of this provision shall be limited to new applicants who complete an online application after the changes described in this paragraph 5 are made, tested, and implemented by UPS.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 2969
6. UPS will amend the Appearance Guidelines for driver helpers contained on Page 5 of its Driver Helper Orientation Book to specify that an employee may request an exception to, or accommodation or variance of, the Appearance Guidelines because of a sincerely-held religious belief or practice. The revision will be made by UPS within thirty days of entry of this Consent Judgment and the new Driver Helper Orientation Book will be published and redistributed to all facilities within ninety days of entry of this Consent Judgment. To the extent that the Driver Helper Orientation manual cannot be timely published, a slip page shall be distributed and inserted into the existing Driver Helper Orientation manual.
7. When UPS conducts Information Sessions for new applicants for the driver helper position at its Meadowlands facility in Secaucus, New Jersey during the period November 16, 2009 to December 31, 2009 ("2009 Peak Season"), a UPS employee in Human Resources, Employee Relations or Workforce Planning who is covering the Meadowlands facility will
~·
inform new applicants that they may request an exception to, or accommodation of, the Appearance Guidelines because of a sincerely-held religious beliefs or practice. If there is an inquiry or request for an exception to, or accommodation of, the Appearance Guidelines during the Information Sessions at the Meadowlands facility during the 2009 Peak Season, UPS will inform the requesting or inquiring new applicant(s) that there is a written Request Form that must be completed, and inform them as to where they can obtain the Request Form.
8. During individual interviews of new applicants for driver helper positions at the Meadowlands facility during the 2009 Peak Season, an employee in UPS Human Resources, Employee Relations or Workforce Planning covering the interviews will, when informing each

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 2970
new applicant of the Appearance Guidelines, also inform the new applicant that he or she may request an exception to, or accommodation of, the Appearance Guidelines because of his/her sincerely-held religious belief or practice. If there is an inquiry or request for an exception to, or accommodation of, the Appearance Guidelines during any interview at the Meadowlands facility during the 2009 Peak Season, UPS will inform the requesting or inquiring new applicant(s) that there is a written Request Form that must be completed, and inform them as to where they can obtain the Request Form.
9. UPS agrees that by the end of January 2010, the UPS employees in Human Resources, Employee Relations, and Workforce Planning at the Meadowlands facility who conducted any Information Sessions or interviews of driver helpers during the 2009 Peak Season will sign an acknowledgement form certifying that they complied with the provisions in ~~7-8. UPS will provide to the EEOC the signed acknowledgements by the end of February 2010. "'
10. UPS agrees that its November 1, 2006 Memorandum regarding Requests for Variance from Company Policy Due to Religious Reasons, together with the attachments, including the Request for Religious Accommodation Form and the Religious Accommodation FAQ' s Questions and Answers, will remain in effect on a nationwide basis during the pendency of this Consent Judgment. UPS agrees that the Memorandum and attachments describe UPS' current policy and procedure regarding how an applicant or employee initiates the accommodation process, and UPS' process for evaluating and responding to a written request for a religious accommodation.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 2971
D. TRAINING 11. At its Meadowlands facility, UPS agrees that it will conduct training on its
religious accommodation policy and procedure as described in the November 1, 2006 Memorandum and its attachments, including the forms and the FAQs. The training will be given to employees in Human Resources, Employee Relations, and Workforce Planning who have responsibility for hiring individuals in the Meadowlands facility for the driver helper positions. UPS will provide to the EEOC no later than November 20, 2009 an attendance sheet indicating the names and positions of the individuals who attended any of these training sessions, and the date of the session.
12. UPS agrees that the training described in paragraph 10 above will be conducted on or before November 15, 2009. If this Consent Decree is not finalized and filed prior to the proposed date oftraining, UPS will not have any obligation to conduct the training described in
C:i
paragraph 10 after November 15, 2009. E. MONETARY RELIEF
13. Within 30 days of the entry of this Consent Judgment, UPS will pay a total of $12,000.00 to Roniss Mason, with$ 2,000.00 representing backpay damages from which all applicable taxes and Social Security, FICA, and other federal contributions will be deducted, and $10,000.00 representing compensatory damages for emotional distress to Mason awarded by the jury verdict of January 29, 2009 in this case, from which no deductions will be taken. UPS will send these checks to Mason's attorney, Harriet Heuer Miller, Esq., and will simultaneously send

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 2972
a copy of the checks to the EEOC. UPS will issue plaintiff an IRS Form 1099 with respect to the $10,000.00 payment and an IRS Form W-2 with respect to the $2,000.00 payment.
14. Within 30 days of the entry of this Consent Judgment, UPS will pay a total of $128,040.09 to Harriet Heuer Miller, Esq., representing payment of attorneys' fees and costs. UPS will issue plaintiff Mason and Ms. Miller an IRS Form 1099 with respect to this payment. In order to process such payment, Ms. Miller agrees to provide UPS with her tax identification number.
15. Within 30 days of the entry of this Consent Judgment, UPS will pay a total of $8,000.00 in costs to the EEOC.
16. As to UPS and the EEOC, each party is responsible for its own attorneys' fees, and neither party is liable to the other for any amount of attorneys' fees. F. ADDITIONAL MONITORING PROVISIONS
17. The EEOC may monitor compliance of this Consent Judgment by any inspection of the UPS Meadowlands premises, records, and employees, after first giving UPS 24 hours notice of any such inspection. The EEOC shall give notice of inspection to Wendy Johnson Lario, counsel for UPS, via letter, e-mail or telephone. The notice under this provision shall not be effective unless and until Ms. Lario acknowledges receipt of same via letter, e-mail or telephone. Notice shall never be effective via voice mail message. The EEOC agrees that any on-site inspection will be conducted in the presence of a UPS-designated attorney and that the EEOC inspector shall abide by all reasonable work rules, all safety requirements, and hours of operation when conducting an inspection.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 2973
18. If the EEOC determines that UPS has materially breached any term of this Consent Judgment, the EEOC will provide written notice of the alleged breach to UPS within 15 business days of its identification or discovery of same and will confer with and attempt to resolve same with UPS before petitioning the Court for enforcement of this Consent Judgment. See paragraph 2 above.
19. All materials required by this Consent Judgment to be sent to the EEOC will be addressed to Michael Ranis, Trial Attorney, EEOC New York District Office, 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004. G. DURATION OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTON
20. This Consent Judgment will remain in effect for one (1) year from the date of entry. The Consent Judgment will not expire while any enforcement action concerning the Consent Judgment is pending, but will expire immediately and automatically upon conclusion of
~
any pending enforcement action. Upon the entry of this Consent Judgment, the matter will be dismissed with prejudice, and all prior orders of this Court and the jury's verdict will be superseded by the Consent Judgment, but the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will retain jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Judgment.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 2974
APPROVED IN FORM AND CONTENT: FOR PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Dated: H/1 (oj
Regional Attorney

Michael Ranis Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3701

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR RONISS MASON

Dated: \\ \ ~ I () 1

~E~R~
955 West Side Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 (973) 239-5900

FOR DEFENDANT UNITED PARCEL SERV C

ll/5 { Dated:

r:f1

WENDYJO S

DAY PITNEY LLP

200 Campus Drive

Florham Park, NJ 07932

(973) 966-8200

Attorneys for Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

Case 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB Document 148 Filed 11/10/09 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 2975
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED WITH JUDGMENT entered this _ _ day of November, 2009.
HON. JOEL A. PISANO U.S. District Court Judge

 
 U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-01453-JAP-TJB

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Assigned to: Judge Joel A. Pisano Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Public Accomodations)

Date Filed: 03/27/2006 Date Terminated: 01/30/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by MICHAEL B. RANIS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 33 WHITEHALL STREET NEW YORK, NY 10004 (212) 336-3701 Email: michael.ranis@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff RONISS G. MASON

represented by HARRIET HEUER MILLER 955 WEST SIDE AVENUE JERSEY CITY, NJ 07306 (201) 333-3344 Email: miller@garden.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

represented by WENDY JOHNSON LARIO GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 500 Campus Drive Suite 400 PO BOX 677 FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932-0677 973-360-7900 Fax: 973-301-8410

Email: lariow@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/27/2006 03/29/2006 04/14/2006
04/14/2006 04/24/2006
04/24/2006
05/18/2006 05/18/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 08/08/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. JURY DEMAND, filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(lm2, ) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
Summons Issued as to UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC..Days Due 20. (mailed to counsel 3/29/06) (lm2, ) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
2 Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer Attorney WENDY JOHNSON LARIO and WENDY JOHNSON LARIO for UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. added. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
CLERK'S TEXT ORDER - the 2 Application has been GRANTED through 5/2/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
3 MOTION to Intervene by Roniss G. Mason. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Brief In Support of Motion to Intervene# 4 Certification In Support of Motion to Intervene)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
Set hearing as to 3 MOTION to Intervene. Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2006 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
4 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Madeline C. Arleo on 5/11/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
5 First Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by RONISS MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B to Complaint)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Disclosure Statement)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
7 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Disclosure Statement)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
8 ORDER of Reallocation from Newark to Trenton and assigned to Judge Joel A. Pisano. Signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 8/4/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)

08/15/2006 11/08/2006 11/13/2006
01/02/2007 01/05/2007
01/12/2007 01/29/2007 02/23/2007
02/26/2007 02/26/2007

9 ORDER Scheduling a rule 16 Conference set for 11/6/2006 3:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/15/06. (Attachments: # 1 ADR MEMO)(mm) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/8/2006. (mm) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 3/9/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/5/2007 11:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Discovery due by 8/31/2007 and setting schedule for service of certain reports. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/9/06. (ij, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
11 Substitution of Attorney - Attorney WENDY JOHNSON LARIO and WENDY JOHNSON LARIO for UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. added. Attorney WENDY JOHNSON LARIO terminated.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: The 11 Substitution of Attorney filed by W. LARIO, ESQ should not have been filed in order to inform this court of a firm name change. Counsel is advised that in the future for notice of firm name change counsel should file a Notice or a Letter stating such change. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
12 LETTER ORDER adjourning certain conference call to March 16, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 1/11/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 1/29/2007. (mm) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
13 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Letter Brief in Support of defendant's Motion for a Protective Order# 2 Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario in Support of Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order# 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Form of Protective Order)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION for Protective Order by Letter filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
Setting Deadlines as to 13 MOTION for Protective Order. Motion set for 3/19/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT

03/14/2007 03/15/2007 03/27/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007
04/18/2007 04/20/2007 05/02/2007 05/08/2007 05/15/2007 05/18/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007

WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ij, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
Reset Hearings: Status Telephone Conference set for 3/15/2007 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 3/15/2007. (mm) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
15 RESPONSE in Support re 13 MOTION for Protective Order Supplemental Letter Brief filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
16 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/5/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
17 SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Conference set for 6/1/2007 10:30 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/9/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
18 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
19 Letter from EEOC re: Proposed Protective Order re 16 Order on Motion for Protective Order, 18 Letter. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
20 LETTER ORDER setting in-person conference for May 17, 2007 and directing parties to submit certain document by May 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/2/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
21 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
22 Letter from MIchael Ranis, Prot. Order. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: In person Status Conference held on 5/18/2007. (DIGITALLY RECORDED B07 #5.) (mm) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
24 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/31/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
25 First MOTION to Compel Letter re: Production of Documents by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

06/04/2007
06/18/2007 06/27/2007 06/29/2007 06/30/2007
07/05/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/19/2007 07/25/2007 08/14/2007 08/17/2007

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: In reference to the 25 Motion filed by M. RANIS, ESQ on 6/1/07 counsel is advised that this is not a Motion but a Letter and if counsel wishes to file a motion it must be done properly. It is suggested that counsel review our rules regarding the filing of motions and re-submit this filing. (ij, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
26 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
27 LETTER ORDER setting settlement conference for August 2 at 10:00 a.m. and advising counsel on other matters regarding conference. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 6/27/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
28 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
29 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario in Response to June 7, 2007 Letter of Harriet H. Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, March 15, 2007 Letter Agreement# 2 Exhibit B, Miller Letter of April 17, 2007# 3 Exhibit C, Grazioso Letter of April 17, 2007# 4 Exhibit D, Lario and Miller Letters# 5 Exhibit E, Lario Letter of March 13, 2007# 6 Exhibit F, Lario Letter of March 19, 2007)(GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 06/30/2007)
30 Letter from defendant UPS in response to plaintiff Mason's 7/2/07 letter. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
COUNSEL/PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT: Settlement Conference (Rescheduled) set for 8/14/2007 11:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
31 LETTER ORDER:Setting telephone conference set for 7/25/2007 03:30 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/11/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
32 LETTER ORDER resetting the telephone conference to 7/25/07 at 2:30pm. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/18/07. (ck ) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
33 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 7/25/2007. (DIGITALLY RECORDED B07#7.) (mm) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
CLERK'S NOTE: Case Management/Settlement Conference set for 8/14/07 at 11:00 a.m. will be Adjourned until a later date. (DS ) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT: Reset Hearings/Case Management & Settlement Conference set for 9/5/2007 11:00 AM in

08/27/2007
09/05/2007 09/07/2007
12/05/2007
02/11/2008 04/01/2008 04/03/2008 04/07/2008 04/08/2008 04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/15/2008

Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
34 LETTER ORDER:Telephone Conference set for 12/5/2007 11:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.,Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/8/2008 02:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Discovery due by 1/1/2008. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/24/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano : Settlement Conference held on 9/5/2007. (DS) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
35 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/25/07 before Judge Bongiovanni. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ij, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 12/5/2007. (DIGITALLY RECORDED B07#12.) (mm) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2007 (mm, ). (Entered: 12/11/2007)
37 LETTER ORDER setting certain discovery deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 2/6/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
38 LETTER ORDER: Telephone Conference reset for 4/10/2008 12:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 3/31/08. (lk) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
39 Letter from EEOC re: Discovery Disputes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-G)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
40 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario in Response to EEOC's April 3, 2008 Pre-Motion Letter. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
41 Letter from Plaintiff's counsel, Harriet Heuer Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B-D, # 3 Exhibit D)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
42 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario in Response to April 8, 2008 Letter from Plaintiff Mason. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
Reset Hearings: Status Telephone Conference set for 4/16/2008 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiff is to initiate the call. (mm) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
43 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 12/5/2007 before Judge

04/15/2008 04/16/2008 05/02/2008 05/09/2008 05/21/2008
06/06/2008 06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/23/2008 07/30/2008

Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Court Reporter: Mark Morelli. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (tp ) (Main Document 43 replaced on 8/9/2016) (kas). (Entered: 04/15/2008)
44 Letter from EEOC and Joint Filing. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 4/16/2008. Settlement Conference set for 5/6/2008 2:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
46 LETTER ORDER: Settlement Conference reset for 6/19/2008 02:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/1/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
47 LETTER ORDER: Settlement Conference reset for 6/16/2008 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/9/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
48 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/16/08 before Judge Bongiovanni. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ij, ) (Main Document 48 replaced on 8/9/2016) (kas). (Entered: 05/21/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 6/6/2008. (mm) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Settlement Conference held on 6/16/2008. (mm) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
49 LETTER ORDER re: deposition of Viera Androszewski. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/17/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
50 LETTER ORDER re: follow up from settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/18/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
51 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered:

07/31/2008
08/01/2008 09/02/2008
09/15/2008 09/16/2008 09/24/2008 10/02/2008 10/09/2008 11/03/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/10/2008

07/30/2008)
52 FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/30/2008 12:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/31/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
53 Letter from Michael Ranis, EEOC re 52 Scheduling Order. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
54 LETTER ORDER rescheduling Pretrial Conference for October 2, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. and directing that pretrial order be submitted by Septemeber 15, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 9/2/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
55 Proposed Pretrial Order Joint Filing of Parties by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
56 Letter from Michael Ranis re: Deposition. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sample Page of UPS Survey)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 9/24/2008. (mm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Final Pretrial Conference/Settlement Conference held on 10/2/2008. (mm) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
57 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 10/2/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT: Set Hearings: InPerson Status Conference set for 11/10/2008 09:30 AM in Trenton Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. Parties to confirm by letter (efile) no later than 11/05/08. (DS) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
58 Letter from Plaintiff Roniss Mason. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
59 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
60 Letter from Michael Ranis re: Conference. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Appearances: Michael Ranis, Esq., for, deft (EEOC) & Harriet Miller, Esq., for pltf (Roniss Mason). In-Person Status Conference held on

11/11/2008 11/12/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008
12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/18/2008

11/10/2008. Jury trial set for 01/20/09 at 9:30 a.m. Matter adjourned. (DS) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
61 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
62 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Trial set for 1/20/2009 09:30 AM in Trenton Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. Trial case management conference 1/16/09 at 11:00 a.m. Parties confirmed.(DS) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
63 MOTION in Limine by RONISS G. MASON. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
64 MOTION in Limine by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
65 MOTION in Limine by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Affidavit of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhibit W, # 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit Y, # 28 Exhibit Z, # 29 Exhibit AA and BB, # 30 Exhibit CC - FF, # 31 Exhibit GG - LL, # 32 Exhibit MM - TT, # 33 Text of Proposed Order)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 with Transcript of Mason Testim.)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Testimony)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
63 , 69 , 66 , 68 , 67 & 65 Motions set for 1/20/09 will be decided on the papers before Judge Joel A. Pisano. No appearance required unless

12/18/2008
12/18/2008 12/23/2008 12/30/2008
12/30/2008 12/31/2008
12/31/2008 01/05/2009 01/05/2009

notified by the Court. (ij, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The 64 Motion filed by H. Miller, Esq on 12/17/08 was submitted incorrectly as a Motion. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE Motion USING Brief/Memorandum. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (ij, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE The 66 through 69 Motions were not submitted with a Notice of Motion by M. Ranis, Esq on 12/17/08. PLEASE SUBMIT THE MISSING DOCUMENTS ONLY. (ij, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
70 Letter from Michael Ranis re: Disc. Disp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript of Depos. of Mr. Downs)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Plaintiff/Intervenor's Motions in Limine, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Text of Proposed Order In Limine)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
72 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario Re: Discovery Dispute re 70 Letter. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in LimineAmended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine. Motion set for 1/20/2009 before Judge Pisano will be decided on the papers. No appearance required unless notified by the Court. (mmh) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
73 LETTER ORDER denying the EEOC's request to compel production of the Survey final report and PowerPoint Presentation and to re-depose Mr. Downs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 12/31/2008. (mmh) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
74 BRIEF in Opposition re 65 MOTION in Limine filed by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of HHMiller, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
75 BRIEF in Opposition re 71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in LimineAmended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 2 Exhibit A-K, # 3 Exhibit L-O, # 4 Exhibit PU)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/05/2009)

01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/06/2009 01/07/2009
01/07/2009 01/09/2009

76 BRIEF in Opposition re 66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 2 Exhibit A-K, # 3 Exhibit L-O, # 4 Exhibit P-U)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
77 BRIEF in Opposition re 67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 2 Exhibit A-K, # 3 Exhibit L-O, # 4 Exhibit P-U)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
78 BRIEF in Opposition re 68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
79 BRIEF in Opposition re 69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
80 RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 MOTION in Limine by Defendant UPS filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Mem. in Oppos to Def. Motion in Limine)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
81 Letter from Michael Ranis re 80 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Contents, Docketed No. 80)(RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT: Motion Hearing RESET for 01/16/2009 at 11:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano re 63 MOTION in Limine, 69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation, 71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in LimineAmended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine, 66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, 68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation, 67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah>, 65 MOTION in Limine. Trial Case Management Conference to follow. (DS) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
RESET Hearings: Jury Trial set for 1/22/2009 09:30 AM in Trenton Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
82 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 65 MOTION in Limine filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Second Supplemental Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 2 Exhibit A-E to Second Supplemental Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/12/2009 01/12/2009 01/12/2009 01/12/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/16/2009
01/19/2009

83 RESPONSE in Support re 66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
84 RESPONSE in Support re 67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
85 RESPONSE in Support re 69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
86 RESPONSE in Support re 68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
87 TRIAL BRIEF by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
88 Proposed Voir Dire by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
89 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
90 Proposed Jury Instructions by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Motion Hearing held on 1/16/2009 re 65 MOTION in Limine filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in LimineAmended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine filed by RONISS G. MASON, 69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS ) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
92 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/19/2009)

01/20/2009
01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009
01/21/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009

93 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Motion Hearing held on 1/20/2009 re 65 MOTION in Limine filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 71 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in LimineAmended MOTION to Amend/Correct 63 MOTION in Limine filed by RONISS G. MASON, 69 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Backpay Periods, Mitigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 67 MOTION in Limine to Allow Test. Farhan, Shah filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 66 MOTION in Limine re: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 68 MOTION in Limine Exclude Unrelated Litigation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS, ) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Pretrial Conference held on 1/20/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Settlement Conference held on 1/20/2009. (DS) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
94 TRIAL BRIEF by RONISS G. MASON. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
95 Proposed Voir Dire by RONISS G. MASON. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
96 Proposed Voir Dire by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
97 ORDER granting 65 Motion in Limine; granting 66 Motion in Limine; denying 67 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 71 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 1/20/09. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
98 TRIAL BRIEF January 21, 2009 by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial held on 1/22/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
101 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial continued on 1/23/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS)

01/25/2009 01/26/2009 01/26/2009
01/27/2009
01/27/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/29/2009

(Entered: 01/26/2009)
100 Proposed Jury Instructions by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/25/2009)
102 Proposed Jury Instructions by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
103 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial continued on 1/26/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial continued on 1/27/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
114 Jury Note #1; dated as of 1/27/09 and signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
105 Proposed Jury Instructions by RONISS G. MASON. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
106 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario Regarding Plaintiff Mason's Requested Charge to the Jury. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
107 Proposed Jury Instructions by RONISS G. MASON, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
108 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario Regarding Jury Charge Re Sincerity of Religious Belief. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
109 Proposed Jury Instructions by RONISS G. MASON, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
110 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario Regarding Proposed Addition to Jury Charge. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
111 Letter from Michael Ranis re: Sincerity. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
112 Proposed Jury Instructions by RONISS G. MASON. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
113 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario: Proposed Joint Verdict Sheet. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial completed on 1/29/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)

01/29/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009 01/30/2009
01/30/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009
02/09/2009 02/09/2009 02/13/2009
02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009

116 Jury Note #2; dated 1/29/09 and signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
117 Jury Note #3; dated 1/29/09 and signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
118 Jury Note #4; dated 1/29/09 and signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
119 JURY VERDICT signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
121 CORRECTED: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Jury Trial concluded on 1/29/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) . (Entered: 02/03/2009)
120 JUDGMENT in favor of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and RONISS G. MASON against dft UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.in the amount of $10,000.00. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 1/29/09. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
***Civil Case Terminated. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
122 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In, # 2 Affidavit In Support of Fees, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT: In-Person Status Conference set for 2/10/2009 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. Parties to confirm by (E-FILE) not later than 2/9/2009. (DS) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
123 Letter from Plaintiff/Intervenor Mason's counsel. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
122 First MOTION for Attorney Fees set for 3/16/09 will be decided on the papers before Judge Joel A. Pisano. No appearance required unless notified by the Court. (ij, ) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT: In-Person Status Conference RESET for 2/19/2009 09:30 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. Please confirm by letter (E-FILE) not later than 02/17/2009. (DS) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
124 Letter from Plaintiff/Intervenor's Counsel Harriet Heuer Miller. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
125 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
126 MOTION for Sanctions by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC..

02/13/2009 02/17/2009
02/17/2009 02/18/2009 02/19/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009
02/27/2009 03/03/2009 03/17/2009

(Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 3 Exhibit A-C, # 4 Exhibit D-H, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
127 MOTION for Judgment NOV or, in the alternative, MOTION for New Trial by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Certification of Wendy Johnson Lario, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 126 MOTION for Sanctions, 127 MOTION for Judgment NOV or, in the alternative MOTION for New Trial. Motion set for 3/16/2009 before Judge Pisano will be decided on the papers. No appearance required unless notified by the Court. (mmh) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
128 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario Setting Forth Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule for All Parties' Post-Trial Motions. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
129 Letter from Michael Ranis re: Conference.. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
130 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: In-Person Status Conference held on 2/19/2009. Matter continued to 02/25/2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: In-Person Status Conference held on 2/25/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Fees, Expenses & Interest by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Motion for Fees, Expenses, Interest, # 2 Affidavit of Legal Services, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Text of Proposed Order for Fees, Expenses & Interest)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Fees, Expenses & Interest Motion set for 4/6/09 will be decided on the papers before Judge Joel A. Pisano. No appearance required unless notified by the Court. (ij, ) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
133 LETTER ORDER granting request for filing of certain motion opposition and reply papers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 3/3/09. (ij, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
134 BRIEF in Opposition re 132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Fees, Expenses & Interest filed by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Wendy

04/01/2009
06/22/2009 06/23/2009 06/24/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 09/23/2009
09/23/2009 09/30/2009
10/07/2009
10/07/2009

Johnson Lario)(LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
135 RESPONSE in Support re 132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Fees, Expenses & Interest filed by RONISS G. MASON. (Attachments: # 1 Certification SUPPLEMENTAL OF HH MILLER, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
136 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Fees, Expenses & Interest by PlaintiffIntervenor Mason filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
137 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
138 Letter from Harriet Heuer Miller re 137 Letter. (MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
139 Letter from H H Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-JAMA v. ESMOR, # 2 Exhibit B-Hyderally Cert., # 3 Exhibit C-Bhalla Cert., # 4 Exhibit DDillon Cert)(MILLER, HARRIET) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
140 Letter from Kristy L. Grazioso. (GRAZIOSO, KRISTY) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
141 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Motion Hearing held on 9/23/2009 re 132 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by RONISS G. MASON. Ordered motion granted. (DIGITALLY RECORDED.) (mm) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
142 ORDER granting in part 132 Motion to Amend/Correct; the Court shall file a separate opinion outlining the exact amount of the fee award on a later date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 9/23/2009. (gxh) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
143 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting Mr. Mason's Motion 132 in part and that Deft shall pay Mr. Mason's attorney's fees in the amount of $126,590.63 and expenses in the amount of $1,449.46. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 9/30/2009. (gxh) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDING: In-Person Status Conference set for 10/7/2009 10:30 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. Counsel to confirm court notice by letter (E-FILE) not later than 10/08/2009. (DS) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
CORRECTED ENTRY: In-Person Status Conference SET for 10/15/2009

10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/15/2009 10/30/2009
11/10/2009 11/12/2009
11/16/2009

10:30 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. (DS) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
144 Letter from Michael Ranis re Set/Reset Hearings,. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
145 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario. (LARIO, WENDY) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: In-Person Status Conference held on 10/15/2009. (Court Reporter/Recorder J. Caruso.) (DS) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
147 LETTER ORDER that the version of the Consent Judgment proposed by UPS most accurately reflects the terms of the settlement reached by the parties and placed on the record; and that the aforementioned proposed Consent Judgment should be executed by the parties and submitted to the Court. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 10/30/2009. (gxh) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
148 Consent MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) as Consent Judgment by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (RANIS, MICHAEL) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The PROPOSED ORDER submitted by M. RANIS on 11/10/2009 must be executed by a Judicial Officer before filing. Please forward to the appropriate Judicial Officer in accordance with his/her preferred practice as found on our website. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ss, ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
149 CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 11/16/2009. (gxh) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

 
 UPS Sued for Discrimination Against Rastafarian

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-29-06.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 29, 2006

CONTACT: Michael Ranis Trial Attorney (212) 336-3701

TTY:

Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney (212) 336-3696 (212) 336-3622

UPS SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RASTAFARIAN
EEOC Charges United Parcel Service with Religious Bias due to 'No Beard' Policy
NEWARK, N.J. - Global shipping giant United Parcel Service (UPS) committed religious discrimination at its Secaucus, N.J., facilities, by refusing to hire a Rastafarian as a driver helper because of his beard, which he wore for religious purposes, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges in a lawsuit.
EEOC says that UPS required Ronnis Mason to shave his beard if he were to be hired for that position helping with customer deliveries and requiring customer contact. Mason wears his beard as part of his observance of Rastafarianism, a Jamaican-born religion with around one million adherents in the world. Mason explained to UPS that he could not shave his beard, and UPS told him that he could then only apply for an "inside," lower paying position that would not have contact with the public.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees' and applicants' sincerely held religious beliefs as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC alleges that by refusing to accommodate Mason's religion and by not permitting him to work as a driver helper, UPS interfered with Mason's employment opportunities and ability to make a better living in the higher-paid position he sought. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
"Employers are not permitted to deny an individual equal opportunities because of that person's religion, and the EEOC will seek full relief against employers who discriminate," said Elizabeth Grossman, the EEOC's New York District regional attorney.
Spencer H. Lewis, Jr, director for the EEOC's New York District Office, added, "Employees are entitled to an accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs and practices they should not be hidden from the public in the back room or paid inferior wages simply because they are practicing their religion."
According to its web site, Atlanta-based UPS had $42.6 billion in revenues in 2005 and has 407,200 employees worldwide (348,400 in the United States).
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation's laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 29, 2006.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

5/29/2007 4:38 PM