Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 10

United Slates Equal Employment Opportunily Commission Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5'" Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Woody Anglade Trial Attorney
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

}

)

)

COMPLAINT

) JURy TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

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 and to provide appropriate relief to

Michael Hill and a class ofBlack employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As

articulated with greaterparticularity in paragraphs 7 through 12 below, the Commission alleges that

Defendant, Target Corporation, discriminated against Mr. Hill, a Senior Merchant, on thc basis of

his race, Black, wben he was subjected to differential tenns and conditions of employment and a

hostile work environment created by his immediate Supervisor, Jeff Barnes (White). The

Commission further alleges that Defendant retaliated against Mr. Hill after he complained ofrace

discrimination, repeatedly denied him a transfer to another store to escape the hostile work

environment, and then offered him a demotion. Defendant's actions ultimately led Mr. Hill to

constructively discharge from his position.

1

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 10
Further, the Commission alleges that Target Corporation sUbjected a class of Black employees to differential tenns and conditions ofemployment and a hostile work environment based on their race. Mr. Hill and the class claimants suffered emotional distress and backpay damages as a result of Defendant's actions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Actof1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t) and (3), ("Title VII"), and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title V1l, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.s.C. § 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Target Corporation ("Defendant Employer" or "Target"), bas continuously been and is now doing business in the State ofPennsylvania and the city of Springfield and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer had 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).
2

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 3 of 10
/'"
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Michael Hill filed a
charge with the Connnission alleging violations ofTitle vn by Defendant Employer. All conditions
precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment
practices at its Springfield, Pennsylvania facility, in violation ofsections 703(a)(I) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and 704(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the following;
(a) 1n July 2003, Defendant hired Michael Hill as a Senior Merchant for its Springfield store. The Senior Merchant position is a high-level store executive position. The Senior Merchant acts as an apprentice to the Store Manager, with the intent that the Senior Merchant will be trained to ultimately become a Store Manager.
(b) After eight (8) weeks oftraining, Mr. Hill began to work full-time in the Springfield store under the tutelage ofStore Manager IeffBames (White). He looked forward to the challenge of learning the business and the opportunity to become a Store Manager.
(c) However, from the begiuning ofhis tenure at the Springfield store in September 2003, Mr. Hill was subjected to hostile treatment, disparaging connnents and racial harassment by Jeff Bames. Specifically, Mr. Hill was frequently spoken to in a demeaning and condescending manner, constantly yelled at and discredited in the presence of subordinate employees, and treated with overall hostility. Mr. Hill also noticed that Barnes' manner and demeanor in dealing with Black employees was far less acconnnodating, accepting and pleasant than his mauner of dealing with White employees.
3

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 4 of 10

(d) In November 2003, Mr. Hill complained to then District Manager Mark Kerin

(White), about the treatment he was receiving from Barnes. Kerin was Barnes' immediate

supervisor. In an effort to work through the issues with Barnes, Mr. Hill met with a Human

Resources representative and Barnes. At that time, Barnes informed Mr. Hill that he did not realize

what he was doing. By the end ofthe meeting, Michael Hill believed that the issues were resolved.

(e) Sometime in November or December 2003, Mark Kerin was replaced as District

Manager. During a private meeting with Mr. Hill in or about January 2004, it was acknowledged

by the new District Manager Craig Snyderman (White), that Hill had experienced problems with

Barnes in the past.

(f)

Aware of the private meeting, after Mr. Hill's meeting with District Manager

Snyderman, Barnes approached Hill on the store floor and asked him whether he had his meeting

with Snyderman. Barnes then commented "well did he tell you...?" Mr. Hill responded asking "tell

me what," to which Barnes further commented something to the effect "[wJell, did he tell you that

we will never put a Black penson in the Store Manager position?"

(g) Thereafter, Barnes' demeanor became even more hostile and he made numerous

racially insensitive comments, including but not limited to "Black women are the lowest form of

life...," and that his mother used to work with Black people and she referred to them as "lazy."

(h) Yet another racially insensitive remark followed Mr. Hill's attempt to resolve issues.

Specifically, Mr. Hill met with Barnes to discuss and address store issues, including the perception

among minority supervisors that they would not be promoted to the store executive leveL During

the discussion, Barnes abruptly commented, "you know, I didn't have these problems until I got a

Black Senior Merchant."

4

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 5 of 10
(i) In February 2004, Mr. Hill spoke to Snyderman about transferring to another store, and specificallyindicated that theracia11yhostile work environment created by Barnes was beginning to make him ill. He informed Snyderman that Barnes constantlyberated his work and interfered with his ability to do his job. Snyderman indicated that a transfer was not an option.
G) On or about March 2, 2004, Mr. Hill experienced chest pains due to the stress ofthe environment and was hospitalized.
(k) When he retnmed to work, Mr. Hill again met with District Manager Snyderman and complained about the race-related statements made by Barnes and the impact it was having on him and his ability to perform his job. Hill again asked for a transfer, which was refused by Snyderman. Incredibly, Snyderman told Mr. Hill that he should not take Barnes' statements "so literally." He
further stated "[w]hat you have to understand is that sometimes people say these things, and that
doesn't mean they are racists." (I) After the meeting with Snyderman, Mr. Hill decided to confront Barnes and informed
him that he took offense, and totally objected to his racially insensitive and derogatory comments. He also told Barnes that he informed Snyderman about his objeetions. Barnes angrily responded, "when people f - - k with me, I f - - k with them." Barnes continued to undermine Mr. Hill's credibility and anthority as a manager. Specifically, he would instruct Michael HilI's subordinates not to follow Hill's directions, and would yell at the employees if they did, causing confusion with staffas to which direction should be followed.
(m) In July 2004, Michael Hill again spoke to Snyderman about the worsening work environment and how Barnes was generally mistreating Black employees as a group. He again asked for a transfer which was denied.
5

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 6 of 10
(n) Frustrated that conditions were not improving and his complaints were not being taken seriously, on or about August 4, 2004, Mr. Hill spoke with the Regional Human Resources Manager, Mark Baker (White). He specifically complained about the hostile work environment created by Barnes and the fact that Snyderman had done nothing to stop the harassment and abuse. He further indicated that his requests for transfers had been denied many times, and emphasized that the work environment was severely impacting his health. Mr. Hill thereafter stated he would not return to the hostile environment. Baker told Mr. Hill that he would initiate an investigation.
(0) Ironically, and despite an explicit complaint that Mr. Snyderman had failed to take any action, Mark Baker assigned Snyderman to conduct an investigation of Mr. Hill's complaints.
(P) Defendant eventually offered Mr. Hill a demotion to another store. Feeling that his numerous complaints were not being adequately addressed, that Target had refused to consider him for a comparable transfer, and because the environment remained hostile, Michael Hill resigned on September 13, 2004.
(8) The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7(a) through (P) above has been to deprive Michael Hill ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because he was forced to tolerate a working environment that was racially hostile and demeaning. He was further subjected to retaliation because he engaged in protected activitybyopposing employment practices he believed to be diseriminatory, in violation ofTitle VII.
(9) The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7(a) through (P) above were intentional and were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Hill.
(10) Since at least 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment
6

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 7 of 10
practices in violation of Section 703(a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a){l), by disparately treating a class of Black employees, when Defendant sUbjected them to differential terms and conditions of employment and a hostile work enviromnent based on their race. These unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Black employees stated that Barnes provided no support for employees who worked with Miehael Hill. They also indicated that Barnes provided differential levels of support to Black and White employees overall at the Springfield store. Specifically, Jeff Barnes treated White employees more favorably than Black employees.
(b) Black employees further expressed concern that despite the high composition ofBlaek employees, there were few ifany, Black management staff, and limited promotional opportunities. For example, one employee asserted that there had been only one Black manager at the Springfield store other than Mr. Hill.
(c) Sevcrallong term Black employees resigned their positions under the leadership of JeffBarnes. At least one employee resigned his position despite having a long and successful career with Target, because Defendant and Barnes would not provide him with the support and promotional opportunities to advance within the company. According to this employee, Barnes' conduct was such that he believed he would never allow a Black person to be promoted to an Executive position.
(d) Black employees witnessed that JeffBarnes interacted differently and more negatively with Mr. Hill than he had with a previous White Senior Merchant Black employees also complained that unlike White employees, they were verbally abused by Barnes. Specifically, one Black employee stated how Barnes' verbal berating of her in the presence of her co-workers, was so outrageously embarrassing that she left the store crying hysterically and never returned.
7

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 8 of 10
(e) After the verbal berating and sudden discharge ofthis employee, Barnes told some Black employees that he did not "understand the problem" with the Black employees, since he brought Michael Hill to the store for them.
(f) Despite numerous complaints, clearly, a culture ofracial tension was allowed to exist in the store under Barnes' management.
(11) The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphl O(a) through (t) above have been to deprive Black employees ofequal employment opportuuities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir race, in violation of Title VII.
(12) The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 100a) through (f) above were intentional and were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Black employees, in violation of Title VII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors,
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from continuing to disparately treat
individuals, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race and retaliation.
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry outpolicies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities to individuals, which eradicate the effects ofits past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a complaint procedure which encourages employees to come forward ,"vith complaints regarding violations of its policies against
8

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 9 of 10

discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall

promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory persounel a duty to

actively monitor theirwork areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination and anti-

retaliation; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of

harassment and/or retaliation ofwhieh theybecome aware to the department charged with handling

such complaints.

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michael Hill and a class ofBiack employees

by providing appropriate back pay with p~udgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial,

and other affirmative reliefnecessary to ersdicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices,

including but not limited to, front payor reinstatement.

F.

Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michael Hill and a class of Black

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

unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs above, including but not limited to out-of-

pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.

G.

Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michael Hill and a class of Black

employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

unlawful practices described in paragraphs above, including pain and suffering, humiliation,

embarrassment, and loss of life's pleasures, in amounts to be determined at trial.

H.

Order Defendant Employer to pay Michael Hill and a class of Black employees

punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in the paragraphs above, in

amounts to be determined at trial.

9

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 10 of 10

L

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

interest.

I.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURy TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

JAivlES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

G'I'.'ENDOLYN YOIJNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L. Street,NW Washington, DC 20507
fJ

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Philadelphia District Office The Bourse Building 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone (215) 440-2814
10

 
 Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

:

and

:

MICHAEL HILL,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

TARGET CORPORATION,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION No. 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ

INTERVENER COMPLAINT

Intervener-Plaintiff, Michael Hill, by and through his attorney, Julie A. Uebler,

Esquire, brings this Intervener Complaint and asserts the following claims against Target

Corporation (“Target”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343. 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), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and Section 1981 of

the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Hill’s claims under the Pennsylvania

Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 955(a) and (d), pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction as

codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 14
3. The amount in controversy in this case exceeds the jurisdictional amount for arbitration of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
4. Mr. Hill has exhausted all administrative remedies, having filed timely complaints of race discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”).
5. The actions complained of herein occurred within the jurisdictional limit of this Court. Venue is properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
PARTIES 6. Intervener-Plaintiff, Michael Hill, is an African-American citizen of the United States. At all relevant times, Mr. Hill was an employee of Target. 7. Target has been properly named a defendant in the action brought by the EEOC. Target has, at all relevant times, continuously been and is now doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the city of Springfield. At all relevant times, Target has had at least fifteen (15) employees, and has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. Mr. Hill began his employment with Target in July 2003 as a Senior Merchant at its Springfield, Pennsylvania store. The Senior Merchant position was a store executive position. At the time of Mr. Hill’s hire, Target identified the Senior
2

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 3 of 14
Merchant position to him as an apprentice to the Store Team Lead (the highest position at the store level).
9. At the time Mr. Hill started his employment with Target, he had extensive experience in retail management.
10. After eight weeks of training, in September 2003, Mr. Hill began his assignment at the Springfield store reporting to Jeff Barnes (White), the Store Team Lead.
11. Soon after Mr. Hill started working for Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barnes often yelled at Mr. Hill in front of other subordinate employees, and attempted to belittle him.
12. In November 2003, Mr. Hill met with Mark Kerin, Mr. Barnes’ boss and the District Team Lead for the district that included the Springfield store. During their meeting, Mr. Hill told Mr. Kerin about Mr. Barnes’ treatment of him. Mr. Hill also told Mr. Kerin that he would like to handle the problem directly.
13. On another day in or around November 2003, Mr. Kerin purchased items at the store. Mr. Barnes said: “Let Mike pay for it, he makes a lot of money,” to which Mr. Hill replied: “I’m third in this line.” Mr. Barnes’ response was that he was “going to keep it that way.”
14. In an effort to address the problems he was having with Mr. Barnes, Mr. Hill initiated a meeting among himself, Mr. Barnes, and Panda Allia (White), Target’s Human Resources representative at the Springfield store. During the meeting, Mr. Hill told Mr. Barnes that he objected to the way he was being treated. Mr. Barnes said he had not realized what he had been doing.
3

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 4 of 14
15. Between November 2003 and January 2004, Mr. Kerin was replaced as the District Team Lead by Craig Snyderman (White), who happened to be a friend of Mr. Barnes with whom he had worked often in the past.
16. During a visit to the Springfield store in or about January 2004, Mr. Snyderman met one-on-one with each of the Store Executives. During his meeting with Mr. Hill, Mr. Snyderman said that he had heard from Mr. Kerin that Mr. Hill had experienced problems with Mr. Barnes.
17. Later the same day, Mr. Barnes ran into Mr. Hill on the sales floor and asked about Mr. Hill’s meeting with Mr. Snyderman. Mr. Barnes then stated words to the effect that: “Well, did he tell you we are never going to put a Black person in the store manager position?”
18. Soon thereafter, in late January or February 2004, when Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hill were walking the sales floor on the way to a staff meeting, they discussed the display area set up for Black History month. Mr. Barnes made dismissive comments about the display, suggesting that the merchandise would be sent to Charge Back (which is a reference to throwing it out).
19. Afterwards, during a Monday morning meeting with the Store Executives, Mr. Barnes made an extremely insensitive statement suggesting that “Black women were the lowest form of life.” Mr. Hill was the only African-American in the meeting. The other Store Executives appeared to be embarrassed by Mr. Barnes’ statement, and there was an awkward silence in the room before the meeting continued.
20. In or around February 2004, racial tensions between Caucasian and African American Supervisors (the managers below Executive level) at the store, which
4

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 5 of 14
had been building for some time, came to a head. One of the White Supervisors, Stephanie Wagner, commented disparagingly to her colleagues about the “ghetto” pictures that Mr. Hill had hung in his office. Mr. Hill had hung a variety of framed photos of celebrities in his office, many of whom were Black, including Allen Iverson, Muhammad Ali and Biggie Smalls (a rap musician). The Black Supervisors were offended by Ms. Wagner’s statement and attitude.
21. The discord created by Ms. Wagner’s comments prompted Mr. Hill to meet with all the Supervisors and directly address the racial tensions. By the end of the meeting, the Supervisors had committed to make changes in their behavior to improve their relationships.
22. Thereafter, Mr. Hill and Mr. Barnes met to discuss store management issues. During that discussion, Mr. Hill advised Mr. Barnes of racial tensions among the Supervisors and the related meeting. Mr. Hill also advised Mr. Barnes of a perception among the minority Supervisors that they would not be promoted to the Executive level at the Springfield store. Mr. Barnes responded to this information by stating that he “didn’t have any of these problems until I got a Black Senior Merchant.” Mr. Hill asked Mr. Barnes to explain what he meant, and Mr. Barnes simply stated: “Well, I didn’t.”
23. Rather than praise Mr. Hill for his efforts, Mr. Barnes undermined Mr. Hill’s management authority and minimized the significance of the race-related tensions. Mr. Barnes met with Ms. Wagner behind closed doors and told her to “let it go,” and suggested that some people are “overly sensitive.”
24. By late February, Mr. Hill complained to Mr. Snyderman about Mr. Barnes’ behavior. At that time, Mr. Hill was very reluctant to identify the race-based
5

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 6 of 14
nature of Mr. Barnes’ statements because he was new to Target and he did not want to be perceived to be “playing the race card.” Mr. Hill told Mr. Snyderman that things were getting worse with Mr. Barnes, and that the work environment was making him ill. Mr. Hill asked for a transfer to another Target location. Mr. Snyderman told Mr. Hill that a transfer was not an option.
25. By March 2, 2004, the stress of dealing with the racially hostile work environment resulted in physical manifestations and Mr. Hill was rushed to the hospital with chest pains. Mr. Hill was subsequently on a paid disability leave of absence for six weeks.
26. After returning from leave, Mr. Hill met with Mr. Snyderman in early May and complained specifically about the race-related statements made by Mr. Barnes and the impact it was having on his ability to perform his job. The complaint was made in accordance with Target’s internal complaint procedures. Although Mr. Snyderman claimed that such statements would not be tolerated, he also told Mr. Hill that he should not take them “so literally.” He went on to say: “What you have to understand is that sometimes people say these things, and that doesn’t mean they are racists.” Mr. Snyderman also asked Mr. Hill whether Mr. Hill thought he was a racist.
27. In addition to the race-based statements, Mr. Hill also raised a concern with Mr. Snyderman about a conversation he had with Mr. Barnes early in their working relationship. Mr. Hill conveyed to Mr. Snyderman that Mr. Barnes had told him that if he wanted to “get rid of somebody,” then “say things to them” when no one else is around to “make them quit.”
6

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 7 of 14
28. During the meeting with Mr. Snyderman in early May, Mr. Hill explicitly requested a transfer to another store. Mr. Snyderman refused.
29. Within weeks after making his complaint to Mr. Snyderman, Mr. Hill met with Mr. Barnes to directly address his concerns. Mr. Hill told Mr. Barnes that he objected to Mr. Barnes’ racially insensitive statements, and that he had reported his concerns to Mr. Snyderman. Mr. Barnes replied: ‘When people f--k with me, I f—k with them.”
30. Thereafter, Mr. Barnes intentionally interfered with Mr. Hill’s ability to perform his job duties. For example, Mr. Barnes interfered with Mr. Hill’s direction to his subordinates by giving them contrary instructions when Mr. Hill was out of the store. He also made efforts to discredit Mr. Hill with his subordinates.
31. When Mr. Hill spoke with Ms. Allia, Target’s Human Resources representative at the Springfield store, about his continuing concerns about Mr. Barnes in late May 2004, Ms. Allia asked him whether he thought Mr. Barnes was a racist. She told Mr. Hill that sometimes people make stupid remarks, but that does not mean they are being malicious.
32. At the conclusion of an early morning break with the Executives, Mr. Hill, Mr. Barnes and Ms. Allia stayed behind, and Ms. Allia told the others about racist statements and race-based jokes that were allegedly made by another company manager. In response, Mr. Barnes stated that he thought this other manager “might have a white sheet in his closet.” Mr. Barnes also admitted that he had spoken with the manager’s supervisor about the statements and that the supervisor ignored it.
7

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 8 of 14
33. Despite the fact that Ms. Allia was Target’s highest ranking Human Resources professional at the Springfield store, she said nothing about the raciallycharged statements or about Target’s obligations to prevent them.
34. Mr. Barnes dismissed the egregiousness of the other manager’s behavior by saying that it was probably the way he was raised and further suggesting that “when you are raised that way as a child, it sticks with you.”
35. In the same conversation, Mr. Barnes indicated that his mother used to work with Black people, and she always said they were lazy.
36. In July 2004, Mr. Hill contacted Mr. Snyderman and told him that things with Mr. Barnes were getting worse. Mr. Hill again requested a transfer, which was denied.
37. In early August 2004, on a day after Mr. Hill had been off, Mr. Barnes yelled at and berated Mr. Hill about the state of the stock room in front of other employees. Mr. Hill could no longer handle the stress of Mr. Barnes’ mistreatment. He told Mr. Barnes that he had to leave the store to see his doctor.
38. On August 4, 2004, Mr. Hill met with Mark Baker (White), Target’s Regional Human Resources Manager, to complain about the racially hostile work environment, Mr. Snyderman’s refusal to take his complaints seriously, and Mr. Barnes’ retaliation following his prior complaints to Mr. Snyderman. Mr. Hill emphasized that the work environment was making him ill. Mr. Hill confirmed his complaint in an e-mail to Mr. Baker on August 6, 2004.
39. On August 16, 2004, Mr. Baker sent an e-mail to Mr. Hill indicating that he had asked Mr. Snyderman to “begin” an investigation into Mr. Hill’s complaints. He
8

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 9 of 14
had also offered Mr. Hill a demotion to another store. Based on the fact that Mr. Baker did nothing more than send Mr. Hill’s complaint back to Mr. Snyderman, Mr. Hill reasonably concluded that Target would not take his complaints seriously and that the hostile work environment would continue. Mr. Hill resigned his employment with Target on September 13, 2004, as soon after receiving Mr. Baker’s message as he was able to secure alternative employment, because the work environment at Target had become intolerable and was severely impacting his health.
40. Mr. Hill was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. He was further subjected to retaliation because he made complaints of the discriminatory conduct, which constituted protected activity under federal and state anti-discrimination statutes.
41. The unlawful employment practices detailed in this Complaint were intentional and/or were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to Mr. Hill’s right to be free from discrimination in the workplace.
42. As a direct result of Target’s unlawful employment practices, Mr. Hill has suffered a loss of earnings and earnings potential.
43. As a direct result of Target’s unlawful employment practices, Mr. Hill has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, the loss of self-esteem, physical illness, and a loss of life’s pleasures.
9

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 10 of 14
COUNT I Race Discrimination and Retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 44. Intervener-Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein. 45. Target violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, in that it discriminated against Mr. Hill on account of his race (Black) and retaliated against him for making complaints of discrimination.
COUNT II Race Discrimination and Retaliation in violation of the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 46. Intervener-Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth herein. 47. Target violated the provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 955(a) and (d) in that it discriminated against Mr. Hill on account of his race (Black) and retaliated against him for making complaints of discrimination.
COUNT III Race Discrimination and Retaliation in violation of
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 48. Intervener-Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth herein. 49. Target violated the provisions of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in that it discriminated against Mr. Hill on account of his race
10

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 11 of 14
(Black), interfered with his right to make and enforce contracts based on his race, and retaliated against him for making complaints of discrimination.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Michael Hill respectfully requests that this Court: A. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s acts, policies, practices and procedures complained of herein have violated Mr. Hill’s rights as secured to him by law; B. Require Defendant to reinstate Mr. Hill to a position equivalent to the one from which he was constructively discharged and to award him full wages and benefits commensurate to that position; C. Award to Mr. Hill compensation for all past and future pecuniary losses resulting from Target’s unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost promotional opportunities, lost earnings growth opportunities, all compensation and benefits lost due to the actions of Defendant, all out-of-pocket losses, as well as an award for front pay if reinstatement is not possible; D. Award to Mr. Hill compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from Target’s unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and a loss of life’s pleasures, in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Award to Mr. Hill punitive damages for Target’s malicious and reckless conduct as described herein, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Grant to Mr. Hill all costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees relating to the enforcement of his rights. G. Grant to Mr. Hill prejudgment interest; and
11

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 12 of 14
H. Grant to Mr. Hill such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Intervener-Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by his Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, UEBLER LAW ____________________________ Julie A. Uebler (I.D. No. 71297) 600 West Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 (215) 628-0603 juebler@ueblerlaw.com Attorney for Intervener-Plaintiff, Michael Hill
12

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 13 of 14 VERIFICATION
I, Michael Hill, verify under penalty of perjury that the factual information set forth in the foregoing Complaint in Intervention is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 relating to unsworn declarations.
________________________________ Michael Hill Dated: ________________________
13

Case 2:05-cv-05150-JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 14 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Julie A. Uebler, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Intervener Complaint was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on December 23, 2005 to the following:
Mr. Woody Anglade, Esquire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
21 South 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106
Ms. Barbara A. O’Connell, Esquire Sweeney & Sheehan
1515 Market Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-1983 Mr. Donald M. Lewis, Esquire Mr. Joseph G. Schmitt, Esquire Halleland, Lewis, Nilan & Johnson, P.A. U.S. Bank Plaza South, Suite 600 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501
_______________________ Julie A. Uebler
14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
v.
TARGET CORPORATION

: CIVIL ACTION : : 05-5150 : : :

ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2006 , upon consideration of the motion of Defendant Target Corporation to Compel the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of an EEOC Representative (Doc. No. 20), and all responses thereto (Doc. No. 26), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.1

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

1 Defendant presents no binding authority supporting the assertion that the EEOC, by filing suit on behalf of a class of plaintiffs alleging unlawful discrimination, subjects itself to deposition of an agency designee pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Nor are we persuaded that the EEOC’s acquiescence to produce such a designee in other cases in other district courts effectively waives their objections in all cases in all districts. The lack of binding and persuasive authority is compounded by the absence of any affirmative defense or motion to stay proceedings on the basis of failures by the EEOC in the conciliation process, as well as a lack of any apparent move on Defendant’s part to conciliate or negotiate a resolution to this case since it has come before this Court.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff

:

:

MICHAEL HILL,

: 05-5150

Intervener Plaintiff

:

:

v.

:

:

TARGET CORPORATION,

:

Defendant

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2007, it is hereby ORDERED that Target Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 42) is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this matter for statistical purposes.1

BY THE COURT:
s/J. Curtis Joyner J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

1

The EEOC and Target Corporation reached a consent decree in

this matter disposing of all claims as between those

parties. On January 29, 2007, the Court entered the consent

decree.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
vs. TARGET CORPORATION

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

NO. 05-5150

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 5TH day of FEBRUARY, 2007, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is
ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court
BY: S/SHARON CARTER SHARON CARTER Acting Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (7/83) 41.1(b)

 
 I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

MICHAEL HILL,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervener, )

)

v.

)

)

TARGET CORPORATION.

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 05-5150 (JCJ)
FI LED
o 2 2007

CONSENT DECREE INTRODUCTION
A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission") on or about September 28, 2005, against Defendant Target Corporation ("Defendant Target") under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"). The EEOC alleged that Defendant Target Corporation discriminated against Michael Hill on the basis of his race, African-American, and against a class of African American employees on the basis of their race. Defendant Target denies the EEOC's contentions in their entirety.
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC and Defendant Target to avoid further litigation and to resolve disputed claims. This Consent Decree shall be final and binding

1

between the EEOC and Defendant Target, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors or assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it.
C. The Commission and Defendant Target do hereby agree to the entry ofthis Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 05-CV-5150. This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits ofthe case and shall not be construed as a violation of Title VII by Defendant Target, as it denies that it violated Title VII.
D. Unless otherwise indicated, any obligations contained or requirements of Target contained in this Consent Decree shall apply only to Target's store in Springfield, Pennsylvania and Target's employees and agents in that store ("T-1136 Springfield").
CONSENT DECREE Upon consent of the parties to this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Defendant Target is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which constitutes unlawful race discrimination under Title VII at T-1136 Springfield. Specifically, Defendant Target is enjoined from creating, fostering or tolerating a work environment which discriminates based on race at T-1136 Springfield. Defendant Target is also enjoined from failing to promote qualified employees to available positions based on race at T-1136 Springfield. 3. Defendant Target is enjoined from engaging in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against Hill or the thirteen (13) aggrieved individuals identified by the EEOC during this litigation, because ofthat individual's opposition to any practice alleged or believed to be
2

unlawful under Title VII's protections against race discrimination, or because of the filing of a charge, the giving oftestimony or assistance, or the participation in any manner in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII regarding allegations of race discrimination.
4. Defendant Target shall not divulge, directly or indirectly, except as required by law, to any employer or potential employer ofHill or any ofthe 13 claimants identified in this litigation, any of the facts or circumstances related to Hill's charge of discrimination against Defendant (the "Charge"), or any of the events relating to their participation in the litigation ofthis matter.
5. Defendant Target shall comply fully with all provisions of Title VII at T-1136 Springfield. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant Target under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination which may be filed against Defendant Target in the future, or Defendant Target's ability to defend against any such claims.
MONETARY RELIEF Michael Hill
6. Defendant Target agrees to pay monetary relief of $275,000.00 to Hill in full settlement of the claims against Defendant Target which were raised in the Commission's Complaint, by sending two checks within ten (10) business days after receipt of an executed and entered Consent Decree and an executed Release from Hill, one of which will be made payable to Hill and one of which will be made payable to his private counsel (Julie A. oebler). If Defendant Target does not make the payments as designated in the manner set forth in this Paragraph, the Court will enter ajudgment for the entire amount(s) remaining due, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and interest to be paid at the legal rate, compounded daily. The checks will be mailed to Michael B. Hill, through his attorney Julie A. oebler, at oebler Law, 600 West Germantown Pike, Suite 400,
3

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant Target will mail a photocopy of the checks to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, The Bourse, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515, within five days ofthe date ofmailing ofthe checks to Ms. Uebler. In order to receive the monetary relief, Hill must execute a release in the form to be negotiated by Hill and Target. Any late payment will be subject to the accrual of interest on the unpaid amount(s), calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The Class 7. Defendant Target agrees to pay monetary relief in the total amount of$500,000.00, to the thirteen (13) aggrieved individuals, in full settlement of the claims against Defendant Target which were raised in the Commission's Complaint. The monetary reliefwill be paid in the following structured manner: Defendant Target, after the Court's entry of the Consent Decree, shall pay the aggrieved individuals a total of$500,000. Defendant Target shall pay each aggrieved individual his or her amount within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of an executed Release. The parties further agree that Target shall treat a portion of these payments as either taxable wages subject to withholding on a Form W-2, or as non-wage compensation to be reported on a Fonn 1099, or a combination of both. If Defendant Target does not make all payments as designated in the manner set forth in this Paragraph, the Court will enter a judgment for the entire amount(s) remaining due, plus reasonable attorneys' fees as detennined by the Court, costs, and interest to be paid at the legal rate, compounded daily. Should a class member and Target not be able to execute a release within forty-five (45) days ofthe filing ofthe Consent Decree, then the monetary amount designated for that class member will be distributed to the remaining claimants, identified in paragraph 7, on an equal basis. The checks will be mailed to the class of individuals by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the addresses provided by the EEOC. Defendant Target will mail a photocopy ofeach
4

check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, The Bourse, 21

South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515, within five (5) days of the date of

mailing of the checks to the class members.

POSTING OF NOTICE

8. Within ten (10) business days after entry ofthis Decree, or as soon as practicable, T-

1136 Springfield shall post same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit 2 to this Decree on

all bulletin boards located within the team service center at the store, usually used by the store for

communication of human resources matters to employees. The notice shall remain posted for two

(2) years from the date ofentry ofthis Decree. Counsel for Defendant Target shall provide a copy of

the Notice, and an indication of the date and location of its posting, to the EEOC's Philadelphia

District Office, attention Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, within ten (10) business days of the

posting. T-1136 Springfield shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered,

defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copies become defaced, removed,

marred, or otherwise illegible, T-1136 Springfield shall as soon as practicable post a readable copy in

the same manner as hereto specified.

NON-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICIES AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

9.

Defendant Target's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and

retaliation and complaint procedures at T-1136 Springfield shall be drafted in plain and simple

language. Defendant Target shall ensure that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment

and retaliation and related complaint procedures at T-1136 Springfield meet the following minimum

criteria:

(a) State that Defendant Target: (i) prohibits discrimination against employees on the

5

l
basis of race, and prohibits retaliation in violation of Title VII; (ii) prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing employment practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory or for participating in an investigation by the EEOC or a state or local governmental agency of a charge of discrimination under Title VII; (iii) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of race in violation of Title Vll; and (iv) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees through acts such as physical/verbal abuse and derogatory comments based on race in violation of Title Vll;
(b) Include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (ii) provide that complaints of discrimination, harassment andlor retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identifY employees to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv) provide a 24-hour toll-free message center that an employee may call to make a complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation; (v) provide that, upon an employee's request, Defendant Target will offer translating assistance for filing a written complaint in English or otherwise communicating during the investigation of a complaint; (vi) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (vii) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
(c) Provide for prompt investigation of complaints ofharassment and/or retaliation; and (d) Provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation; (e) Provide for discipline up to and including discharge of an employee or supervisor
6

who violates Defendant Target's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and for progressive discipline of repeat offenders.
10. T-1136 Springfield shall distribute to all ofits employees and newly-hired employees at its store, its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation within ninety (90) days after entry of this Consent Decree.
11. Within ninety (90) days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Target shall advise the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, that T-1136 Springfield's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation have been distributed to current employees and that new employees will receive these policies and an opportunity to acknowledge receipt during the duration of this Decree.
ACCOUNTABILITY 12. T-1136 Springfield shall promote supervisor accountability by the following conduct during the duration of this Decree: (a) Providing annual anti-discrimination training to all employees at the supervisor level and above as set forth in Paragraph 13; (b) Enforcing its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, including use ofappropriate counseling and discipline (up to and including discharge) for employees at the supervisor level who violate the policy; (c) Imposing on all employees at the supervisor level a duty to administer their work areas to ensure compliance with T-1136 Springfield's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and (d) Requiring all employees at the supervisor level to report any incidents and/or complaints of racial harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the human
7

'jl

resources function at T·1136 Springfield or, when appropriate, to Defendant Target's District Office

for T-1136 Springfield.

TRAINING

13. T·1136 Springfield shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII on the

following terms:

a. T·1136 Springfield shall provide annual training sessions to all of its managers and

supervisors who work at its store regarding an employee's rights under Title VII, and the employer's

obligations under Title VII, with an emphasis on what constitutes unlawful harassment and

differential treatment ofminority employees in the workplace, how to keep T·1136 Springfield free

of such forms of discrimination, and what constitutes unlawful retaliation;

b. Each training session will include a live presentation by an executive, manager or

employee relations professional ofDefendant Target, emphasizing Target's commitment to prevent

discrimination and harassment;

c.

T-1136 Springfield shall first provide training in accordance with Paragraph 13(a) by

no later than March 31, 2007. T-1136 Springfield shall then also provide such training on at least

one occasion on or before January 1,2009.

14. In addition to the training described in Paragraph 13, Defendant Target will provide

training to all Managers and all employees and supervisors in its Human Resources Department at its

District 453 Office, which are responsible for workers employed at T-1136 Springfield, regarding

conducting a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints, or charges of

employment discrimination.

15. Defendant Target shall submit the name, address, telephone number and curriculum

vitae/resume of its trainer, together with the date(s) of the proposed training sessions to the EEOC

8

within thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first day of the proposed date(s) oftraining. Defendant Target shall provide the EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to the participants ofthe training sessions at T-1136 Springfield and the District 453 Office.
16. Defendant Target shall certify to the EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after the training sessions have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended.
RECORD KEEPING 17. For a period oftwo (2) years following entry ofthis Decree, Defendant Target shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the Commission, records of each complaint of any incident of race and retaliation discrimination occurring at T-1136 Springfield. Each such report shall indicate the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions T-1136 Springfield took to resolve the matter. 18. Defendant Target shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 17, above, available for inspection and copying within twenty (20) business days after the EEOC so requests. 19. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation T-1136 Springfield may otherwise have to maintain under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 20. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party ofthe alleged non-compliance within ten (10) business days ofthe alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy
9

il
the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged noncomplying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 21. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 22. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors ofDefendant Target and T-1136 Springfield, as set forth in this Decree, in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Defendant Target, and not in their individual capacities. This Paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree. 23. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 05-CV-5150. 24. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue to be in effect for a period of two (2) years. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than thirty (30) days' notice to the other party. 25. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. 26. The Clerk ofthe District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy ofthis Consent Decree to counsel of record.
10

For Plaintiff EEOC:
Ronald Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

~Z:11f!:';;~F (Jk)

Regional Attorney

~,~

Terrence Cook Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

·01*+ W?ody Angla

.

Tnal Attorney

-

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106

IT IS ORDERED:

For Defendant Target Corporation:
~ Donald M. Lewis, Esquire Halleland, Lewis, Nilan & Johnson U.S. Bank Plaza South, Suite 600 220 South Sixth Street Mi apolis, MN 55402-4501
Jo P G. Schniitt, Esquire He and, Lewis, Nilan & Johnson .S. Bank Plaza South, Suite 600
220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501
Barbara A. O'Connell, Esquire Sweeney & Sheehan 1515 Market Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

DATE: I - ~1- 07

11

EXHIBIT 2

NOTICE TO ALL TARGET CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Federal Court in EEOC, et al., v. Target Corporation, Civil Action Number 05-5150 (E.D. PA.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Target Corporation ("Target").
Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, ~ seq., as amended, ("Title Vll"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of their rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as opposing employment practices believed to be discriminatory, filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifYing or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is a federal agency which investigates charges ofunlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has authority to bring lawsuits in Federal Court to enforce Title VII.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Target Corporation discriminated against a fonner employee and a class of African-American employees on the basis of their race (African-American). Defendant denied the EEOC's contentions in their entirety.

To resolve the case, Target and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which is in effect for two years and which provides, among other things, that: (1) Target paid monetary relief; (2) in accordance with its legal obligations Target will not discriminate on the basis of race; (3) in accordance with its legal obligations Target will not retaliate against any person because she or he opposed any practice made unlawful
by Title VII, filed a charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights
under the Consent Decree; and (4) Target will train all employees at its Springfield, PA store, regarding race discrimination and Target's policy prohibiting race discrimination.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact Target's Integrity Hotline at I (800) 541-6838 or the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

By: For: Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission

By: For: Target Corporation

12

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 1 of 7
SEALDC,CLOSED,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−05150−JCJ

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. TARGET CORPORATION Assigned to: HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 01/31/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Employment Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by WOODY ANGLADE EEOC 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−440−2814 Email: woody.anglade@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff MICHAEL HILL

represented by JULIE A UEBLER GREENBLATT PIERCE FUNT & FLORES, LLC 123 SOUTH BROAD STREET SUITE 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109 215−735−1600 Fax: 610−337−9548 Email: j.uebler@gpfflaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant TARGET CORPORATION

represented by DONALD M. LEWIS HALLELAND LEWIS NILAN & JOHNSON, PA 600 US BANK PLAZA SOUTH 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612−338−1838 Email: dlewis@halleland.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSEPH G. SCHMITT NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 400 ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA 120 SOUTH SIXTH ST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612−305−7500 Email: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 2 of 7

MATTHEW E. JOHNSON HALLELAND LEWIS NILAN & JOHNSON 600 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH 220 S. 6TH ST. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612−573−2901 Email: mjohnson@halleland.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BARBARA A. O'CONNELL SWEENEY & SHEEHAN 1515 MARKET STREET 19TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102−1983 215−563−9811 Fax: 215−557−0999 Email: barbara.oconnell@sweeneyfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant TARGET CORPORATION

represented by MATTHEW E. JOHNSON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BARBARA A. O'CONNELL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DONALD M. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSEPH G. SCHMITT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 11/08/2005
11/08/2005
11/17/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against TARGET CORPORATION , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(wgc, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
1 Summons Issued as to TARGET CORPORATION. Forwarded To: Counsel on 9/29/05 (wgc, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (wgc, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: Daniel Reddy served Summons and Complaint upon TARGET CORPORATION by Personal Service. TARGET CORPORATION served on 10/19/2005, answer due 11/8/2005. (fdc, ) (jwl, ). (Entered: 11/08/2005)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by TARGET CORPORATION with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service. (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) Modified on 11/9/2005 (np). (Entered: 11/08/2005)
4 NOTICE of Hearing: Rule 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/29/2005 10:30 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER. (ajm, )

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 3 of 7

11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 12/06/2005 12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/20/2005 12/22/2005
12/27/2005 01/17/2006 02/03/2006 02/15/2006 02/16/2006 03/02/2006 03/16/2006 04/19/2006

(Entered: 11/17/2005)
5 MOTION for Limited Admission filed by TARGET CORPORATION.Order, Certificate of Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order# 2 Certification# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B)(O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
6 AMENDED DOCUMENT by TARGET CORPORATION. Proposed Order RE: Amendment to 5 MOTION for Limited Admission. (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) Modified on 11/21/2005 (np). (Entered: 11/18/2005)
7 NOTICE of Hearing: Rescheduled Rule 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/14/2005 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER. (ajm, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
8 MOTION TO INTERVENE BY MICHAEL HILL, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(Attachments: # 1 memo.# 2 intv−comp.# 3 propo.)(fdc) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
9 ORDER THAT MICHAEL HILL'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED AND MICHAEL HILL IS GIVEN LEAVE TO FILE HIS COMPLAINT AS PROPOSED WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 12/13/05. 12/15/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
10 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF DONALD M. LEWIS,ESQ. AND JOSEPH G. SCHMITT, ESQ. IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 12/13/05. 12/15/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. CURTIS JOYNER : Pretrial Conference held on 12/14/05. (fdc, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER: ALL DISCOVERY DUE BY JUNE 14, 2006; ALL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE DUE BY JULY 17, 2006; THE CASE WILL BE PLACED IN THE COURT'S TRIAL POOL ON JULY 27, 2006, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER. 12/23/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, AND E−MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
13 Intervener Complaint against INTERVENER DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION filed by INTERVENER PLAINTIFF MICHAEL HILL, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/28/2005 (mbh, ). (Entered: 12/28/2005)
14 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Service)(O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
15 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. MOTIONS DUE BY 10/23/2006. TRIAL POOL SET FOR 11/2/2006.SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 1/31/06. 2/3/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
16 NOTICE of Hearing: Status CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/28/2006 04:30 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER. (ajm, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
17 PROTECTIVE ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/15/06. 2/16/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (jwl, ). (Entered: 02/16/2006)
18 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. CURTIS JOYNER : Status Conference held on 2/28/06. (fdc, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
19 PROTECTIVE ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 3/14/06. 3/16/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(fdc) (jwl, ). (Entered: 03/16/2006)
20 MOTION to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 4 of 7

04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/26/2006
05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/10/2006
05/17/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/22/2006
05/22/2006 05/24/2006 05/30/2006

CORPORATION.Memorandum, Declaration, Proposed Order, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Memorandum In Support of Motion to Compel# 3 Declaration of Donald M. Lewis# 4 Certification of Service)(LEWIS, DONALD) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
21 Exhibits to the Declaration of Donald M. Lewis. (fdc) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
22 Amended Declaration of Donald M. Lewis re 20 MOTION to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Service) (LEWIS, DONALD) Modified on 4/24/2006 (np). (Entered: 04/21/2006)
23 Consent Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff EEOC filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (ANGLADE, WOODY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 4/27/2006 (np). (Entered: 04/26/2006)
24 NOTICE of Hearing: STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 5/23/2006 04:00 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER. (ajm, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
25 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF EEOC SHALL HAVE A SEVEN (7) DAY EXTENSION UNTIL 5/10/06 TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/3/06. 5/4/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (jwl, ). (Entered: 05/04/2006)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A − Z)(ANGLADE, WOODY) Modified on 5/16/2006 (fh, ). (Entered: 05/10/2006)
27 MOTION for Limited Admission filed by TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET CORPORATION.Order, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service# 3 Exhibit A)(O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
28 NOTICE by TARGET CORPORATION to Consent to Amended Answers (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
29 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Service) (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
30 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint 13 Intervenor Complaint by TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Service) (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
Filing fee: $ 40.00, receipt number 928941 for the Pro Hac Vice Admission Fee for Matthew E. Johnson, Esq. (gs) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
31 MOTION for Rule 35 Examination of Plaintiff−Intervener Michael B. Hill filed by TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET CORPORATION.Memorandum, Declaration, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Declaration# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(SCHMITT, JOSEPH) Modified on 6/2/2006 (fh, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 6/7/2006 (np, ). (FILED UNDER SEAL) Modified on 6/7/2006 (np). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
32 EXHIBITS by TARGET CORPORATION. Re: The Second Declaration of Donald M. Lewis. (fdc) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
33 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION TO COMPEL THE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF AN EEOC REPRESENTATIVE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/23/06. 5/24/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
34 NOTICE of Hearing: JURY TRIAL SET FOR 2/5/2007 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER. (ajm, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2006 (md, ). (Entered: 05/30/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 5 of 7

05/30/2006
06/08/2006 06/08/2006 06/08/2006 07/13/2006 07/18/2006 07/20/2006
10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 11/02/2006
11/08/2006
11/08/2006

35 ORDER THAT DISCOVERY WILL BE SERVED, NOTICED AND COMPLETED BY 6/30/06; ALL DAUBERT MOTIONS ARE DUE ON 12/18/06; THE CASE WILL BE SPECIALLY LISTED FOR TRIAL ON 2/5/07 AT 9:30 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/30/06. 5/30/06 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
36 Plaintiff−Intervenor's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Rule 35 Examination, Certificate of Service (Filed under Seal). (fdc) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. CURTIS JOYNER : Status Conference held on 5/23/06. (fdc, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
38 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHEW E. JOHNSON, ESQ. IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 6/7/06. 6/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
39 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 7/13/06.7/13/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fdc) (jwl, ). (Entered: 07/13/2006)
40 STIPULATION for Order for Rule 35 Examination of Michael Hill by TARGET CORPORATION. (O'CONNELL, BARBARA) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 7/20/2006 (np). (Entered: 07/18/2006)
41 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT MICHAEL B. HILL SHALL SUBMIT TO A MENTAL EXAMINATION BY TIMOTHY J. MICHALS, M.D. ON A DATE AND AT A TIME TO BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES BUT IN NO EVENT LATER THAN MONDAY, 9/18/06. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 7/19/06. 7/20/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by TARGET CORPORATION.Memorandum, Declaration, Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum# 3 Certification of Service# 4 Declaration# 5 Declaration# 6 Declaration)(SCHMITT, JOSEPH) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
43 Declaration of Jennifer Ayers on behalf of TARGET CORPORATION. (fdc) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
44 Declaration of Barbara O'Connell with Exhibits to DEFENDANT, TARGET CORPORATION'S Motion for Partial Summary Judgment − Volumes I and II. (fdc) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
45 EXHIBITS by TARGET CORPORATION. Re: Barbara O'Connell's Declaration. Tab NN: exhibits 25,26 and 30 (Filed under Seal). (fdc) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
46 Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (ANGLADE, WOODY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 11/3/2006 (np). (Entered: 11/02/2006)
47 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF EEOC SHALL HAVE UNTIL 11/27/06 TO FILE ITS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DEFENDANT TARGET SHALL HAVE UNTIL 12/4/06 TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/6/06. 11/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
48 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF, EEOC RECEIVE AN EXTENSION TO FILE ITS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNTIL 11/27/06. THE PARTIES FURTHER JOINTLY REQUEST THAT TARGET BE PERMITTED TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM, WHICH WOULD BE DUE ON OR BEFORE 12/4/06. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/6/06. 11/9/06 ENTERED AND

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 6 of 7

11/14/2006 11/15/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/14/2006
01/08/2007
01/31/2007
02/02/2007 02/05/2007 02/05/2007 03/09/2009

COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by MICHAEL HILL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(UEBLER, JULIE) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
50 Exhibits. Re: Plaintiff−Intervenor's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (fdc) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Part 1) (ANGLADE, WOODY) Modified on 11/28/2006 (np). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Part 2) (ANGLADE, WOODY) Modified on 11/28/2006 (np). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
53 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Amended filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1)(ANGLADE, WOODY) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
54 ORDER THAT THE DEADLINE FOR TRIAL EXHIBITS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO FRIDAY, 1/5/07. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/29/06. 12/1/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
55 REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by TARGET CORPORATION. (SCHMITT, JOSEPH) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
56 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Third Declaration of Donald Lewis filed by TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−H)(SCHMITT, JOSEPH) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by TARGET CORPORATION re 55 Reply to Response to Motion, 56 Affidavit in Support of Motion (SCHMITT, JOSEPH) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
58 ORDER THAT TARGET SHALL FILE THEIR STATEMENT BY 1/8/07. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT THE NON−MOVING PARTIES SHALL FILE THEIR REQUIRED STATEMENTS BY 1/22/07. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS BY 2/5/07. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 12/13/06. 12/15/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
59 ORDER THAT: (1) THE CONSENT DECREE SHALL BE EXECUTED AND FILED ON FRIDAY, 1/26/07, AND (2) THE COURT WILL HOLD ITS DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THAT DATE. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 1/8/07. 1/9/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2007 (fdc, ). (Entered: 01/09/2007)
60 ORDER THAT TARGET CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT IS ORDERED TO CLOSE THIS MATTER FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 1/29/07.2/1/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
61 CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/1/07. 2/2/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (jwl, ). (Entered: 02/02/2007)
62 NOTICE by MICHAEL HILL Notice of Dismissal (UEBLER, JULIE) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
63 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE ACTION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/5/07. 2/6/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
64 NOTICE TO COUNSEL RE: LOCAL RULE 5.1.5 (eibo, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-5150 As of: 06/02/2017 12:51 PM EDT 7 of 7

03/23/2009 02/04/2010 02/09/2010 02/12/2010 02/18/2010
03/01/2010 03/01/2010

65 Objection to unsealing of documents and request that documents remain under seal by MICHAEL HILL. (td) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
66 NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/9/2010 at 9:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER.(sc, ) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER: Telephone Conference held on 2/9/10. (fdc) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
68 STIPULATION and Proposed Order re: Documents Filed Under Seal by MICHAEL HILL. (UEBLER, JULIE) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 2/12/2010 (nd, ). (Entered: 02/12/2010)
69 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL IN THIS MATTER ARE TO CONTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER DATED 3/14/06, WHICH RECOGNIZED THE HEIGHTENED PRIVACY INTERESTS RELATING TO MEDICAL INFORMATION, AND CONTEMPLATED THAT SUCH RECORDS, IF FILED WITH THE COURT, WOULD REMAIN UNDER SEAL INDEFINITELY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/16/10. 2/18/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
70 Receipt for return of sealed document no. 36 returned to Julie A. Uebler, Esquire on 02/22/2010 pursuant to Order filed on 02/18/2010. (nds) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
71 Receipt for return of sealed document nos. 45 and 31 returned to Joseph G. Schmit, Esquire on 02/22/2010 date pursuant to Order filed on 02/18/2010.(nds) (Entered: 03/01/2010)

 
 Target Corp. To Pay $775,000 for Racial Harassment

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-26-07.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 26, 2007

CONTACT: TTY:

Jacqueline H. McNair Regional Attorney (215) 440–2670 Terrence Cook Supervisory Attorney (215) 440-2688 (215) 440–2610

TARGET CORP. TO PAY $775,000 FOR RACIAL HARASSMENT
EEOC Settles Suit for Class of African American Employees; Remedial Relief Included
PHILADELPHIA -- Target Corporation, the Minneapolis-based retail sales giant, has agreed to pay $775,000 to a group of black workers as part of a litigation settlement of a race discrimination and retaliation case brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The settlement also includes employer training and other remedial relief.
The EEOC charged that Target violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by creating and condoning a racially hostile work environment at its Springfield, Pa., store for a class of African American employees. The racial harassment included inappropriate comments and verbal berating based on race. Further, when one of the black employees objected to this treatment, he was allegedly retaliated against, leaving him no choice but to resign.
EEOC said in the suit that Michael Hill, a senior merchant at the Springfield store (an apprentice in training to become a store manager) and others were subjected to racial harassment by a white store manager, whom they reported for the unlawful conduct. Hill ultimately left the job due to the negative health effects of the discrimination and the lack of effective response to his internal complaints. EEOC charged that Hill’s resignation was forced upon him, amounting to a constructive discharge.
The consent decree settling the lawsuit provides Hill and a class of 13 African American employees with $775,000 and requires that all managers and supervisors at the Springfield store will receive training in the company’s equal employment opportunity policies. The decree also requires Target to post a notice about the settlement; ensure that its complaint procedure is effectively communicated to the workforce; and take remedial action if an employee violates its equal employment opportunity policy.
According to its web site (www.target.com), Target “operates approximately 1,500 stores in 47 states, including more than 175 SuperTarget® stores that add an upscale grocery shopping experience.”
"We are pleased that the parties could reach an amicable resolution of this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “We expect the proposed training and emphasis on anti-discrimination policies to create a more employee-friendly work environment at Target's facility.”
Title VII makes it illegal to deny a person any employment opportunity because of that person’s race or color, sex, religion or national origin. A work environment free from illegal harassment and different treatment based on race are included in the range of such employment opportunities. In addition, Title VII recognizes that persons made to work in an intolerable environment may be constructively discharged, or compelled to resign their employment. Finally, it is illegal to retaliate against someone because he has made a complaint of illegal discrimination.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on January 26, 2007.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/4/2007 2:35 PM