Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE ANDERSON,CHARLES WASHINGTON, and EDWARD ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

05 Civ. 9131 (PAC)

)

)

)

) District Judge: Honorable Paul A. Crotty

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND RELATED RELIEF

New York, New York January 17, 2008

Of Counsel:
David W. Sanford Jeremy Heisler Steven L. Wittels

SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 930 Third Ave., 10tll Floor New York, NY 10022 (646) 723-2947
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 310 Washington, D.C., 20009 (202) 742-7780
Attorneys for plaintiffs and the class

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 3

A. Basic Allegation of the Suit .............................................................................. 3

B. The Parties Begin to Discuss Settlement.. ......................................................... 3

C. The Road to Settlement - IKON Provides Detailed Employment Data to Plaintiffs .......................................................................................................... 4

D. The Parties Mediate the Lawsuit ....................................................................... 4

E. A Summary of the Expert Reports Exchanged by Plaintiffs and IKON ............. 4

i. Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Experts................................................................ 4

F. Post-Mediation Activity and Settlement.. .......................................................... 5

G. Synopsis of the Settlement Terms ..................................................................... 6

H. The Class Responds Positively to the Settlement - There Are No Objections.... 6

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................. 7

1. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE, AND SHOULD BE APPROVED IN ALL RESPECTS .......................................... 7

A. THE LAW FAVORS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS ............................... 7

B. THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S STANDARD FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS UNDER RULE 23 (E)............................................ 8

1.

Substantive Fairness .............................................................................. 9

2.

Procedural Fairness ............................................................................. 10

C. UNDER THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S TEST FOR EVALUATING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE ARE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE .................................................................................................. 10

1.

The Complexity, Expense, and likely Duration of this Litigation Favor

Final Approval .................................................................................... 11

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 3 of 30

2.

The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement Favors Final Approval ..... 11

3.

The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed

Favor Final Approval .......................................................................... 12

4, 5, 6. Risks of Class Prevailing - Establishing Liability, Damages, and Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial- Favor Final Approval .. 13

8,9. The Settlement Fund is Clearly Reasonable in Light of the Best Possible Recovery and All Attendant Risks of Litigation .................................. 14

D.

THE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURALLY FAIR BECAUSE IT IS A

PRODUCT OF ARM'S LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS AMONG

EXPERIENCED COUNSEL, REACHED AFTER A HARD-FOUGHT

MEDIATION, AS WELL AS CONFLICTING STATISTICAL ANALYSES

BY PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS .................................... 11

1.

Experienced Counsel Represented Both Parties in This Case............... 16

2.

The Proposed Settlement Was Negotiated by Experienced Counsel After

a One-Day, In-Person Mediation Before a Mediator With Significant

Experience in Class Action Settlements............................................... 17

II. PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR $399,983.81 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND $36,516.19 IN EXPENSES SHOULD BE APPROVED ....................................... 17

A.

THE APPLICATION ..................................................................................... 17

B.

THE RELEVANT FACTORS ........................................................................ 18

C.

A REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS SUPPORTS COUNSEL'S

APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF THE ATTORNEYS' FEES

SOUGHT ....................................................................................................... 19

1.

The Litigation Has Conferred Substantial Benefits on the Class as a

Consequence of Counsel' s Efforts ....................................................... 19

2.

The Efforts of Plaintiffs' CounseL ..................................................... 19

D.

THE PERCENTAGE OF RECOVERY AND LODESTAR APPROACHES IN

EVALUATING CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY FEES .................................. 19

1.

The $399,983.81 Attorneys' Fee Request Represents Approximately

31 % of the Available $1,275,000 Settlement Benefit and Is Wel1 Within

the Range of Reasonableness .............................................................. 20

ii

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 4 of 30

2.

Analysis under the Lodestar School .................................................... 21

3.

The Court Should Grant Plaintiffs' Incentive Awards .......................... 23

III. APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CLASS ................................................................... 23

IV. CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IS APPROPRIATE AND WARRANTED .................................................................................................... 23

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 24

111

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 5 of 30
TABLE OF AUTHORITffiS
Federal Cases
Armstrong v. Whirlpool Co!]oratio!l, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14635 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) ...... :........................................................................................... 14
Baron v. Commercial & Industrial Bank of Memphis, [1979-1980 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 97,132 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)......................................................... 21
Beech Cinema Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film CO!]., 480 F. Supp. 1195 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (awarding fees of53.2% of common fund), aff'd, 62 F.2d ll06 (2nd Cir. 1980) ........................................................................................................ 21
Behrens v. Wometco Ente!]rises, 118F.RD. 534, 542 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aft'd, 899 F.2d 21 (11th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 15
Cagan v. Anchor Savings Bank FSB, 1990 WL 73423 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 1990).......... 15 Chatelain v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 805 F. Supp 209, 212
(S.D.N.Y. 1992) ............................................................................................. 9, 16, 17 Churchill Vill. v. G.E., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 556
(2004) ..................................................................................................................... 23 City of Detroit v. Grinnell CO!]., 495 F.2d 448, 462-3
(2d Cir.1974) ...........................................................................9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18,22 Cohen v. Apache CO!]., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52ll (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ....................... 21 D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001) .......................................... 10 Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)..................... 12, 14 Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Co!]., 823 F.2d 20,22 (2d Cir. 1985) ...................................... 8 In re Allstar Securities Litig., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20402 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)............... 21 In re AT! Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7062, p.*10
(E.D.. Pa., Apr. 28, 2003) ......................................................................................... 20 In re Computron Software, Inc.. Securities Litigation, 6 F. Supp.2d 313,321-322 (D.N.J.
1998)....................................................................................................................... 19 In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litig., 824 F. Supp. 320, 324 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) ............ 15, 21 In Re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litig., 148 F.RD. 297, 325
(N.D. Ga. 1993)....................................................................................................... 14 In re Ira Haupt & Co., 304F.Supp. 917, 934 (S.D.N.Y.1969) ........................................ 13 In re Lloyd's American Trust Fund Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22663, p. *76
(S.D.N.Y. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 20 In re Medical X-Ray Film Antitrust Litig., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14888 (E.D.N.Y.
August 7, 1998)....................................................................................................... 21 In Re Michael Milken & Associates Securities Litig., 150 F.R.D. 46, 64-65 (S.D.N.Y.
1993)................................................................................................................. 11, 15 In re Michael Milken and Associates Securities Litig., 150 F.R.D. 57, 65
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) ........................................................................................................ 8 In re NTL Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13661,
2007 WL 1294377................................................................................................... 22 In re Painewebber Ltd. P'ships Litig., 171 F.RD. 104, 126 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ............ 13, 16 In re Prudential Inc. Securities Lip. Lit., 1995 WL 798907 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ................. 15
iv

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 6 of 30

In re RJ.R Nabisco, Inc. Securities Litig.. [1992 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCR) ~ 96,984 at p.94, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ......................................................... 21
In re Sunrise Security Litig., 131 F.RD. 450, 457 n.13 (E.D. Pa. 1990) ........................ 15 In re Tampico Fiber Antitrust Litig., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 478 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ......... 21 In re Twin Lab Corporation Securities Litigation. 187 F. Supp. 2d 80,83 (E.D.N.Y.
2002)......................................................................................................................... 8 In re Union Carbide Corporation. Consumer Products Business. Securities Litigation, 718
F. Supp. 1099, ll03 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ..................................................... 7,8,9, 15,22 In re United States Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 493 (1lth Cir. 1992)....................... 11 In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85554, p.*28-
30 ("S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2007).................................................................... 20, 22 In re Warner Comm. Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aft'd, 798 F.2d
35 (2nd Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................. 10, 22 In re Warner Commc'ns Sec. Litig., 798 F.2d 35, 37 (2d Cir.1986)................................ 11 Joel A v. Giuliani, 218 F. 3d 132, 136 ............................................................................ 8 Kolar v. Rite Aid Corporation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3646, p. *10 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11,
2003)....................................................................................................................... 12 Ma1chman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir.1983) ............................................ 8-9,10 Masters v. Wilhemina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F. 3d 423, 437 (2d Circ. 2007) ............ 20 Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 FJd 1072, 1079 (2d Cir. 1995) ............. 8 Mersay v. First Republic Corporation of America, 43 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) ....... 15 Officers for Justice v. Civil Servo Comm'n., 688 F.2d 615, 629 (9th Cir. 1982).............. 11 Paul, Johnson, Laston & Hunt V. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268,272 (9th Cir. 1989) ................ 20 Rabin V. Concord Assets Group, Inc., [1991-1992 Transfer Binder] Sec. L. Rep (CCR)
paragraph 96,471 at p.92, 081 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1991) ......................................... 20 Reade-Alvarez V. Eltman, Eltman, & Cooper, P.C., 2006 WL 3681138
(E.D.N.Y.,2006) ...................................................................................................... 13 Riverside V. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) ...................................................................... 21 RMED International, Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8239,
p.*4 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2003, Leisure, T.) ........................................................ 12,21 Ross V. AH. Robbins, 700 F. Supp. 682, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ..................................... 12 Ruskay v. Waddell, 552 F.2d 392,398 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied,
434 U.S. 911 (1977) .................................................................................................. 8 San Francisco NAACP V. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 576 F. Supp. 34, 47 (N.D.
Cal. 1983) ............................................................................................................... 11 Taft V. Ackermans, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9144, p. *14 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ............. 8,9,10 Thompson V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 216 F.RD. 55,61 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ........ 8
Wales, et al V. Jack M. Berrv, Inc., et aI., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1328
(M.D. Fla. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 21 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 FJd 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005).......... 8, 10, 23 Weinbergerv. Kendrick, 698 F.2d61, 73 (2dCir. 1982) .................................. 8,9,10,16
State Rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)

3, 5, 6, 7

v

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 7 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE )

ANDERSON,CEUUlLES

)

WASHINGTON, and EDWARD

)

ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf )

of a class of all other persons similarly )

situated,

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-9131 (PAC)

Plaintiffs,

)
) District Judge: Honorable Paul A. Crotty

v.

)

)

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

PREL1MINARY STATEMENT After more than three years of investigation, litigation, comprehensive analyses of conflicting statistical data, intense negotiations and a full day of mediation, this racediscrimination class action is ready for final court approval. Plaintiffs and Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc. ("IKON") have agreed to settle the matter by establishing a settlement fund of$I,275,000. Critically, not one member of the nearly 700-strong class has objected, and only one class member has opted-out. All class members who submitted claims forms will receive payments under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson, Charles Washington, and Edward Anderson submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion, made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (e), for an order:
(I) approving as fair and adequate the class-wide settlement of this action;
(2) certifying as final the settlement class described below;

I

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 8 of 30

(3) approving Plaintiffs' counsel's application for $399,983.91 in attorneys' fees and $36,516.19 in expenses;

(4) awarding the representative plaintiffs "service payments" in the following amounts:

St. Clare Rosenberg Wayne AndersonCharles WashingtonEdward Anderson -

$60,000 $40,000 $30,000 $45,000; and

(5) dismissing the action with prejudice.

On October 29, 2007, this court signed the "Preliminary Approval Order" and

certified the following class for purposes of implementing the Settlement:

All African-American individuals employed by IKON Office Solutions, Inc. between January 1, 2001 and December 1, 2005, in the Legal Documents Services ("LDS") or IKON Management Services ("IMS") business units in New York State.

In the above order, the court: (a) preliminarily approved the settlement of this

class action as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) appointed Sanford Wittels & Heisler,

LLP as settlement class counsel; (c) directed mail notice be served on class members; and

(d) set January 22, 2008, 2:45 p.m. as the date and time on when the court will determine

whether to approve: (1) the settlement, (2) class counsel's application for attorneys' fees

and expenses, (3) the service payments to the class representatives, and additionally,

whether a judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice should be entered.

As Plaintiffs demonstrate below and in the Joint Declaration of Plaintiffs' Co-

Counsel, David W. Sanford and Jeremy Heisler, the settlement is fair and adequate and

should be approved in all respects.

2

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 9 of 30
FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. . Basic Allegations ofthe Suit
The four named plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and a class of AfricanAmerican individuals who were employed in IKON's LDS or IMS business units in New York State. Plaintiffs allege that (i) IKON discriminated against them and the AfricanAmerican class on the basis of race with respect to pay and promotions, (ii) subjected Plaintiffs and the class to a racially hostile work environment, and (iii) retaliated against the representative plaintiffs, as well as the class, after they complained about racial discrimination at IKON. (Sanford-Heisler Dec., ~~ 6-12; see also First Amended Complaint).
In December 2004, Plaintiff St. Clare Rosenberg filed with the EEOC an individual and class discrimination charge against nCON. In July 2005, the EEOC issued Mr. Rosenberg a Notice of Right to Sue, finding that the evidence supported "reasonable cause to believe" that Mr. Rosenberg and other African-American employees at nCON were discriminated against on the basis oftheir race and color.
Following this issuance of a "right to sue" letter, Plaintiffs St. Clare Rosenberg and Wayne Anderson filed an original complaint in November 2005. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2006, and added Charles Washington and Edward Anderson as the third and fourth Plaintiffs.
B. The Parties Begin to Discuss Settlement In January 2006, counsel for both sides met to explore ways to structure a
settlement of the case. (Id., ~~ 21-23) Throughout the following months, the Parties engaged in preliminary negotiations and discussions. Eventually the Parties agreed that:
3

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 10 of 30
a) IKON would supply statistical data to Plaintiffs and b) the case would be mediated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, before Hunter Hughes, Esq., a noted professional mediator in employment discrimination suits and a partner of Rogers and Hardin in Atlanta, Georgia. (Id., ~~ 26-27) The Parties agreed to split Mr. Hughes' fees and costs.
c. The Road to Settlement - IKON Provides Detailed Employment Data to
Plaintiffs In late October, 2006, IKON provided Plaintiffs' attorneys with detailed statistical data comparing salaries and promotional histories of African-American employees and other racial/ethnic groups working at the defendant company. (Id., ~~ 24) Armed with this data, Plaintiffs retained the services of two noted statistical experts, Dr. Louis Lanier of Nathan & Associates and Dr. Rebecca Klemm of Klemm & Associates (both located in Washington, D.C.), to analyze the data proffered and opine on IKON's potential liability and the range of damages. (Id., ~~ 25). IKON also engaged its own statistical expert to conduct a comprehensive data analysis. D. The Parties Mediate the Lawsuit In March 2007, the Parties held a full-day mediation in Philadelphia before Mr. Hughes. As part of the mediation process, the Parties sub mitted detailed mediation statements to Mr. Hughes, and also exchanged detailed expert reports. E. A Summary ofthe Expert Reports Exchanged by Plaintiffs and IKON
i. Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Experts Dr. Lanier performed two analyses, both of which used OLS regressions to estimate the relationships between annual salary and various explanatory variables, including race, tenure, and location. (Id., ~ 28.)
4

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 11 of 30
Under his most realistic damage estimate, Dr. Lanier concluded that IICON faced a maximum potential liability of $3.7 million. Accordingly, the $1.275 million settlement fund here constitutes 34.5 percent of Dr. Lanier's estimated liability of $3.7 million. (Id., ~~ 28.)
In arriving at the settlement, class counsel also had the benefit of Defendant's expert report which also analyzed the relevant data and opined on lICON's ultimate liability. Dr. Bernard R. Siskin concluded that:
In summary, class counsel has presented no credible statistical evidence of race-based pay rate differentials, and we are unable to locate such using a small number of relevant variables and applying mainstream (court-accepted) statistical techniques. (Report of Bernard R. Siskin, p.7) F. Post-Mediation Activity and Settlement At the one-day, in-person mediation, the Parties narrowed their differences substantially. Extensive negotiations via telephone, facilitated by Mediator Hughes, followed. Mr. Hughes assisted and guided the Parties with respect to the construction of the settlement and the overall settlement approach. Arms-length negotiations regarding the terms of the settlement continued for several months, and the Parties agreed upon and signed a Settlement Agreement on July 26,2007. (Id., ~~ 29). G. Synopsis of the Settlement Terms The Parties have agreed to establish a settlement fund of approximately $1,275,000. (Id., ~~ 30). All members of the class who properly filled out claim forms will be paid at least $500 in monetary benefits. Class members employed at IICON for more than 12 months will receive the minimum amount of $500 and, additionally, $33.01
5

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 12 of 30
per month, multiplied by the number of months in excess of 12 they worked at IKON. Thus, a class member whose tenure at IKON lasted the entire five-year (60-month) class period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005, will receive $2,084.48 in cash payments (the $500 minimum, plus $33.01 multiplied by 48, the number of months exceeding 12, during which the class member worked at IICON).
The settlement, as revised, also affords the four named plaintiffs a total $175,000 in service payments.] As explained in detail in prior briefing on the propriety of the service payments, the service payments are fully justified. (See Docket Document No. 21). The four named plaintiffs believe they have suffered serious economic, emotIonal, and familial consequences because they had the courage to stand up and complain about allegedly discriminatory practices. Importantly, no class member has objected to the settlement or service payments. (See p. 7, infra)
H. The Class Responds Positively to the Settlement - There Are No Objections
To effectuate the settlement, the Claims Administrator mailed 717 notice packets with claim forms to class members, of which only 27 claim forms returned as undeliverable. These forms were returned despite the efforts ofthe Claims Administrator to obtain a valid address using public and proprietary electronic resources, which collect their data from utility records, property tax records, credit records, and other sources. 225 class members filled out claim forms. There were no objectors and only one request for exclusion. (Sanford-Heisler Dec., ~~ 32-33)
The lack of objections illustrates that the class is satisfied with the settlement and supplies a powerful reason for this Court to approve the settlement as fair and adequate. 1 After this Court expressed concern about the amount of the service payments, the class plaintiffs agreed to reduce by $55,000 the sum they are requesting as service payments.
6

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 13 of 30
(See pp. 11-12, infra) Under governing law, which strongly favors class action settlements, this court
should certify the class as final, approve the settlement, and award Plaintiffs' counsel the requested sum of $399,983.81 as attorneys' fees and $36,516.19in expenses. The fee sought is reasonable and fits in well with customary awards for complex class actions like the one at bar.
Finally, for the reasons provided in Plaintiffs' previous briefing, the court should also award Plaintiffs the amount of service payments requested on this motion. As mentioned, class members have submitted no objections to the settlement, including the provisions for service payment award to the four named plaintiffs. In the Class Notice sent to class members, the exact dollar figures of the service payment terms were fully and prominently disclosed in the Class Notice under the heading "F. Service Payments to Class Representatives."
Importantly, the fact that not a single class member protested against the service payments suggests that the class as a whole considers those payments justified.
ARGUMENT POINT I
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEOUATE, AND SHOULD BE APPROVED IN ALL RESPECTS. A. THE LAW FAVORS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS. In In re Union Carbide Comoration. Consumer Products Business. Securities Litigation, 718 F. Supp. 1099, 1103 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), the district court reaffirmed the well-established judicial policy which favors settlement of class actions:
7

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 14 of 30

In evaluating the settlement of complex class actions, the courts have long recognized that such litigation is notably difficult and notoriously uncertain . . . and that compromise is particularly appropriate. The law favors settlements by the parties rather than by court disposition. • .. (internal citations omitted) In re Union Carbide Corporation, 718 F. Supp. at 1103.
See also: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)
(Noting the "strong judicial policy in favor of settlements particularly in the class action
context."); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1982); Thompson v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 216 F.R.D. 55, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("Judicial discretion
should be exercised in light of the general policy favoring settlement."); Taft v.
Ackermans, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9144, p. *14 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).2
B. THE SECOND CmCIDT'S STANDARD FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS UNDER RULE 23(e).
In order to approve a settlement, a district court must determine whether the
proposed settlement, "taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable, and adequate." See Mavwalt
v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072, 1079 (2d Cir. 1995); Joel A. v.
Giuliani, 218 F. 3d 132, 136; (2d Cir. 2001); Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 823 F.2d
20, 22 (2d Cir. 1985). Courts in this circuit make that determination based upon "two
types of evidence:" (1) substantive and (2) procedural. Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698
F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir.l982). Substantive evidence includes the "substantive terms of the
settlement compared to the likely result of a trial." Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426,

2

Accord: In re Twin Lab Comoration Securities Litigation, 187 F. Supp. 2d 80, 83

(E.D.N.Y. 2002) ("Judicial discretion should be exercised in light of the general policy fuvoring

[class action] settlement."); Ruskay v. Waddell, 552 F.2d 392, 398 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied,

434 U.S. 911 (1977); In re Michael Milken and Associates Securities Litig" 150 F.R.D. 57, 65

(S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Particularly in class actions, tbere is an overriding public interest in fuvor of

settlement. It is common lmowledge that class actions suits have a well deserved reputation as

being most complex. ").

.

8

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 15 of 30
433 (2d Cir.1983); Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74 (quoting Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders ofTMT Trailer Feny Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424,88 S.Ct. ll57, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968)). Procedural evidence includes whether the settlement is the product of arm's length negotiations between experienced counsel. Taft v. Ackermans, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9144, p. **14-15 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Chatelain v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 805 F. Supp 209,212 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
1. Substantive Fairness More than three decades ago, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 462-3 (2d Cir.1974) ("Grinnell") set forth the analytical framework for evaluating the substantive jai1'lless of a class action
settlement. In determining whether to approve a proposed settlement, a district court
should consider the following nine factors: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of all attendant risks oflitigation.
9

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 16 of 30
Grinnell., 495 F.2d at 462-3
2. Procedural Fairness After probing the substantive fairness of a proposed settlement, the district court examines "the negotiating process by which the settlement was reached." Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74. This process focuses on "the experience of counsel, the vigor with which the case was prosecuted, and the coercion or collusion that may have marred the negotiations themselves." Malchman, 706 F.2d at 433 (citing Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 73). Courts have the duty to ensure that the settlement is not the product of collusion. In re Warner Commc'ns Sec. Litig., 798 F.2d 35, 37 (2d Cir.1986). Importantly, however, "[a] presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm's-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc" 396 F,3d at 116 (internal citation omitted). The Court should find the negotiating process was fair if "the settlement resulted from arm's-length negotiations and .. ,plaintifi's counsel have ... the experience and ability .. ,to effective[ly] represent [] ...the class' interests," D' Amato v, Deutsche Bank, 236 FJd 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001). Accord: Taft v, Ackermans, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9144, p, *14 (S.D.NY 2007). C. UNDER THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S TEST FOR EVALUATING
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT IN TillS CASE ARE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEOUATE. As stated above, Courts evaluate the substantive terms of a settlement based on the nine factors spelled out in City of Detroit v, Grinnell Com., 495 F,2d 448, 462-3 (2d Cir.1974).
10

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 17 of 30
1. The Complexity, Expense and likely Duration of this Litigation Favor Final Approval.
The first factor - the complexity, expense and likely duration of this case - favors final approval of the Settlement. See City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 4623 (2d Cir.1974). It is well-settled that civil rights class actions are complex. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 576 F. Supp. 34, 47 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (the complexity and duration of trial would seriously diminish the value of whatever additional relief might be obtained by further litigation, when trial was expected to last between three and five months and the plaintiffs alone planned to call dozens of witnesses during the liability stage of the trial); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Servo Comm'n., 688 F.2d 615, 629 (9th Cir. 1982) ("[t]he track record for large class action employment discrimination cases demonstrates that many years may be consumed by trial(s) and appeal(s) before the dust finally settles").
Additionally, the costs and burden of further litigation are very strong factors supporting this Settlement. See In re Michael Milken & Associates Securities Litig., lSI F.D.R. 46, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Typically, the magnitude of damages becomes a battle of experts at trial, with no guarantee of the outcome in the eyes of the jury. "); In re United States Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 493 (11th Cir. 1992) ("Complex litigation. .. can occupy a court's docket for years on end, depleting the resources of the parties and the taxpayers while rendering meaningful relief increasingly elusive.").
2. The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement Favors Final Approval.
No class member has objected to the Settlement, and only one has requested exclusion. This favorable reception by the class constitutes "strong evidence" of the
11

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 18 of 30
fairness of the proposed settlement and supports judicial approval. See RMED InternationaL Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8239, p*4 (S.D.N.Y., May IS, 2003, Leisure, J.) ("The lack of class member objections ... may itself be taken as evidencing the fairness of a settlement," quoting AH. Robbins, 700 F. Supp. 682, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)); Kolar v. Rite Aid Cor:poratio!!, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3646, p.*IO (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2003) (In approving a class action settlement, the court remarked "we also take comfort from the fact that not one of the many thousands of class members has taken issue with the merits of this settlement, even after over 16,000 received first class mail notice about it."); Ross v. AH. Robbins, Inc., 700 F. Supp. 682, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ("The lack of class member objections ... may itself be taken as evidencing the fairness of a settlement").
3. The Stage of the Proceediugs and the Amount of Discovery Completed Favor Final Approval
Courts consider the stage of the proceedings when evaluating a class action settlement. Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). Such evaluation not only ensures that class counsel understands the strengths and weaknesses of the class claims before compromising them, but also affords the court with an opportunity to "intelligently make...an appraisal of the Settlement." Id.
Here, Plaintiffs' counsel had the benefit of detailed and exhaustive employment data provided by IKON comparing salaries of African-American employees with those of whites and other racial ethnic groups during the class period. Once Plaintiffs obtained these employment statistics, they retained two expert statisticians, Dr. Louis Lanier and Dr. Rebecca Klemm, to evaluate IKON's potential liability for pay and promotional discrimination against African-Americans. Plaintiffs' counsel was thereby able to
12

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 19 of 30
intelligently evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this case when they negotiated the settlement, as well as to evaluate Defendant's countervailing expert report. Furthermore, settlement was reached only after a full-day, in-person, session before one of the nation's premier mediators, Hunter Hughes, Esq., as well as detailed, follow-up negotiations via telephone, which also were facilitated by Mr. Hughes.
4, 5, 6. Risks of Class Prevailing - Establishing Liability, Damages and Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial- Favor Final Approval
Litigation inherently involves risks. See In re Painewebber Ltd. P'ships Litig., 171 F.R.D. 104, 126 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Indeed, "if settlement has any purpose at all, it is to avoid a trial on the merits because of the uncertainty of the outcome." In re Ira Haupt & Co., 304F.Supp. 917, 934 (S.D.N.Y.1969). The risks involved in this litigation weigh heavily in favor of settlement.
On the merits, IKON's expert, Dr. Bernard R. Siskin concluded, based on his review of the statistical data, that IKON did not discriminate against the class. Plaintiffs' class certification was also potentially problematic.
The Parties stipulated to class certification for settlement purposes. If the class action were litigated, however, IKON likely would have opposed certification. ReadeAlvarez v. Eltman, Eltman, & Cooper, P.C., 2006 WL 3681138 (E.D.N.Y.,2006) ("The parties stipulated to class certification for settlement purposes only. If the class action were litigated, however, it is likely that defendants would oppose certification ... Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.").
By no means was it a foregone conclusion that the proposed class would be certified by the Court. Class certification may be difficult to achieve in racial harassment
13

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 20 of 30

hostile-work-environment suits like the one at bar. See Armstrong v. Whirlpool

Corooration, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14635 (M.D. Tenn. 2007). See further, City of

Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 457 (2nd Cir. 1974) ("Finally, the record shows

that if the proceedings had continued and had not been stopped short by the settlement

offer, there would have been a serious question as to whether these actions could have

been maintained as class actions at all. In its approval of the settlement offer, the district

court outlined some of the factors which militate against the use of the class action

device. The separate liability and damage issues present enonnous difficulties.").

Accordingly, these factors also support approval of this Settlement.
83, 9. The Settlement Fund Is Clearly Reasonable In Light of the Best Possible Recovery and All Attendant Risks of Litigation

Even absent the risk of establishing liability, the value of the settlement fund

justifies settling this case. Under the Settlement, those class members who did not opt

out of the class or object to the Settlement wi!! each receive an award, which is

reasonable for the class to accept given the risk of establishing liability and damages in

this case. Based on the analysis of the Plaintiffs' statistical expert, the total settlement

fund constitutes up to 34 percent of IKON's total possibility liability. (See Sanford-

Heisler Declaration).

Settlements can be approved even where the benefits to be obtained on behalf of

the class are less than those originally sought. "The settlement does not have to be a

brilliant one to secure judicial approval. The settlement may be approved if it is clear it

secures some adequate advance for the class." In Re Domestic Air Transportation

Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 325 (N.D. Ga. 1993).

3

The seventh factor, the ability of the Defendants to withstand judgment, is not a relevant

factor here.

14

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 21 of 30
In fact, a settlement can be approved even when it amounts to only a small
percentage of the recovery sought. See In Re Union Carbide Corporation Consumer
Products Business Securities Litigation, supr!!, at p.11 03, where Judge Brieant remarked
- "The Court of Appeals has held that a settlement can be approved even though the
benefits amount to a small percentage of the recovery sought. . .. The essence of
settlement is compromise." In Re Michael Milken & Associates Securities Litig., 150
F.R.D. 46, 64-65 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). As the Second Circuit stated in City of Detroit v.
Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 455, n.2 (2nd Cir. 1974): "There is no reason, at least in
theory, why a satisfactory settlement could not amount to a hundredth or even a
thousandth of a single percent ofthe potential recovery.,,4
D. THE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURALLY FAIR BECAUSE IT IS A PRODUCT OF ARM'S LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS AMONG EXPERIENCED COUNSEL, REACHED AFTER A HARDFOUGHT MEDIATION, AS WELL AS CONFLICTING STATISTICAL ANALYSES BY PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS.
In evaluating the procedural fairness of a proposed settlement, the district court
will consider whether the agreement was properly negotiated at arm's length by the
parties. "As long as the integrity of the negotiating process is ensured by the Court, it is
The courts have often approved or proposed settlements even where the benefits represent only "a fraction of the potential recovery," and far less than the significant percentage of maximum recovery Class Counsel have won for IKON class members here. See In re Sunrise Securitv Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450, 457 n.l3 (E.D. Pa. 1990). For example, in In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litig., 824 F. Supp. 320, 324 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), a settlement was approved where class members were awarded between 6 cents and 10 cents for every $1.00 lost. See also Cagan v. Anchor Savings Bank FSB, 1990 WL 73423 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 1990) (approving $2.3 million dollar settlement that represented less than 2% of theoretical best possible recovery of $121,000,000); Mersav v. First Republic Corporation of America 43 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (court approved a 5-10% settlement); Behrens v. Wometco Enterprises, 118 F.R.D. 534, 542 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aff'd. 899 F.2d 21 (11th Cir. 1990) (,The mere fact that the proposed settlement of $.20 cents a share is a small fraction of $3.50 a share is not indicative of an inadequate compromise."); In re Prudential Inc. Securities Lip. Lit., 1995 WL 798907 (S.D.NY 1995) (approving settlement of between 1.6% and 5% of claimed damages).
15

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 22 of 30
assumed that the forces of self-interest and vigorous advocacy will of their own accord produce the best possible result for all sides." In re Painewebber Ltd. P'ships Litig., 171 F.R.D. at 132. This inquiry considers whether the settlement process has been corrupted and whether Class Counsel has adequately represented the class. See Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74.
1. Experienced Counsel Represented Both Parties in This Case. Courts recognize that great weight is accorded to the recommendations of counsel, who are in the best position to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. Chatelain v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 805 F.Supp 209, 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Both parties were represented by experienced counsel with substantial experience in employment class action litigation. Defense Counsel, the law firm of Morgan Lewis, is a nationally recognized firm whose reputation for zealous representation of its clients is well known. Class Counsel, the law firm of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, is a plaintiffs' class action law firm known largely for its successful pursuit of civil rights cases, particularly in the Title VII arena. David W. Sanford of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP is one of the nation's leading civil rights attorneys. He has served as lead counsel in approximately 50 class action matters, primarily in the civil rights field, around the United States and recovered many millions dollars for discrimination victims. (See Sanford-Heisler Dec.) Counsel's recommendation to approve the Settlement is well informed.
16

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 23 of 30
2. The Proposed Settlement Was Negotiated by Experienced Counsel After a One-Day, In-Person Mediation Before a Mediator With Significant Experience in Class Action Settlements.
The Settlement Agreement is the product of arm's length negotiations between Class Counsel and IKON. Chatelaine v. Prudential-Bache Sec. Inc., 805 F. Supp. 209, 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (A strong initial presumption of fairness attaches to a proposed settlement when it is shown to be the result of arms-length negotiating.) The protracted settlement discussions were conducted over many weeks and culminated with a mediated settlement negotiated with the assistance and guidance of an experienced mediator of employment class actions. During the settlement discussions, the Parties conducted a lengthy, face-to-face mediation, which was followed by length telephone conferences. In addition, prior to the one-day mediation, the Parties had exchanged countervailing expert reports, and had a preliminary meeting to initiate settlement discussions and IICON's production of statistical data to facilitate those discussions. In addition, the Parties hilVe engaged in lengthy, arms-length negotiations regarding the preparation and drafting of the voluminous settlement documentation now on file with the Court. There is no evidence that the negotiations were collusive in any way. Accordingly, this factor favors approval of the Settlement.
POINT II PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR $399,983.81 IN ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND $36,516.19 IN EXPENSES SHOULD BE APPROVED A. THE APPLICATION. The Settlement Agreement provided that, subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs' counsel and the class would receive a combined total of $436,500 in expenses and
17

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 24 of 30

attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs now apply for $399,983.81 in attorneys' fees and $36,516.19 in

expenses.

The attorneys' fee request is actually less than Plaintiffs' counsel's "lodestar" -

the hours expended on the case multiplied by hourly rates. Plaintiffs devoted more than

800 hours for a total lodestar of $400,276.25

As shown below, the attorneys' fee application is fair and reasonable and should

be approved.

B. THE RELEVANT FACTORS.

In determining an appropriate award of attorneys' fees for class actions, the courts

have adopted the principles articulated by the Second Circuit in City of Detroit v.

Grinnell Com., 495 F.2d 448 471 (2nd Cir. 1974). Under that approach:

[T]he courts do not consider that a "just and adequate fee" can be ascertained by merely multiplying an attorney's hours by his typical hourly fees. The courts regard this calculation as "the only legitimate starting point for analysis." To this, "other, less objective factors" are applied to reach the ultimate award. The foremost of these factors is the attorney's "risk oflitigation." ... the fact that despite the most vigorous and competent of efforts success is never guaranteed.

Other generally accepted factors as stated in Grinnell [at] 470 are:

1. the standing of counsel at the bar both counsel receiving award and opposing counsel,

2. time and labor spent,

3. magnitude and complexity of the litigation,

4.

responsibility undertaken,

5. the amount recovered,

6. what it would be reasonable for counsel to charge a victorious plaintiff.

18

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 25 of 30

C. A REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS SUPPORTS COUNSEL'S APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF THE ATTORNEYS' FEES SOUGHT.
1. The Litigation Has Conferred Substantial Benefits on the Class as a Consequence of Counsel's Efforts
As discussed above, the benefits of the settlement to Plaintiffs and the class are substantial.
2. The Efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel
The prosecution of this action required a high level of experience and expertise in
complex class action litigation, as well as the ability to provide such service under
difficult circumstances against Defendant represented by the law firm of Morgan Lewis,
a nationally recognized firm whose reputation for zealous representation of its clients is
well known. The extent and nature of the efforts of Plaintiffs' counsel are described in detail by the Sanford-Heisler declaration.
D. THE PERCENTAGE OF RECOVERY AND LODESTAR APPROACHES IN EVALUATING CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Under the "percentage-of-the-fund" approach, the court awards as attorneys' fees a reasonable percentage of the fund created by class counsel's effort5 The "lodestar"
method entails multiplying the number of hours the attorneys expended by the attorneys'

5

"Case law establishes two methods for evaluating the reasonableness of a request

for attorneys' fees -- the lodestar approach and the percentage·of-recovery approach.... TI,e

lodestar method ... calculates fees by multiplying the number of hours by some hourly rate

to be determined to be suitable. . .. The percentage·of-recovery method is used in common

fund cases on the theory that members ofthe class would be unjustly enriched ifthey did not

adequately compensate counsel responsible for generating the fund." In re Computron

Software. Inc.. Securities Litigation, 6 F. Supp.2d 313, 321-322 (D.NJ. 1998).

19

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 26 of 30
current hourly rates to create a "lodestar" figure; most often this "lodestar" figure is adjusted upward or "multiplied" by the court to compensate counsel for the contingent nature of the case, the quality of work performed, delay in payment and other factors. See Rabin v. Concord Assets Group, Inc., [1991-1992 Transfer Binder] Sec. L. Rep (CCR) paragraph 96,471 at p.92, 081 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1991) ("in recent years multiplies of between 3 and 4.5 have been common"). Plaintiffs here are not requesting a multiplier.
Under either the "percentage-of-the-fund" analysis or the "lodestar" approach, the $399,983.81 fee sought herein is amply justified.
1. The $399,983.81 Attorneys' Fee Request Represents Approximately 31 % of the Available $1,275,000 Settlement Benefit and Is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness.
Most federal court judges are departing from reliance on the "lodestar-multiplier" doctrine, and now use a "percentage" approach in common fund cases, either exclusively or at the discretion of the trial court. In re AT! Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7062, p. *10 (E.D. Pa., Apr. 28, 2003) (approving percentage of recovery method for determining legal fee); PauL Johnson, Laston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989).6
Courts have established that approximately 33 percent is a standard fee in complex class action cases like this one where plaintiffs' counsel have achieved a good recovery for the class. See In re Lloyd's American Trust Fund Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22663, p.*76 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("In this district alone, there are scores of. .. cases where fees ... were awarded in the range of 33 1/3 % of the settlement fund."); In re , In Masters v. Wilhemina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F. 3d 423, 437 (2d Circ. 2007), the Second Circuit ruled that "An allocation of fees by percentage should therefore be awarded on the basis of total funds made available whether claimed or not."
20

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 27 of 30

Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigatio!l, 2007 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 85554, p. **13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007, McMahon, J.) ("Indeed, there are numerous ... cases in this District alone where fees were awarded in the amount of 33 1/3% of the settlement fund ... "); RMED InternationaL Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 8239, p.*6 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2003, Leisure, J.); In re R.J.R. Nabisco. Inc. Securities Litig., [1992 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCR) ~ 96,984 at p.94, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1992);7
2. Analysis under the Lodestar School As set forth in the Sanford-Heisler declaration, class counsel and staff devoted more than 850 hours to prosecute this litigation. The current hourly rates for Plaintiffs' counsel are $625 for Jeremy Heisler, Esq., $600 for Steven L. Wittels, Esq., and $525 for David Sanford. (See Sanford-Heisler Dec ~~ 39) The straight "lodestar value" of Plaintiffs' counsel's services on this case comes to $400,276.25, which is less than the attorneys' fee of $399,983.81 that Plaintiffs seek here. (Sanford-Heisler Dec., ~ 36).

7 See also Beech Cinema Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Cora.. 480 F. Supp. 1195 (S.D.N.Y.

1979) (awarding fees of 53.2% of cormnon fund) aff'd. 62 F.2d 1106 (2nd Cir. 1980); Green v.

Emerson Ltd., [1987 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 93,263 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

(46.2%); Baron v. Cormnercial & Industria! Bank of Memphis, [1979-1980 Transfer Binder] Fed.

Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 97,132 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); In re Allstar Securities Litig., 1991 U.S. Dis!.

LEXIS 20402 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (35%); In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litig.. 824 F. Supp. 320. 325-

326 (S.D.NY 1993) (34%); In re Tampico Fiber Antitrust Litig., 1995 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 478

(E.D. Pa. 1995) (30%); In re Medical X-Ray Film Antitrust Litig., 1998 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 14888

(E.D.N.Y. August 7, 1998) (33.33% of fund); Cohen v. Apache Cora., 1993 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS

5211 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (33.33%).

Additionally, unlike the request for attorneys' fees in

this case which, if granted, would represent 33% of the monetary relief, it is not uncommon for

courts to grant attorneys' fees that exceed the actua! monetary relief provided in the case. See

Riverside v. Rivera. 477 U.S. 561(1986) (Supreme Court approved attorneys' fee of$245,45625

where plaintiffs' recovery on the civil rights claims was a mere $13, 300.00). See also Wales. et

a! v. Jack M. Berrv. Inc.. et aL 192 F. Supp. 2d 1313. 1328 <M.D. Fla. 200]) (approving

attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $352,225.40 where plaintiffs recovered approximately

$21,000.00 in a civil rights action). By contrast, in this case the requested fee is significantly less

than the available monetary relief to the class

21

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 28 of 30
As Judge Colleen McMahon recently held in approving a fee award based on a
current hourly rate similar to the ones involved in this fee application:
The use of current rates to calculate the lodestar figure has been repeatedly endorsed by courts as a means of accounting for the delay in payment inherent in class actions and for inflation .... In determining the propriety of the hourly rates charged by plaintiffs' counsel in class actions, courts have held that the standard is the rate charged in the community where the services were performed by counsel. ". Thus, substantial precedent - as well as a market check - demonstrates that the rates utilized by Plaintiffs' Counsel in calculating its lodestar is are reasonable. See,!<:,g" In re Indep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17090, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003) (rates of $650/hour for a partner, aud $300$425/honr for associates, are "not extraordinary for a topflight New York City law firm")...
In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85554, p. *28-30 ("S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2007),
See also In re NTL Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13661, 2007 WL
1294377 at *8 (approving rates up to $695 for partners).
Counsel's hours against IKON were reasonably expended, and are properly the
basis for the lodestar calculation. See In re Union Carbide Corp .. 718 F. Supp. at 1109-
10. As explained by the Second Circuit in Grinnell, "[n]o one expects a lawyer whose
compensation is contingent upon his success to charge, when successful, as little as he
would charge a client who in advance had agreed to pay for his services." 495 F.2d at
470-71.
Finally, the quality of the representation here weighs in favor of awarding the
requested fee. Counsel is experienced and able in the field of complex class action and
corporate litigation. (See Sanford-Heisler Dec., setting forth Plaintiffs' counsel's
experience.) Moreover, the reputation and skill of opposing counsel may also be
considered when determining an award offees. See In re Warner Comm. Sec. Litig., 618
22

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 29 of 30
F. Supp. 735, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 798 F.2d 35 (2nd Cir. 1986). Defendant here was represented by Morgan Lewis, a highly skilled law firm, vigorously and competently defending its client.
3. The Court Should Grant Plaiutiffs' Incentive Awards
For the reasons Plaintiffs detailed in their prior briefing on this issue, the court should approve the four class representatives' scaled-down requests for service payments, particularly since no class member has objected to this part ofthe settlement.
POINTID APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CLASS. The class notice in this case informed each class member of the terms of Settlement. Courts recognize that class notice is sufficient if it "may be understood by the average class member." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 114 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Churchill ViII. v. G.E., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 556 (2004) ("Notice is satisfactory if it generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard").
POINTIY CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
IS APPROPRIATE AND WARRANTED. This Court should certify the class as final. The benefits of the proposed Settlement can be realized only through the final certification of a settlement class. This Court preliminarily certified the class in its Preliminary Approval Order. Final certification is now appropriate.
23

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 33 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 30 of 30

CONCLUSION For all of the reasons discussed above, the proposed class should be finally certified, and the settlement should be approved as final. Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards to the class representatives should be granted in its entirety, and the form of final judgment submitted by the parties should be signed and entered.

Dated: January 17, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
Sf Jeremy Heisler Jeremy Heisler, (JH-0145) StevenL. Wittels, (SLW-8110) SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Avenue, lOul Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 Facsimile: (646) 723-2948
David Sanford, D.C. Bar No. 457933 SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 742-7780 Facsimile: (202) 742-7776

24

 
 Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE ANDERSON, CHARLES WASHINGTON, and EDWARD ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated
Plaintiffs,
V.

Civil Action No. O5CV-913l (PAC) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC. Defendant
I
This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement") is entered into between Plaintiffs
St. Care Rosenberg. Wayne Anderson, Charles Washington, and Edward Anderson (the "Named
Plaintiffs"), as well as Levone Sonee-Myricks ("Mr. Sonee-Myricks") (the Named Plaintiffs and
Mr. Sonee-Myricks are hereafter collectively referred to for purposes of this Settlement
Agreement as "Class Representativest'), as representatives of the plaintiff class described herein,
all of whom are represented by their attorneys Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP, and defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc. ("IKON" or "the Defendant"), which is represented by itsattorneys Morgan, Lewi.s & Bockius LLP.

I. DEFINITIONS
The terms set forth below shall have the meanings defined in this Section wherever used in this. Agreement and in all of its exhibits, including the Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Opt-out and the Claim. Form.
1.1 The "Civil Action" means the above-captioned action.

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 2 of 22
1.2 For purposes of this Agreement, the class is defined as all African-American individuals employed by the Defendant between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005 (the "Relevant Period") in the Legal Document Services ("LDS")or IKON Management Services ("IMS") business units in Nev York State (together the "Proposed Class Members" and each a "Proposed Class Member"). The Class Representatives and the Defendant (the"Parties") agree that they will prepare and agree upon a list of all Proposed Class Members. Any dispute as to the content of the list will be resolved by the COurt.
1.3 "Claims Administrator" means RG/2 Claims Administrator LLC, which has a
Philadelphia office at 30 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, phone: 215 979.1620, fax: 215.979.1695.
1.4 The "Court" means the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 1.5 "Class Counsel" means the law firm of Sanford, Wittels & Heisier, LLP. 1.6 "Class Representatives" means St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson, Charles Washington, Edward Anderson, and Levone Sonee-Myrieks. 1.7 "Counsel for IKON" or "Counsel for Defendant" means the law firm ofMorgan, Lewis & Dockius LLP. 1.8 "Covered Position" means any position in IICON's Legal Document Services ("LDS") or IKON Management Services ("IMS") business units located in New York State. 1.9 "Defendant" and the "Company" mean IKON Office Solutions, Inc. I .10 "Effective Date" means the date upon which all of the following have occurred: (I) entry of an order by the Court certifying the Settlement Class, (2) entry of an orderor orders by the Court granting final approval to the Agreement, approving the amount. ofattorneys' fees and costs and dismissing this action in accordance with its terms, (3) theappeal. period (i.e.,, 30 days) has run without an appeal of any Court order, or in the event of an appeal, the Parties have received actual notice that the ettIément has received final approval after thecompletion of the appellate process, and 4) the period for IKON to withdraw from the Agreement (i.e.. 30 days
2

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 3 of 22
from the Claims Administrator's receipt of all timely and completerequests for exclusion submitted by a Class Representative and/or Proposed Class Member has run.
1.11 "Named Plaintiffs" means St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson, Charles Washington,. and Edward Anderson.
1.12 The "Parties" means the Class Representatives and Defendant, 1.13 The "Plan of Allocation" means the pro rata allocation of the Settlement Fund to Qualified Claimants in accordance with: (1) the number of months in a Covered Position during the Relevant Time Period and (2) the terms of this Agreement. 1.14 The "Preliminary Approval Order" means the Order entered by this Court preliminarily approving, the terms of this Agreement and the Plan of Allocation, certifying the Settlement Class, approving the payments of attorneys' fees, attorneys' costs, the Service Payment, and the Supplemental Payment as set forth in this Agreement, scheduling a fairness hearing, and directing the mailing to the Settlement Class of the Notices of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Object and the Claim Forms. 1.15 "Released Claims" means any and all race discrimination claims of whatever nature against IKO'N, which a Settlement Class Member may have against any of the Released Parties, whether known or unknown, as a result of actions or omissions during the period from January 1, 2001 through and including the date of Final Approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement, whether under federal, state and/or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, common law, or other source of law (including but not limited to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ot 1964,
42 U.SC. § 2000(e), et seq.. 42 U.S.C. § 1981, New York Human Rights Law, New York
Executive Law § 296, subd. 1(a), and New York City Administrative Code §8-107, subd.l(a)). including but not limited to any and all claims 'for discrimination, harassment and retaliation, interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, or penalties related to any and all alleged unlawful discriminàtioñ.
1.16 "Relevant Period" or "Relevant Time Period" means January 1, 2001 to December 31. 2005.
3

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 4 of 22
1 .17 "Released Parties" means the Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc.. its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. and, in the case of all such companies, their respective owners, representatives officers, directors. employees, attorneys, agents, shareholders, members, predecessors. successors and assigns, and insurers.
1.18 "Qualified Claimant" means each member of the Settlement Class who is entitled to receive a Settlement Share,
1.19 "Settlement Class" means all African-American individuals employed by Defendant in Covered Positions between January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005, who do not timely opt-out of the settlement pursuant to the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order (together the "Settlement Class Members" and individually each a "Settlement Class Member").
1.20 "Settlement Fund" means the amount of One Million Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($1,275,000.00).
1.21 "Settlement Share" means each Qualified Claimant's total share of the Settlement Fund based upon the terms of this Agreement and the Plan of Allocation.
IL RECITALS
2.1 On October 26, 2005, a complaint was filed by St. Clare Rosenberg and Wayne Anderson IKON in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, On August 3, 2006, a First Amended Complaint was filed by St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. Charles Washington, and Edward Anderson (the "Named Plaintiffs") against IKON(hereafter the 'Cis il Action") In the action the Named Plaintiffs soughtinjunctive relief, reinstatement wage adjustments, compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, and job benefits for themselves and similarly situated employees.
2.2 On or around February 13, 2007, Levone Sonee-Myricks ("Mr. Sonee-Myricks") filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that h.e was denied promotional opportunities, and was subjected to retaliation and racial harassment, Mr. Sonee-Myricks and the Named Plaintiffs are collectively referred to as the "Class Representatives."
4

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 5 of 22
23 After extensive analysis and deliberation, the Class Representatives and Class
Counsel are of the opinion that the settlement set forth in this Agreement isfair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class in light of all known facts and circumstances including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, and potential appellate issues.
2.4 It is the desire of the Parties to filly, finally, and forever settle, compromise, and discharge all disputes and claims arising from or related to the Civil Action which exist between them.
2.5 It is the intention of the Parties that this Agreement shall constitute a full and
complete settlement and release of all Released Claims against all Released Parties. 2.6 Defendant denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the
claims alleged in the Civil Action. 2.7 This Agreement is a compromise and shall not be construed as an admission of
liability at any time or for any purpose, under any circumstances, by the Parties or the Released Parties. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that neither this Agreement nor the Settlement shall be used to suggest an admission of liability in any dispute the Parties may have now or in the future with respect to any person or entity. Neither this Agreement nor anything in it, nor any part of the negotiations that occurred in connection with the creation of this Settlement, shall constitute evidence with respect to any issue or dispute in any lawsuit, legal proceeding, or administrative proceeding, except for legal proceedings concerning the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement.
III. TH:E S TLEMENT FUND
3.1 To settle all claims on behalf of the Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members. IKON shall establish a settlement fund in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Seventy Fhre Thousand Dollars ($1,275,000.00) for payment of claims to Qualified Claimants. subject to the provisions in this Section 3.1 and the terms of this Agreement. The Claims Administrator shall distribute the Settlement Fund pursuant to the provisions, andon the time
3

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 6 of 22
schedule of, Sections IV, V and VIII and the orders of the Court. Specifically, attorneys' fees and expenses; the Service Payments and Supplemental Payments to the Class Representatives; and u.p to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) of the Claims Administration costs shall be paid directly from the Settlement Fund, and these payments will reduce the Settlement Fund awarded to the Settlement Class.
IV ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION COSTS, AND SERVICE PAYMENTS
4.1 Within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date, Defendant will pay Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of Four Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Five lIundred dollars ($436,500.00), provided the Court approves such payment. Defendant shall pay the attorneys' fees and costs directly from the Settlement Fund, and the payment will reduce the Settlement Fund awarded to the Settlement Class, At least seven days prior to the date of payment, Class Counsel will provide Defendant with the tax-payer identification numbers for Class Counsel and an executed Form W-9,
4.2 Defendant will also pay each of the Named Plaintiffs (in addition to their Settlement Share) for their services on behalf of the class (the "Service Payment"), provided the Court approves such payment, and provided they do not opt-out of the Settlement, as follows: (I) St. Clare Rosenberg: Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000); (2) Wayne Anderson: Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45,000); (3) Charles Washington: Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45,000); and (4) Edward Anderson: Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000). Defendant will pay the aforementioned Service Payment to each Named Plaintiff within five (5) business days after the Effective Date. Each Named Plaintiff shall also be entitled to receive his Settlement Share of the Settlement Fund provided he does not optout of the Settlement, Defendant shall pay the Service Payment dfrectly froth the Settlemeüt Fund, and such payment will reduce the Settlement FTund awarded to the Settlement Class. If any Named Plaintiff declines to join. .t:h ettiefl1n be will not be eligible to receive a Service Payment. if any Named Plaintiff declines to join the Settlement. or requests to be excluded from the Settlement, then JICON shall have the absolute
6

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 7 of 22
right to withdraw in writing from the Agreement, subject to the provisions of paragraph 10,2 of this Agreement.
4.3 Defendant will also pay Mr. Sonee-Myricks (in addition to his SettlementShare) Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) for his services on behalf ofthe class (the "Supplemental Payment"), provided the Court approves such payment, that his employment with IKON is terminated, and that he does not opt-out of the Settlement. Defendant will pay the Supplemental Payment to Mr. Sonee-Myricks within five (5) business days after the Effective Date. Mr. Son.ee-Myricks shall also be entitled to receive his Settlement Share of the Settlement Fund provided he does not opt-out of the Settlement. Defendant shall pay the Supplemental Payment directly from the Settlement Fund, and such payment shall reduce the Settlement Fund awarded to the Settlement Class. If Mr. Sonee-Myricks declines to join the Settlement, he will not be eligible to receive a Supplemental Payment. If Mr. Sonee-Myricks declines to join the Settlement, or requests to be excluded from the Settlement, then IKON shall have the absolute right to withdraw in Wntrng from the Agreement, subject to the provisions of paragraph 10.2 of this Agreement. Irrespective of the above provisions, if Mr. Sonee-Myricks signs a release that is acceptable to 1KON in exchange for the moneys identified above, then he will immediately resign from his employment with IKON upon execution of the release, and he will receive payment of the moneys identified above (to be taken from the Settlement Fund) within 20 days after he resigns.
4.4 Defendant will put the total amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00), provided, the Court approves such payment, in escrow to cover the reasonable costs of the Notice and of the administration of this Settlement (the "Claims Administration costs"). The first Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) of the Claims Administration costs shall be paid directly from the Settlement Fund, and shall reduce the Settlement Fund awarded to the Settlement Class. Defendaiit will pay any remaining Claims Administrations costs, above and beyond Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), separately 'from the Settlement Fund, and such additional payment shall not act to reduce the Settlement Fund in any way. Should there remain any
7

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 8 of 22
residual from the Forty Thousand Dollars after all payments are made for the costs of the Notice and of the administration of this Settlement, the unused amount will bereturned to Defendant.
4.5 Except for the fees, costs and other expenses set forth in this Section, andexcept as provided in paragraphs 4.1. 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 herein, the Parties shall bear responsibility for their own fees, costs and expenses incurred by them or arising out of thislitigation and will not seek reimbursement thereof from any party to this Agreement or the Released Parties.
V. ALLOCATIO ND PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND
5.1 Each Qualified Claimant shall be paid a pro rata portion of the Settlement Fund based on: (a) the number of months employed in a Covered Positionduring the Relevant Time Period and (b) the terms of this Agreement.
5.2 For each, member of the Settlement Class, the number of months employedas defined in Section 5.1(a) above will be calculated from Defendant's records and will he reflected on each individual Claim Form that each member of the Settlement Class receives. Defendant's records concerning number of months of employment in Covered Positions in the Relevant Time Period will be conclusively presumed to be correct and will be controlling withrespect to the calculation of each Settlement Class Member's potential settlement payment.
5.3 Except for the Service Payments described' above to be paid to the Named Plaintiffs, as well as the Supplemental Payment described above to be paid to Mr. SoneeMyricks, fifty percent of all settlement payments to Qualified Claimants will be reported as, and to be withheld upon as, wages for tax purposes. The remainder (fifty percent) will be considered emotional distress damages and will be subject to an IRS Form 1099. Qualified Claimants will receive an IRS Form W-2 for thei.r settlement payment. The Named Plaintiffs also will receive an IRS Form 1099 for their Service Payments, and Mr. Sonee-Myricks will receive an IRS Form 1099 for his Supplemental Payment. The Settlement Share payable to each Qualified Claimant will be calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation. after withholding for taxes and subject to section 8.4 below.
8

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 9 of 22
5.4 The Claims Administrator shall distribute the remainder of the Settlement Fund to the Qualified Claimants no later than forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date. The face of each check sent to Qualified Claimants shall clearly state that the check must be cashed within ninety (90) calendar days. The back of each check will contain a legend stating: "By negotiating this check and accepting payment I agree that I have waived and released the Released Parties from all Released Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement and in the Notice in this matter." Qualified Claimants must sign the check in the space following the legend, provided that the release of claims shall still be enforceable if any Qualified Claimant is permitted to negotiate a check without a signature.
5.5 Payments made under this Agreement are not intended to and will not: (1) form the basis for additional contributions to, benefits under, or any other monetary entitlement under; (2) count as earnings or compensation with respect to; or (3) be considered to apply to, or be applied for purposes of, Defendant's bonus, pension, any 401(k) and/or other retirement plans or similar programs, including but not limited to the IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and the IKON Office Solutions, inc. Pension Plan. Defendant retains the right, if necessary, to modify the language of its benefit plans and pension, bonus and other programs, if necessary, to make clear that any amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement are not for hours worked, hours paid or any similar measuring term as defined by any plans and programs for purposes of eligibility, vesting, benefit accrual or any other purpose.
5.6 The Claims Administrator shall be responsible for remitting to the tax authorities Defendant's share of payroll taxes for the settlement payments. Defendant shall remit to the Claims Administrator payment for its share of payroll taxes for settlement purposes; such. payments shall rtot act in any way to reduce the Settlement Fund. VI. SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM REVIEW
6.1 The Parties have agreed to the appointment of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to perform the duties of Claims Administrator, including but not limited to mailing the Notice forms, mailing reminder postcards, responding to Proposed Class Members' inquiries receiving
9

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 10 of 22

and independently reviewing the Notice forms and Claims Forms, verifying the amounts due to Qualified Claimants as set forth in this Agreement, distributing checks to the Qualified

Claimants, withholding the Qualified Claimants' share of taxes, paying all appropriatetaxes to taxing authorities, and performing such other duties as the parties may direct. The Claims Administrator shall report to the Parties, in summary or narrative form, on all of the actions it takes. Defendant will provide the Claims Administrator with information on the Proposed Class N embers' names, last known address and telephone number, socialsecurity number, employee ID number, and number of months employed in Covered Positions during the Relevant Period.

Al.! disputes relating to the Claims Administrator's ability and need to perform its duties shall be referred to the Court, if necessary, which will have continuing jurisdictionover the terms and conditions of this Agreement, until all payments and obligations contemplated by the Agreement have been fully carried out. The Claims Administration costs shall be paid by IKON subject to the conditions of Sections 4.4 and 10.4. In no event shall the Claims Administrator be construed

as the agent of the Proposed Class Members or of the Class Representatives or of Class Counsel or of IKON or Counsel for IKON.

\H. NOTICE T 0 THE SETTEENTCLASS

7.1 Defendant shall provide by

, 2007, to the Claims Administrator and Class

Counsel, a list of all Proposed Class Members, including last known address and telephone

number, social security number, employee ID number, and number of months employed, in Covered Positions during the Relevant Period. Defendantagrees to provide this information in a format reasonably acceptable to the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator will maintain this list in the strictest confidence and not disclose any information contained in the list to the Class Representatives or to any other individual or entity, except for the purpose of locating any individual for whom a Notice is returned as undeliverable.
7.2 A Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Opt-out(the "Notice") in substantively the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and as approved by the Court. shall be

sent by the Claims Administrator to Proposed Class Members, by first class mail, within thirty

10

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 11 of 22
(30) calendar days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. Attached to the Notice will be a Claim Form, in substantively the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and as approved by the Court. If envelopes from the mailing of the Notice are returned with forwarding addresses, the Claims Administrator will re-mail the Notice and the Claim Form to the new address.
72 Class Counsel shall provide the Court, at least five (5) calendar days prior to the
final fairness hearing, a declaration by the Claims Administrator of due diligence and proof of mailing with regard to the mailing of the Notices and Claim Forms. If any Settlement Class Members cannot be located through the Claims Administrator's reasonable efforts, the Claims Administrator may, in its discretion, retain the services of a private investigator who will attempt to locate such Settlement Class Member. The reasonable costs of the private investigator's services as to each Settlement Class Member shall be deducted from the Settlement Share of each Settlement Class Member.
7.4 The Claims Administrator shall provide to Copnsel for JKON and Class Counsel, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the final fairness hearing, a list of Settlement Class Members to whom notices were returned as undeliverable and for whom efforts to obtain an alternative address failed.
VIII. CLAIM PROCESS
8.1 Each Claim Form will list the name of the Proposed Class Member, and will set forth the number of months in which Defendant's records show each, Proposed Class Member was employed by IKON in a Covered Position during the Relevant Time Period. in order to receive payments and to be bound by the Settlement and associated release of claims, each Proposed Class Member must sign and return the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by
8.2 The Claims Administrator shall keep a log of any interaction with individual Proposed Class Members. If the Claims Administrator cannot adequately assist a Proposed Class Member who asks for assistance, the Claims Administrator will refer the Proposed Class Member to Class Counsel for further assistance.
II

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 12 of 22
8.3 Class Counsel shall have the right in their discretion to take appropriate steps to assist Proposed Class Members in filling out Claim Forms.
8.4 If completed, all original Claim Forms shall be sent directly to the Claims Administrator at the address indicated on the Claim Form. Such Claim Forms shall be analyzed consistent with the process described in paragraph 5.2above. The Claims Administrator shall review the Claim Forms and provide copies of the Claim Forms to Counsel for IKON and Class Counsel. The Claims Administrator will make any calculations of payments to be distributed as described above by reviewing the Forms and documentation associated with the number of months Settlement Class Members were employed in any Covered Positions during the Relevant Time Period The Claims Administrator is responsible for issuing the payments, calculating and withholding for all required state, federal and local taxes, calculating Defendant's share of taxes, and remitting all taxes and withholding to the appropriate taxing authorities. Upon completion of its calculation of payments, the Claims Administrator shall provide Class Counsel and Counsel for IKON with a report listing the amount of the payments to be made to each Qualified Claimant. The Claims Administrator will supply Class Counsel and Counsel for IKON with an updated address list for the Qualified Claimants, reflecting any updates discovered by the Claims Administrator over the course of administering notice to the class and receipt of the Claim Forms. A declaration of payment will be provided to Class Counsel and Counsel for IKON by the Claims Administrator within ten (lO) calendar days of making payments to Qualified Claimants.
8.5 In the event a Claim Form is submitted in a timely manner but is deficient in one or more aspects, the Claims Administrator shall return the Claim Form to the Settlement Class Member with a letter explaining the deficiencies. The Settlement Class Member will be informed that he or she shall have ten. (10) calendar days from the date of the deficiency notice to correct the deficiencies and resubmit the Claim Form. A copy of the deficiency notice will he simultaneously mailed by the Claims Administrator to Counsel for IKON and Class Counsel. The envelope containing the resubmitted Claim Form must be postmarked (or received, if by
12

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 13 of 22
courier) within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the deficiency notice to be considered timely unless there is a showing of good cause for additional time as determined by the Claims Administrator, No Settlement Class Member will be provided a second notice of deficiency. except upon a showing of good cause as determined by the Claims Administrator. Any Qualified Claimant who fails to timely submit a Claim Form will be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to in or claim to a Settlement Share. However, the Agreement and the Release contained therein will be binding upon such Claimant.
8.6 Qualified Claimants shall have ninety (90) calendar days after mailing of the settlement checks to them by the Claims Administrator to cash their settlement checks. On the date that is 45 days after mailing of the settlement checks, the Claims Administrator shall send a follow-up letter to each claimant reminding him or her that the settlement checks will become void 90 days after mailing. If any Qualified Claimant does not cash his/her check within that 90day period, such checks will he void and a stop-pay notice will be placed. In such event, those claimants will be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right in or claim to a Settlement Share, but this Agreement, and the Release contained herein, nevertheless will be binding upon them.
8.7 Should there remain any residual from the Settlement Fund after all payments are made under this Agreement (for example, if Proposed Class Members either file a timely request for exclusion pursuant to section K of the Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Optout), the unclaimed amounts related to the filing of requests for exclusion will he returned to the Defendant, and all other unclaimed amounts shall be held in escrow by the Claims Administrator for one year after the Effective Date and then, to the extent unclaimed amounts remain, returned to the Defendant. JX. RELEASES
9.1 Upon the negotiation of a settlement check, or upon th.e Effective Date whether or not a settlement check has been negotiated. whichever is earlier, each member of the Settlement Class shal.l he deemed to, and shall have, released and discharged all Released Parties with respect to all Released Claims.
1.3

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 14 of 22
9.2 Every Settlement Class Member, as defined above, shall be deemed to and shall have knowingly and voluntarily waived, released, discharged and dismissed the Released Claims, with full knowledge of any and all rights they may have, and they hereby assume the risk of any mistake in fact in connection with the true facts involved, or withregard to any facts which are now unknown to them.
9.3 Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to bar any claims of members of the Settlement Class or the Class Representatives of monetary relief based on or arising out of events occurring after the date of the Final Approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. X. OPTING OUT OF THE .S!..T TLEMFNT AND IKON'S RIG UT. TO WITHDRAW
10.1 Any person who does not wish to participate in the Settlement, j. who wants to opt-out of the Settlement, may file a timely request for exclusion pursuant to section K of the Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Opt-out. The request for exclusion must be signed under penalty of perjury, must contain the statements set forth in section K of the Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Participate or Opt-out, and must be sent by mail or courier to the Claims Administrator so that it is actually postmarked (or received, if by courier) within thirty (30) days after it was mailed by the Claims Administrator. Any person who timely submits such a request for exclusion shall be barred from participation i.n the Settlement, and shall receive no benefit from the Settlement. Such person's portion of the Settlement Fund based on the Claim Form sent to such person, as calculated on a pro rata basis, shall be returned to Defendant.
10.2 If any of the Class Representatives submits a timely and complete request for exclusion that is in compliance with paragraph 10.1 above, 1K.ON shall have the absoluteright, in its sole discretion and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, but subject to all the provisions and time limits of this paragraph 10.2, to withdraw in writing from this Agreement, or to modify this Agreement through further negotiations with Class Counsel. If IKON does withdraw in conformity with the provisions and time limits of this paragraph 10.2,
14

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 15 of 22
the Agreement will be null and void for all purposes and may not be used or introduced in further litigation except to determine whether IKON is entitled to withdraw from the Agreement and has validly done so. The Claims Administrator shall each calendar week notify counsel for IKON and. Class Counsel by fax or email of the number of individuals who have to that date submitted timely and complete requests for exclusion that are in compliance with paragraph 10.1 above, and at thc same time shall send to said counsel by fax or by overnight delivery copies of all the timely and complete requests for exclusion which Class Counsel has received. IKON shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration of all Proposed Class Members' deadlines in paragraph 10.1 above to withdraw from (or modi& through negotiation) this Agreement.
10.3 In addition, if a total of fifteen (15) or more Proposed Class Members submit timely and complete requests for exclusion that are in compliance with paragraph 10.1 above, IKON shall have the absolute right, in its sole discretion and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, but subject to all the provisions and time limits of this paragraph 10.3, to withdraw in writing from this Agreement, or to modify this Agreement through further negotiations with Class Counsel. If IKON does withdraw in conformity with the provisions and. time limits of this paragraph 10.3, the Agreement will be null and void for all purposes and may not be used or introduced in further litigation except to determine whether IKON is entitled to withdraw from the Agreement and has validly done so. The Claims Administrator shall each calendar week notify counsel for IKON and Class Counsel by fax or email of the number of individuals who have to that date submitted timely and complete requests for exclusion that are in compliance with paragraph 10.1 above, and at the same time shall sen.d to said counsel by fax or by overnight delivery copies of all the timely and complete requests for exclusion which Class Counsel has received. IKON shall have thirty (30) days after the expiration of all Proposed Class Members' deadlines in paragraph 10.1 above to withdraw from (or modify through negotiation) this Agreement.
10.4 This Settlement provides for a claims process requiring 1KON to make payments of a specific sum on each timely claim submitted, subject to the limitations of the opt-out
15

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 16 of 22

provisions of Section 10.1. The maximum payments under the Settlement if all Proposed Class

Members file claims (based on IICON's records), and including attorneys' fees and costs, all

payments to Class Representatives, arid Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($154000.00) of the Claims

Administration costs wiH not exceed One Million Two Hundred And Seventy Five Thousand

Dollars ($1,275,000). If the total payments required by this settlement exceed One Million Two

Hundred And Seventy Five Thousand Dollars (S 1,275000), IKON shall have the absolute right,

in its sole discretion and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, but subject to

all the provisions and time limits of this paragraph 10.4, to make a pro raW adjustment per

Qualified Claimant to ensure that the total amount paid by IKON (including attorneys' fees.

Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000M0) of the Claims Administration costs, and Class

Representative payments) does not exceed One Million Two Hundred And Seventy Five

Thousand Dollars ($1,275,000.00). IKON shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the

expiration of all Proposed Class Members' deadlines in paragraph 10.1 to modiQ,r this Agreement

in accordance with the terms of this paragraph 1.0.4.

XL U UT IESO FH E PARTIES PRIQR TO COURT APPROVAL

11.1 Promptly upon execution of this Agreement, but by no later than

the

Parties shall apply to the Court for the entry of an order (the "Preliminary Approval Order"):

(a) Scheduling a fairness hearing as soon as practicable on the question of whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as

to the members of the class;

(b) Approving as to form. and content the proposed Notice; (c) Approving as to form and content the proposed Cl.aim Form; (d) Directing the mailing of the Notice and Claim Form by first class mail to the Proposed Class Members;
e) Preliminarily approving the Agreement and Plan of Allocation, as well as

the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, the Supplemental Payment, and Service Payments set forth in this Agreement;

16

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 17 of 22
(f Certifying the Settlement Class.
11.2 in computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise stated, such computation or calculation shall be made consistent with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) as it exists at the time at issue.
XII. DUTIES OF THE PARTIES F )LL )WING FINAL CQUFT APPROVAL
12.1 In connection with the final approval by the Court of the Agreement, Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant will submit a proposed final order and judgment:
(a) Granting final approval to the Agreement, adjudging the terms thereof to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and directing consummation of its terms and provisions; and
(b) Dismissing the Civil Action with prejudice and permanently baning all members of the Settlement Class including the Named Plaintiffs from prosecuting against any Released Parties any of the Released Claims; and
(c) Dismissing the EEOC charge filed by Levone Sonee-Myricks and permanently barring Mr. Sonee-Myricks from prosecuting against any Released Parties any of the Released Claims;
(d) Retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. 1.2.2 In connection with the final approval by the Court of the Agreement, IKON agrees, that, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, IKON shall redistribute, to all of its employees, its written policies on Equal Employment Opportunity and a Harassment Free workplace. The distribution shall be accompanied by a written statement reiterating the Company's commitment to and support of these policies.
XIII. PARTIES', AULHOffiTY
13.1 The signatories hereby represent that they are fully authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind the Parties hereto to the terms and conditions hereof
13.2 All of the Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by competent, experienced counsel throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 18 of 22

Agreement, and this Agreement is made with the consent and advice of counsel who have jointly prepared this Agreement.
XIV. MUTUAL FUlL COOPERATION
14.1 The Parties agree to use their best efforts and to fully cooperate with each other to accomplish the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, execution of such documents and to take such other action as may reasonably be necessary to implement and effectuate the terms of this Agreement.

XV. NOTIcES
15.1 Unless otherwise specific&ly provided herein, all notices, demands or other communications given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given as of the third business day after mailing by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows;

To the Class Representatives or to any Settlement Class member:

To the Defendant;

SANFORD, WITTELS & HEIISLER, LLP
Jeremy Heisler, Esq. 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Michael S. Burkhardt, Esq. Theresa J. Chung, Esq. 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
XVI. MODIFICATION
161 This Agreement and its attachments may not be changed, altered, or modified,
except in writin.g and signed by the Parties hereto, and approved by the Court.
XVII. ENTIRE WRI..flWNT
171 This Agreement and its attachments constitute the entire agreement betwem the
Parties concerning the subject matter hereof, tIo extrinsic oral or written representations or
terms shall modify, vary or contradict the terms of this Agreement. in the event of any conflict

18

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 19 of 22
between this Agreement and any other Settlement-related document, the Parties intend that this Agreement shall be controlling. XVIII. CHOICE OF LAW/JURISDICTION
18.1 This Agreement shall be subject to, governed by, construed, enforced, and administered in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, both in its procedural and substantive aspects, and shall be subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and intent, and not strictly for or against any party, regardless of who drafted or who was principally responsible for drafting this Agreement or any specific term or condition thereof
XIX. COUNTERPARTS
19.1 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and when each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties. XX. CONFIDEN TIAL ITY AND PUBLIC COMMI.N
20.1 Defendant, the Class Representatives, and Class Counsel agree that, other than filing this Agreement with the Court, and as otherwise provided herein, they shall keep strictly confidential the terms of this Agreement, will not disclose, make known, discuss or relay orally, or in writing, electronically or otherwise, the terms of this Agreement. any information concerning this Agreement, or any of the discussions leading up to this Agreement, the facts and allegations underlying the claims in the Complaint, and Defendant's defenses to such claims. If asked about the case, the Parties andior their counsel will merely say that the case has been amicably resolved. The Defendant, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel further agree that they will not publicize or disclose the terms of this Agreement, the negotiations with respect thereto, or other matters relating to the Civil Action, either directly or indirectly, that is, through agents, attorneys, or accountants., or any other person or entity, either in specific or as to general
19

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 20 of 22
content, to the media, the public generally. or any individual or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement restricts, or is intended to restrict, communications between Class Counsel and individual Settlement Class Members regarding the action or the terms of this Agreement. Moreover, this paragraph 20.1 does not prohibit the Class Representatives from disclosing information concerning this Agreement to members of their respective immediate farnilies and Class Counsel from disclosing information concerning this Agreement to their employees and agents to the extent necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement. Moreover, this paragraph does not prohibit Defendant from disclosing information concerning this Agreement to its employees and agents to the extent necessary to effectuate the terms of this Agreement or who otherwise have a need to know the terms. The Defendant, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel may also disclose information concerning this Agreement to their respective counsel and tax advisors who have first agreed to keep said information confidential and to not disclose it to others. The foregoing shall not prohibit or restrict such disclosure as is required by law or as may be necessary for the prosecution of claims relating to the performance or enforcement of this Agreement, or prohibit or restrict the Defendant, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel from responding to any inquiry about this settlement or its underlying facts and circumstances by any governmental agency, or any regulatory or selfregulatory organization. To the extent permitted by law, with respect to any such disclosure pursuant to the foregoing sentence, the Defendant, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel shall provide the other Party with as much notice as possible of any request to make any abovedescribed disclosure, and wifl use best efforts to ensure that if such disclosure occurs it will occur in a manner designed. to maintain the confidentiality of this Agreement to the fullest extent possible.
20.2 The Notice to Class Members and list of Class Members to receive the Notice will provide confidential contact information to Class Counsel. The Parties and Class Counsel agree that the Notice shal.l be the exclusive method of mass communication, and that they will not publish or distribute any information in any mass mailings, including electronic mailings, or
20

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 21 of 22
publish or post any information on the Internet. Irrespective of the provisions above, from the date that the Court approves the Agreement and notice is issued, through the date for Proposed Class Members to object to the Settlement or opt-out of the Settlement under this Agreement, Class Counsel may post the following statement on its website: "the Rosenberg, et al. y.. IKON Civil Action has been resolved, and any class members may contact Class Counsel through this website for information." Class Counsel agrees that the afore-mentioned statement contains the only language that Class Counsel will post on its website regarding the Civil Action.
20.3 Class Counsel agrees to use the contact information for Settlement Class Members that is provided to it by the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel solely for purposes of communicating regarding this action and implementing this Agreement and for no other purpose, at any time, or for any reason. Nothing in this Agreement restricts, or is intended to restrict, communications between Class Counsel and individual Settlement Class Members regarding this action or the terms of the Agreement!
20.4 The Parties and their counsel agree that they will not issue any press release or participate in any communication or contact with the media regarding this settlement or any other matter related to this litigation. If the Parties and/or their counsel are contacted by the media, they will merely inform them that the case has been amicably resolved, and refer them to the public filings.
XXI. VOIDING THE
21.1 In the event this Agreement, or any amended version agreed upon by the Parties does not obtainjudicial approval for any reason, this Agreement shall be null and void in its entirety, unless expressly agreed i.n writing by all Parties, In the event this Agreement becomcs null and void for any reason, the I)efendant, the Class Representatives, and Class Counsel agree that they' shall keep strictly confidential the terms of the Agreement, the existence of the Agreement, any information concerning the Agreement, or any of the discussions and or negotiations regarding the Agreement.
21

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 16 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 22 of 22

IN WImrEss WHEREOF> the undersigned have duly executed thisAgreement as of the date indicated below:

Dated: '5-_, 2007

SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP

Dated:

2007

950 Third Aven&1u1 0th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 723-2947 Fax: (646) 723-2948
Counsel for Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members
B/2{J MORGAN, LB IS & BOCKIUS LLP //
___
Michael if, Puma, Esq. (MP5S73)
101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178-0060 Tel.: (212) 309-6092 Fax: (212)309-6273
Of Counsel: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Michael S. Burkhardt, Esq. Theresa I Chung, Esq. 1701 Market Street Philadelphia. PA 19103-2921
Att:orneys for Defendant IKON Office Solutions. Inc.

22

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG and WAYNE )

ANDERSON, individnally and on behalf )

of a class of all other persons simiIady

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INc..,

)

)

Defendant.

Case No.: 05 CV 9131 (PAC) ECF Case
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION L PlaintiffS St Clare Rosenberg and Wayne Anderson are former employees
ofIKON Office Solutions, Inc. ("IKON," "The Company," or "Defendant") They bring this action on behalf of themselves and the class of IKON's former, cunent and future African-American employees who worked for the company in New York State and New York City.
2 IKON presents itself as a 21 st century business leader engaged in integrating imaging systems and services that help industry manage document workflow and enhance efficiency. UnfOItunately, this attractive, self-descriptive veneer hides an uglier reality When it comes to its African-American employees in New York State and New YOIk City, IKON's employment practices are reminiscent of the antebellUIII South and the era of the Night Rider
3. IKON has denied PlaintiHs and the class of African-American employees

full and equal pay and ptomotion opportunities Such employees are forced to work in a
hostile enviromnent because of their race And when an African-American employee
complains about IKON's discriminatory policies, the company swiftly retaliates and
destroys the complaining employee's job ptospects within the company.
4. These are not simply the ambitious allegations of a boilerplate complaint
The EEOC has issued to Plaintiff Rosenberg a Notice of Right to Sue dated July 29,
2005, concluding that the evidence "supports a reasonable cause to believe that the
Charging Parties were subjected to discrimination based on race/color, Black, in violation
of Title VII" The EEOC determined the following:
The investigation supports Charging Parties' allegations that Respondent discIiminated against Charging Parties and other similarly situated Black employees, on the basis of their race and color, Black, and also supports Charging Parties' allegations that Respondent subsequently retaliated against them and other similarly situated individuals for opposing employment discrimination The investigation also reveals that complaints were made about the hostile environment and discriminatory treatment Respondent knew or should have known of the above described discrimination and harassment, but failed to appropriately investigate and remedy the discrimination.
Consequently, based on the testimony/interviews with the Charging Parties, other current and former employees/witnesses suffeIing from similar discrimination and/or retaliation, and the above analysis, [the EEOC] concluders] that the evidence obtained during the Commission's investigation supports a reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Parties were subjected to discrimination based on race/color, Black, in violation of Title VIr
5. Plaintiffs Rosenberg and Anderson file this Class Action Complaint to
redress the racial discrimination permeating IKON supported by the EEOC's
investigation and conclusion
6 The Class Representatives seek to represent African-American employees
2

of IKON who have been subjected to one or more aspects of the systemic race

discrimination descIibed in this Complaint, including, but not limited to: (a)

discIiminatOlY policies, pmctices ancl/Ol procedures in selection, promotion and

advancement; (b) disparate pay; (c) a hostile work environment and race-based

harassment; and (d) retaliation in the workplace. The systemic race discrimination

described in this Complaint has been, and is, continuing in nature.

7

The Class Representatives seek on behalf of themselves and the class

declaratOlY and i~unctive relief~ including, but not limited to, affirmative restructuring of

IKON's selection and compensation procedures, training and other terms and conditions

of employment; back pay; front pay; compensatOlY and nominal damages; and attorneys'

fees, costs and expenses to redress IKON's discriminatOlY and retaliatOlY employment

policies, practices and/or procedures

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8 On December 27,2004, Mr Rosenberg filed an individual and class EEO

Charge of Discrimination, alleging race-based and colOl-based discrimination and

retaliation.

9. On July 20, 2005, the Equal Employment 0ppOltunity Commission

("EEOC") issued a determination as to the merits ofMr.. Rosenberg's charge The EEOC

found reasonable cause to believe that Mr.. Rosenberg was subjected to discrimination

based on race and color in violation of Title VII

10.. On July 29,2005, the EEOC issued Mr Rosenberg a Notice of Right to

Sue ("Right to Sue") which stated that any lawsuit "must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of

your receipt ofthis Notice. "

3

11.. PlaintiH Rosenberg received the Right to Sue on August 4, 2005 III" PARTIES
A. The Plaintiffs 12 Plaintiff St Clare Rosenberg is a resident of Brooklyn. From August 2002 to October 4, 2004, Mr. Rosenberg was employed as a Customer Sales Representative ("CSR") for IKON at Deftmdant's facility located at 950 Third Avenue, New York, New York. IKON constlUctively dischmged Mr Rosenberg who resigned as of October 4, 2004 13 Plaintiff Wayne Anderson is a resident of the Bronx. Beginning approximately Janumy 5, 2004, Mr Anderson was employed as a Customer Service Representative ("CSR") for IKON at Defendant's facility located at 810 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York, 10019. (Mr . Anderson previously worked for IKON in Norfolk, Virginia from November 2002) In approximately August 2005, Mr. Anderson left IKON because of the company's racially discriminatory pay and promotion policies and its denial of equal advancement B. The Defendant 14 IKON is a multinational corpomtion with its corporate headqumters located in Malverne, Pennsylvania IKON conducts business throughout New York State, including the County of New York. 15 IKON integrates imaging systems and services that help business manage document workflow and increase efficiency. IKON is an independent distributor of copier and printer technologies and service support. IKON also provides a range of document management services, including outsourcing and professional services, on-site
4

copy, and mailroom management, fleet management, off-site digital printing solutions, and customized workflow, and imaging application development
16. IKON employs approximately 30,250 individuals III 600 locations throughout the United States In Fiscal Year 2003, IKON eamed revenues of $4.7 billion.
17. IKON possesses either actual or constmctive control, oversight, and direction over the operation of its individual facilities in New York State, including tlreir employment practices IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 Jurisdiction over Defendant IKON is properly vested under I itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.SC §§ 2000(e)-5(f), et seq. and 23 U.S.C § 1981. IKON regularly does business in New YOlk and has numerous offices throughout New YOlk.
19. Venue is proper in this Cowt because IKON transacts business in the State and City of New YOlk and the events giving rise to this claim occwred in the State of New York Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson both reside in New York and, absent the violations of federal and state law complained of herein, would have continued to work for IKON in New York. Most of the records pertaining to the Class Representatives' employment are or were maintained in New York. V. ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
(a) Mr. Rosenberg 20 Plaintiff St Clare Rosenberg ("Mr. Rosenberg") is an African-American resident of Brooklyn, New YOlk.
5

21 Mr Rosenberg was hired by IKON in approximately August of2002 Hostile Work Environment 22 During ML Rosenberg's employment at IKON, he was subjected to a gauntlet of racial discrimination and hostile treatment, encompassing denial of equal pay and promotion, harassment and a hostile work environment 23 For example, Mr. Rosenberg observed pictures of African-Americans with the white faces of accollilt managers pasted on them Mr. Rosenberg complained to his supervisor, Michael Caproni ("Mr Caproni"), that the pictures were offensive to AfricanAmerican employees, but the situation continued. 24. Another incident of racism at IKON occurred when June Caproni ("Ms. Caproni") said that Mr Rosenberg looked liked Hitler. Another IKON employee, Monita Blount, found a picture of Mr . Rosenberg with "Hitler" written across it. It was posted in plain view of other employees and the word "Hitler" was written in Ms Caproni's writing Mr. Rosenberg did not complain about the incident because his supervisor had made it clear that nothing would be done to redress racial discrimination Denial of Pay and Promotion 25.. White employees were gIven inside information on promotional opportunities whereas African-American employees, including Mr. Rosenberg, were simply told to work har d and they would "eventually" get promoted, 26 Mr, Rosenberg applied for every Account Manager position that opened during his time at IKON., Mr Rosenberg was the most qualified applicant as to the last four positions for which he applied, Instead, white employees from outside the company were hired to fill those positions,
6

27 White employees were given the best clients whereas Mr. Rosenberg was given the worst
28.. Mr Rosenberg asked to enroll in a training class for Account Managers. Candidates for the class were required to study materials to qualify for enrollment While Mr. Rosenberg was told to study his materials on his lunch hour, a white CSR, Brian Marsh, was given study time during work, went to the class, and was subsequently made a Manager
29 Upon hearing of Mr . Rosenberg's ambition to become an Account Manager, Supervisor Caproni discouraged Mr. Rosenberg by claiming that some Account Managers were forced to leave the company because it was difficult work Mr CaplOni added that because he (CaplOni) was "not a good Account Manager," he was hesitant to let Mr. Rosenberg move up or give him the recommendations needed to do so
Retaliation 30. After Mr Rosenberg asked for a plOmotion to Account Manager, IKON retaliated against him. On occasion when Mr. Rosenberg was tardy for work, he was singled out for harsh discipline in fiont of the other employees or sent home from work When a white employee, Thomas Dasille was habitually late, he was either not disciplined or spoken to in a closed office. 31.. While ML Rosenberg was subjected to discipline for even the most trivial matters, white employees could commit major infractions with few repercussions. For example, Tim Franklin, a white employee, left a company vehicle unattended and running, and as a result the vehicle was stolen. MI. Franklin received only a written Warnmg. On another occasion, a white account manager, Mark Ardere, painted a
7

Customer Service Manager's office pink and was not disciplined. (b) MI'. Anderson 32. Plaintiff Anderson was hired in November, 2002 as a driverlCSR in the
company's NOIfolk, VA shop. Denial of Equal Pay and Promotion 33 In December, 2003 Mr . Anderson met with IKON's Sales Manager, at
which time Mr Anderson expressed an interest in becoming an Account Manager in New York Mr . Anderson was advised that he would need mOle training in New York as a CSR in order to qualify for the Account Manager position. MI. Anderson thereafter moved to New YOlk and continued working fOl IKON.
34.. During the following months, Mr. Anderson performed ably as a CSR, his wOlk performance was excellent and he received superior reviews.
35 Mr Anderson subsequently inquired about the possibility of advancing to become an Account Manager.. Defendants' New YOlk manager infOlmed Mr. Anderson that if an Account Manager position became open, IKON would consider Mr . Anderson When such Account Manager positions did become available on at least thr ee different occasions fiom 2004 through 2005, however, IKON didn't consider Mr Anderson at all. Instead, Defendant IKON awarded the Account Manager job to white IKON employees or white outsider s.
36 10 add insult to injury, IKON awarded open AccoUllt Manager jobs to white employees who had less experience and qualifications than Mr.. Anderson, and/OI without requiring them to undergo the pre-qualification fOlmalities required for the position.
8

Hostile Work Environment & Retaliation 37 In Virginia, Mr. Anderson was subjected to the indignity of being called "boy" by his then Caucasian manager, Randy Gay. Despite Mr. Anderson's complaint to more seniOl management, upon information and belief, IKON did not take any disciplinmy action against Mr Gay. 38 After working in New York and witnessing the promotions of whites to Account Manager positions, Mr . Anderson complained in writing to his white manager, Kevin Melville.. Rather than acknowledge the Company's discriminatory actions, Mr. Melville threatened Mr. Anderson by preventing him from leaving his office, and telling Mr Anderson that he (Melville) did not need Anderson's approval to make hiring decisions. Realizing that he had no future in this racially-hostile environment, Mr Anderson left the company, in effect being constructively dischmged VI.. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS A. Class Definition 39.. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Class Representative Rosenberg and Anderson seek to maintain claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of IKON's cunent, former and future African-American employees who worked for the company in New York City and New YOlk State Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson are members ofthe proposed class 40.. The class consists of all African-Americans who m·e, or have been, employed by IKON in the State of New York at any time during the applicable liability period.. Upon information and beliet there ale hundreds of members of the proposed class
9

B. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder 41. The persons whom Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson seek to represent are too numerous to make joinder practicable.. The proposed class consists of over one hundred former, cUlrent, and futUle African-American applicants and employees who have been, are, or will be employed by IKON. IKON's pattern and practice ofracial discrimination also makes joinder impracticable by discoUlaging African-Americans from applying or pmsuing employment opportunities, thereby making it impractical and inefficient to identify many members of the class prior to determination of the merits of IKON's class-wide liability.
c.. Common Questions of Law and Fact
42.. The discriminatory treatment to which Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson have been subjected is manifested by such policies and/or patterns or practices as denying African-American employees desirable promotional opportunities, job assignments, training, management positions, compensation, bonuses, and other benefits and conditions of employment on the same terms applied to white employees
43 In particular, IKON deters African-American employees from seeking promotions, management positions, and desirable job assignments; fails to select AfricanAmericans for desirable job assignments and positions; and fails to enforce policies prohibiting racial discrimination and retaliation
44 As a result of the illegal policy and/or patterns or practices described herein, African-American employees hold a disproportionate share of the lowest level positions, are denied equal terms and conditions of employment and have not been allowed to advance to better positions.
10

45 IKON has created and maintained a system-wide employment policy of race-based disparate treatment, which limits the employment opportunities for AfricanAmericans in vmious aspects ofIKON's employment operation including, but not limited to, job selections. IKON's selection practices and procedures have had a dispmate impact on the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.
46. This action in pmt seeks to enjoin IKON from pursuing specific illegal policies and/or practices that have injured and continue to injure Plaintiffs and other African-American employees and applicants for employment with IKON in all aspects of IKON's employment operations.
47.. IKON's illegal policy IS premised on an invidious and racially discriminatory animus directed against African-American employees It is specifically calculated to deny African-American employees equal treatment and opportunities gumanteed by 42 U.S.C §2000 et seq and 42 US C § 1981, New York State Executive Law, § 296, subd 1(a), and NYC Administrative Code, § 8-107, subd. 1(a)..
D. Typicality of Relief Sought 48. The relief necessmy to remedy the claims of both Class Representatives is the same as that necessmy for the class. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson seek the following relief for their individual claims and those of the class: 1) a declmatory judgment that IKON has engaged in systemic racial discrimination in limiting the employment opportunities of African-Americans to lower classifications and compensation; 2) a declmatory judgment that IKON has engaged in retaliation against Afiican-Americans and non-African-American employees who speak out in opposition against race discrimination at IKON; 3) a permanent injunction against such continuing
11

discrimination as described in (1) and (2) above; 4) restructuring ofIKON's selection and compensation procedures so that African-Americans are able to learn about and fairly compete in the future for better classifications, compensation levels, and terms and conditions of employment traditionally enjoyed by white employees; 5) restructuring of IKON's workforce so that African-Americans are assigned to the classifications, locations and compensation levels they would have now held in the absence ofIKON's past racial discrimination; and 6) damages, back-pay, and other equitable remedies necessary to make Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class they seek to represent whole from IKON's past discrimination and retaliation
E. Adequacy of Representation 49. The interests of Class Representative Rosenberg and Anderson are coextensive with those of the class in that each seeks to remedy IKON's discriminatory employment practices so that (1) racially hostile conditions of work will be eradicated and African-Americans will no longer be consigned to lower paying positions and prevented from obtaining promotional opportunities, and (2) retaliation against AfricanAmericans employees will be eradicated. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson are able and willing to represent the class fairly and vigorously, as they pursue their common goals through this action. Plaintiffs' counsel are also qualified, experienced, and able to conduct the litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity The combined interest, experience and resources of Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and their counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claims of race-based employment discrimination at issue, satisfy the adequacy of
12

representation requirement ofFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4}. F. Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Common Claims 50 Certification of a class of African-Americans similarly situated to Class
Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact common to the individual claims of the Class Representatives and the class
51 The individual claims of Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson require resolution of the common questions of (I) whether IKON has engaged in a systemic pattern of racial discrimination against African-Americans; and (2) whether IKON has engaged in a pattern of retaliation against African-American employees who speak out in opposition of race discrimination.
52.. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson seek remedies to undo the adverse effects of such discrimination in their own lives, career and working conditions and to prevent continued racial discrimination and retaliation in the future .
53 Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson have standing to seek such relief (l) in part because of the adverse effect that racial discrimination against African-Americans has had on their own interests in working and living in conditions free from the pernicious effects of racial bias and hostility, and (2) in part because of the adverse effect that retaliation against African-Americans has had on their own interest in working and living in conditions free from the pernicious effects of retaliation In order to gain such relief for themselves, as well as for the class members, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson must first establish the existence of systemic racial discrimination and retaliation as the pr emise of the relief they seek Without class
13

certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to repeated relitigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations.
54. Certification of the class of African-Americans affected by the common question of law and fact is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and argument necessary to resolve such questions for the Class Representatives, the class and the Defendant
55. The individual and class claims of both Class Representatives are premised upon the traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for disparate impact and systemic disparate treatment claims of the type at issue in this Class Complaint Such a bifurcated method ofproof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common Issues
G. Certification is Proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 56.. IKON has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by adopting and following systemic practices and procedures which are racially discriminatOlY 57. IKON's racial discrimination is its standard operating procedure rather than a spOladic occunence.. IKON has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by refusing to adopt or follow selection and compensation procedures which do not have disparate impact or otherwise do not systemically discriminate against AfricanAmericans and by refusing to establish conditions of work that are not hostile to AfricanAmerican employees who oppose the racial discrimination at IKON
14

H. Certification is Proper nnder Fed. R. Civ" P. 23(b)(3) 58. The common issues of filct and law affecting the claims of Mr Rosenberg and Mr Anderson and proposed class members predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims These issues include whether IKON has engaged in Iacial discrimination against African-Americans employed by Defendant in New YOlk State by denying such employees equal pay, promotion and advancement, and whether IKON has retaliated against these employees and toleIated an atmosphere of racist harassment against AfIican-American employees 59 A class action is superior to other available means fOl the filir and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Representatives and member s of the proposed class 60.. Because of the prohibitive cost ofproving IKON's pattern and practice of discrimination, it is impracticable fOl the Class Representatives and the class to control the prosecution of their claims individually
COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
42 U.S.c. §§ 2000(e), et seq., AS AMENDED RACE DISCRIMINATION - PAY AND PROMOTION (African-American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 61 Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incOlporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 62.. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragIaph as though fully set fOlth herein.
15

63. This Count is blOught on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class.
64 Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class they seek to represent have been subject to systemic racial discrimination including, but not limited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate impact on their employment opportunities. The systemic means of accomplishing such racial discrimination include, but are not limited to, IKON's selection procedmes, and unequal terms and conditions of employment
65. IKON's selection and compensation procedmes incorporate the following racially discriminatory practices: I) reliance upon subjective procedmes and criteria which permit and encomage the incorporation of racial stereotypes and bias of IKON's predominantly white managerial staff; 2) refusal to establish or follow policies, procedmes, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact andlor intentional racial bias or stereotypes in IKON's decision making process; 3) pre-selection of whites before vacancies or opportunities become known; and 4) discomagement of applications and expressions of interest by African-Americans through a reputation for racial bias, racially hostile conditions of work, and unequal terms and conditions of employment in such areas as work homs and position assigmnents .
66 IKON's selection procedures have a disparate impact on the AfricanAmerican Plaintiffs and the class they represent Such procedmes are not valid, job related orjustified by business necessity. There are objective and stlUctured selection and compensation procedures available to IKON which have less disparate impact on African-Americans and equal 01 greater validity and job relatedness, but IKON has
16

refused to consider 01 to use such procedures 67 IKON's selection procedures have adversely affected Class
Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson by excluding African-Americans from traditionally white positions, and denying PlaintiHs equal pay with white employees
68 IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified discrimination which constitutes a continuing violation of I itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §§2000e, et seq, as amended
69. Plaintiffs and the class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit for back-pay, an injunction for other equitable relief, and a declaratOlY judgment is their only means of secUling adequate equitable relief Both Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer ineparable injUly from IKON's unlawful policies and practices as set fOith herein unless enjoined by this COUlt.
70 By reason ofIKON's discriminatory employment practices, Plaintiffs and the member s of the proposed class have experienced economic harm, including loss of compensation, back and front pay, other employment benefits, and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
71 By reason of the discrimination suffered at IKON, Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under I itle VII
72. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 US.C §2000e-5(k}.
17

COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., AS AMENDED RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (African-American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 73 Plaintiff-Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 74 This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class. 75. Defendants have subjected the Class Representatives and the class to a racially hostile work environment in violation of TitIe VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 u.s.c §§2000(e), et seq.
76. Defendants have denied Class Representatives and members of the class their personal right to work in an environment free oftacial discrimination.
77 Defendants' racially discriminatory practices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendants have tolerated, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environment, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action.
78. By reason ofthe continuous nature of Defendants' discriminatory conduct persistent tluoughout the employment of Class Representatives and the members of the class, Class Representatives and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein
79. Defendants' conduct in violation of Title VII has injured and damaged the
18

Class Representatives and the class 80.. The Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and
continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, a working environment heavily charged with racial discrimination, resulting largely from the rampant racial harassment and the use of racial slU1s, epithets and stereotypes, displaying ofracist photographs, and management's awareness of, participation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
81 By reason of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including an award for punitive damages.
82 Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 USC §2000e-5(k). COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U"S.c. § 2000e(k), AS AMENDED RETALIATION
(African-American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 83 Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 84 This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class 85. IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work environment free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination
19

86.. IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory employment actions, including but not limited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate terms and conditions of employment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment andlor other forms of discrimination in violation of Title VII
87 IKON's actions were intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representative Rosenber g, Class Representative Anderson and the members of the proposed class
88.. IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 US. C §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended.
89. As a direct and proximate result ofIKON's aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class were damaged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
90 By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Title VII
91 Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.SC §2000e-5(k)
20

COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,
42 U.S.c. § 1981, AS AMENDED PAY AND PROMOTION
(African-American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant)
92.. Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as fhough fully set forth herein.
93.. This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class
94 Defendant has denied Class Representatives and members of the class the same right to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens employed by IKON, including rights involving the making, performance, modification and termination of contracts with Defendant, as well as the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of that relationship, in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 USC § 1981, as amended.
95.. In fhe employment practices described above, Defendant intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices wifh malice or with reckless indifference to fhe federally protected rights of Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class, entitling Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class to punitive damages
96.. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct persistent throughout the employment of Class Representatives and members of the class, Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the class are entitled
21

to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein 97.. Defendant's conduct in violation of § 1981 has injured and damaged Class
Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class. 98 Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class have
suffered and continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress and mental anguish.
99. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of § 1981, including an award of punitive damages.
100 Attorneys' fees should be awarded under § 1981, et seq. COUNT V
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, AS AMENDED
RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (African-American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant 101 Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein 102 This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class . 103. Defendant has subjected the Class Representatives and the class to a racially hostile work environment in violation of § 1981. 104.. Defendant has denied Class Representatives and members of the class their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination
22

105. Defendant's mcially discriminatory pmctices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Deftmdant has tolemted, condoned, mtified andlor engaged in the hostile work environment, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, ofits existence and failed to take remedial action
106 By reason ofthe continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct persistent throughout the employment of Class Representatives and the members of the class, Class Representatives and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein
107. Defendant's conduct in violation of § 1981 has injured and damaged the Class Representatives and the class
108 Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and continue to sufler harm, including, but not limited to, a working environment heavily charged with mcial discrimination, resulting largely from the rampant mcial hamssment and the use of mcial slurs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photogmphs, and management's awareness of, participation in andlor lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
109.. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of § 1981, including an award for punitive damages.
110. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 US C. §2000e-5(k}.
23

COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,
42 U.S.C. § 1981, AS AMENDED RETALIATION
(Ah'ican-American Class RepI'esentatives and Class against Defendant) 111 , Plaintiff-Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorpOIate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein" 112 This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class, 113., Defendant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a wOIk environment free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination 114 Defendant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory employment actions, including but not limited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate terms and conditions of employment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment and/or other forms of discrimination in violation of §1981, 115" Defendant IKON's actions were intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representative Rosenberg and the members ofthe proposed class 116" Defendant IKON has continuously engaged Ill, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing violation of §1981,
24

117.. As a direct and plOximate result of IKON's aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the plOposed class were damaged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
118. By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under §198L
119 Attomeys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.SC §2000e-5(k). COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. lea)
RACE DISCRIMINATION -PAY AND PROMOTION (African-American Class Representatives and the Class against Defendant)
120 Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein
121 This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class.
122. Class Repr esentatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class they seek to represent have been subject to systemic racial discrimination including, but not limited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate impact on their employment opportunities The systemic means of accomplishing such racial discrimination include, but ar·e not limited to, IKON's selection procedures, and unequal terms and conditions of employment By these actions, Defendant IKON has discriminated against the Representative Plaintiffs and the
25

Class in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, thereby violating New York Executive Law § 296, suM. l(a)
123 Defendant IKON's selection and compensation procedmes incorporate the following racially discriminatory practices: 1) reliance upon sUbjective procedures and criteria which permit and encomage the incorporation of racial stereotypes and bias of IKON's predominantly white managerial staff; 2) refusal to establish or follow policies, procedmes, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact andlor intentional racial bias or stereotypes in IKON's decision making process; 3) pre-selection of whites before vacancies or opportunities become known; and 4) discomagement of applications and expressions of interest by African-Americans tluough a reputation for racial bias, racially hostile conditions of work, and unequal terms and conditions of employment in such areas as work hOlliS and position assignments.
124. Defendant IKON's selection procedmes have a disparate impact on the African-American Plaintiffs and the class they represent. Such procedmes are not valid, job related orjustified by business necessity.. There are objective and structured selection and compensation procedwes available to IKON which have less disparate impact on African-Americans and equal or greater validity and job relatedness, but IKON has refused to consider or to use such procedmes.
125. Defendant IKON's selection procedmes have adversely affected Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson by excluding African-Americans from traditionally white positions, and denying Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Anderson equal pay with white employees
126. Defendant IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified
26

discrimination which constitutes a continuing violation of New York Executive Law § 296, suM l(a)
127 Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit for backpay, an injunction other equitable relief~ and a declaratory judgment is their only means of securing adequate equitable relief Both Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injUly fmm IKON's UIIlawful policies and practices as set forth herein UIIless enjoined by this COUlt.
128.. By reason of IKON's discriminatory employment practices, Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the members of the proposed class have experienced economic harm, including loss of compensation, back and fmnt pay, other employment benefits, and emotional harm, anguish and hUllliliation
129. By reason of the discrimination suffered at IKON, Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available UIIder New York Executive Law, including attorneys' fees
COUNT VIII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. l(a)
RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (AfIican-American Class Representatives and the Class against Defendants)
130 Plaintiff-Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson Ie-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
131 Ihis COUllt is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the
27

class 132, Defendant has subjected the Class Representatives and the class to a
racially hostile work environment in violation of New York Executive Law § 296, subd, 1(at
133 Defendants have denied Class Representatives and members of the class their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination,
134, Defendant's racially discriminatory practices have been, and continue to be, sufliciently severe or pervasive to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolerated, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environment, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action
135, By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct persistent tin oughout the employment of Class Representatives and the members of the class, Class Representatives and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein,
136 Defendant's conduct in violation of New York Executive Law § 296, subd, I(a) has injured and damaged the Class Representatives and the class"
137., Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, a working environment heavily charged with racial discrimination, resulting largely from the rampant racial harassment and the use of racial slurs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management's awareness of, participation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions,
28

138. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of New York Executive Law § 296, subd. l(a), including an award for punitive damages and attomeys' fees
COUNT IX
VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. lea) RETALIATION
(African-American Class Representatives against Defendant) 139. Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 140 Ihis Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class 14 L Defendant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work environment free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination. 142.. Deftmdant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory employment actions, including but not limited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate terms and conditions of employment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment and/or other forms of discrimination in violation of New York Executive Law. 143 Defendant IKON's actions were intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,
29

reckless and conducted in callous disregaI d of causing haIm to Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the members ofthe proposed class.
144 Defendant IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which constlUes a continuing violation of New YOlk Executive Law § 296, subd.l(a)
145.. As a direct and proximate result ofIKON's aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class were damaged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional haIm, anguish and humiliation .
146 By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class aIe entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York Executive Law, including attorneys' fees
COUNT X VIOLATIONS OF N.Y.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. l(a)
PAY AND PROMOTION (Asserted on behalf ofIKON's African-American employees
who worked in Defendant's New York City Facilities) 147 Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incOlpOlate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paIagraph as though fully set fOlth herein. 148.. Ihis Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the class of Defendant IKON's past, current and future African-American employees employed by IKON in the city of New York 149. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the class they seek to
30

represent have been subject to systemic racial discrimination including, but not limited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate impact on their employment oppOitunities The systemic means of accomplishing such racial discrimination include, but are not limited to, IKON's selection procedUles, and unequal terms and conditions of employment. By these actions, Defendant IKON has discriminated against the Replesentative PlaintifIS and the Class in the telms, conditions or privileges of employment, thereby violating New YOlk City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd I(a)
150 Defendant IKON's selection and compensation procedmes incOlporate the following racially discliminatOlY practices: I) reliance upon subjective procedmes and criteria which permit and encoUlage the incOlpOiation of racial stereotypes and bias of IKON's predominantly white managelial staff; 2) refusal to establish 01 follow policies, procedmes, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact and/or intentional racial bias or stereotypes in IKON's decision making process; 3) pre-selection of whites befOie vacancies or opportunities become known; and 4) discomagement of applications and eXPlessions of interest by AfIican-Amelicans through a reputation fOi racial bias, racially hostile conditions of wOlk, and unequal terms and conditions of employment in such areas as wOlk homs and position assignments.
151 Defendant IKON's selection procedmes have a disparate impact on the Afiican-Amelican Plaintiffs and the class they represent Such procedmes are not valid, job related orjustified by business necessity. There are objective and stlUctUled selection and compensation procedmes available to IKON which have less disparate impact on African-Americans and equal or greater validity and job relatedness, but IKON has
31

refused to consider 01 to use such procedures. 152. Defendant IKON's selection plOcedures have adversely affected Class
Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson by excluding African-Americans from traditionally white positions, and denying Mr Rosenberg and Mr. Anderson equal pay with white employees
153. Defendant IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified discrimination which constitutes a continuing violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 subd 1(a) IKON's discriminatOlY conduct has been deliberate, wanton and willful The Representative Plaintiffs and the class of IKON's New YOlk City employees are therefore entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages under NYC Administrative Code § 8-502, subd 1(a).
154. Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit fOl backpay, an injunction other equitable relief, and a declaratory judgment is their only means of securing adequate equitable relief. Both Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from IKON's unlawful policies and practices as set fOlth herein unless enjoined by this Court.
155 By reason of IKON's discriminatOlY employment practices, Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the members of the proposed class have experienced economic harm, including loss of compensation, back and front pay, other employment benefits, and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation
156. By reason of the discrimination suffered at IKON, Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the members of the plOposed class are
32

entitled to all legal and equitable temedies available under New Yotk City Administtative Code § 8-107, subd I(a), including attomeys' fees
COUNT XI VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. l(a) RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (Asserted on behalf of IKON's AfIican-American employees who worked in Defendant's New York City Facilities) 157. Plaintiff-Class Representatives Rosenberg and Andetson re-allege and incotporate by reference each and evety allegation contained in each and evety aforementioned patagraph as though fully set fotth herein. 158 Plaintiff~Class Reptesentatives Rosenbetg and Anderson re-allege and incotpotate by reference each and evety allegation contained in each and evety aforementioned paragraph as though fully set fotth herein 159. This Count is brought on behalf of both Class Reptesentatives and the class 160 Defendant has subjected the Class Representatives and the class to a tacially hostile work environment in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd. I(a) 161. Defendant has denied Class Reptesentatives and members of the class theit personal tight to work in an environment free of racial disctimination 162. Defendant's racially disctiminatory ptactices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolerated, condoned, tatified and/or engaged in the hostile wotk environment, or, in the altemative, knew, or should
33

have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action. 163.. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct
persistent throughout the employment of Class Representatives and the members of the class, Class Representatives and the members of the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein.
164.. Defendant's conduct in violation of New YOlk City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd l(a) has injured and damaged the Class Representatives and the class
165 Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, a working environment heavily charged with racial discrimination, resulting largely fiom the rampant racial harassment and the use of racial slurs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management's awareness of, participation in and/Ol lack of response to the hostile working conditions
166 By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of New YOlk City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd lea), including an award for punitive damages and attOlneys' fees
COUNT XII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. l(a)
RETALIATION (Asserted on behalf of IKON's African-American employees
who worked in Defendant's New York City Facilities) 167. Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson re-allege and incOlpOlate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every
34

aforementioned paragraph as though fully set fDlth herein 168 Ihis Count is brought on behalf of both Class Representatives and the
class . 169.. Defendant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg
and Anderson and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work enviromnent free of lace discrimination and/or because they complained about lace discrimination
170 Defendant IKON has retaliated against Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatDlY employment actions, including but not limited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate telms and conditions of employment, race discrimination, a hostile work enviromnent and/DI other fDlms of discrimination in violation of New YOlk City Administrative Code
171. Defendant IKON's actions were intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the membels of the proposed class
172. Defendant IKON has continuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which constlUes a continuing violation of New YDlk City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd. l(a)
173. As a direct and proximate result of IKON's aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class were damaged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional haIm, anguish and humiliation.
35

174 By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson and the members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York City Administrative Code, including attorneys' fees. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff~Class Representatives Rosenberg and Anderson on behalf of themselves and the class members whom they seek to represent request the following relief:
a Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; b. Certification of the case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 (a), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class, and designation of Plaintiffs as representatives ofthe class and their counsel of record as class counsel; c.. Declare and adjudge that Defendant IKON has violated Plaintiffs' rights under I itle VII; d A temporary injunction against Defendant IKON and its partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, racial discrimination and retaliation by defendant set forth herein; e. A permanent injunction against Defendant IKON and its partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any fUither
36

unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, racial disclimination and

letaliation by defendant set fOlth herein;

e

An Older requiling Defendant to initiate and implement plOgrams

that (i) provide equal employment oppOltunities fOI African-American

employees; (ii) remedy the effect of IKON's past and present unlawful

employment practices; and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the

discriminatOlY and retaliatOlY practices described above;

f. An Order requiIing Defendant to initiate and implement systems of

assigning, training, transfening, compensating, and plOmoting AfIican-

Amelican employees in a non-discIiminatOlY manner;

g An Order establishing a task fOlce on equality and faimess to

detelmine the effectiveness of the programs descIibed in (e) and (f),

above, which would provide fOI (i) the monitOling, lepOlting, and

retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment oppOltunity, (ii) the

assurance that injunctive relief is propedy implemented, and (iii) a

qumtedy repOlt setting fOlth infOlmation relevant to the detelmination of

the effectiveness of the programs descIibed in (e) and (f), above;

h. An Order lestOling Class Representative Rosenbelg, Class

Representative Anderson and the class he seeks to represent to those jobs

they would now be occupying but fOl IKON's discliminatolY plactices;

L

An Order directing IKON to adjust the wage rates and benefits for

Class Representative Rosenberg, Class Representative Anderson and the

37

class they seek to represent to the level that they would be enjoying but fOJ

IKON's discriminatOJY pJactices;

J. An award of back pay; finnt pay; lost job benefits; preferential

rights to jobs, and other equitable relief for Mr. Rosenberg, Mr.. Anderson

and the class he seeks to represent;

k. An award of compensatory damages in an amount not less than 50

million dollars;

I

Punitive damages under Counts X, XI and XII in the sum of 50

million dollars on behalf of all past, current and future IKON employees

employed by IKON in the city of New Yark;

ill

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and

n.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

plOper

VIII, JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs and the class demand a trial by jury of all issues

Dated: October 26, 2005

SANFORD, '(ff~~
By:

Suite 960 NewYark, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 Facsimile: (646) 723-2948

38

David W. Sanford, D..C Bar No. 457933 SANFORD, WITIELS & HEISLER, LLP 2121 K Street, NW. Suite 700 Washington, D.C 20037 Telephone: (202) 942-9124 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189 Grant Monis, D..C Bar No 926253 LAW OFFICES OF GRANT E. MORRIS 2121 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, D..c. 20037 I elephone: (202) 486-0678 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
39

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COL'RT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDS

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE )

1!LEC.rl000CALLYr,Jl..r.II

ANDERSON, CHARLES

)

WASHINGTON, and EDWARD

)

ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf )
of. class of an other person, similarly )

DOC I: --"-;--.--1
DATEFlLED:

s1tw1ted,

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05·CV·9131 (PAC)

Plaintiffs.

) ) District Judge: Honorable Paul A. Crotty

v.

)

) JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC~

) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE )

Defendant.

)

WHEREAS, this matter com.. befure tbe Court on the joint request of Plaintiffs

St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson, CharI.. Washington, and Edward Anderson and a

class of persons similarly situated ("Class Representativ.... Or "Plaintiffs") and

Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc. ("Defendant" or "IKON"" fur (al fina1 approval

of the Settlement of this case as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement (lbe
"f. "Agreemonf'l, dated October 18, 2007, and (b) entry Judgment and Order dismissing

this aution with prejudice; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into 1;I1e Agreement to settle this

Class Action; and

WHEREAS, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order, dated October 30,

2007. preliminarily certi:lYing the proposed Class fur settlement purpos.. under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, ordering Notice to Class Member., and scheduling a Fairness

Hearing for Janoary 22, 2008; and

WHEREAS, the Court bas reviewed and considered the proposed Agreement, the

submissions of the parties in support thereto, and held oral argument at the Fairness Hearing in this matter on January 22, 2008,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: I. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order, the Court adopts by reference the definitions set forth in the "Definitions" section ofthe Agreement. 2. Class Action Requirements. The Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a)(b)(2), and (b)(3) have been me~ in that:
A. The Settlement Class is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable;
B. There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, which questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
C. The Settlement Class Representatives' chums are typical of the other Settlement Class Members' claims;
D. The Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class and absent Settlement Class members. The Settlement Class Representatives retained counsel experienced in bringing cl... action and civil rights litigation; and
E. The settlement class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe controversy.
3. Certification of Settlement Class. The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 having been me~ the Court certifies the following Settlement Class

for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement: all African-American individuals
employed by IKON between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005 in the Legal
Document Services or IKON Management Services business units in New York Slate. 4. Notice. The Court finds that dissemination of the Notice as provided fur
in the Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the oireumstances to potential Settlement Class Members and complied fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, any and all substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the United Slates Constitotion, iU1d any other applicable law.
5. Fina! Anproyal of the Agmment. The Court find. Ibat the proposed Agreement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23(e){l}C) of tho Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further finds that each and ovary term, provision, condition, and agreement of !be Agreement, including all exhibits and amendments Ibereto, apply and are adopted, incorporated, and made part of this Judgment, as if copied herein in extenso and shall be effective, implemented, and enforced as provided in the Agreement.

6. Monetary Relief. Defendant is required to pay Ibe amounts to !be class representatives and to Ibe settlement cia.. members who have filed claims furms as set forth in the Agreement. Defendant shall pay Ibe following amounts to Ibe following class representatives:

Name Sl Clare Rosenberg
Wayne Anderson
Charles Washilllrton
Edward Anderson

Monetary Amount $60,000 $40000 530000 $45,000

7. Jurisdictjon. The Caurt finds that it has jurisdiction over Ibe subject

matter of the Action, the Settlement Class Representatives, the other Settlement Class Members, and the Defendant. Without affecting the finality of the Judgm!"lt, the Court
reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction and venue with respect to the
collSUlll!l1lltion, implementation, enforcement, construction, interpretation, perfunnance, and administration ofthe Agreement and/or Judgment.
8. Attorneys' Fees. Costs and Expenses. The Court awards to Settlement Class Counsel, Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $399,983.81, which amount the Court finds i. litir, adeqUate and reasonable, and toW costs and expenses of $36,516.19. These amounts shall be paid by Defendant IKON within ten (10) days after the Effective Date as defined in the Agreement.
9. Dismissal With Prnjudice. The Court finds that the Class Action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PRFJUDlCE.
10. Entry of Judgment. There being no just reason to delay entry of this
Judgment, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter this Judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule S4{b) ofthe Fedora! Rules ofCivil Procedure.
'" . """""'.;;~ ,.,''' ,." !2J~
Hocorable Paul A. Crotty
UNITED STATES DISTRICT runGE

UoIled Slates District: Court Southern District of N~ York
Office of tbe Clerit U.S. Courtbou.e'
500 Pearl Street, New York, N.),. 10007-1213

Date: In Re:
-v-

Case#:

(

)

Dear Litigant,
Enclosed is a copy of the judgment entered in your c4se.
Your attention is directed to Rule 4(a)(I) ofthe Federa~ Rules ofAppellate Procedure, which requires that if you wish to appeal the judgment in your case, you mu~t file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date of entry of the judgment (60 days if the United States or:an officer or agency of the United States is a party).
If you wish to appeal the judgment but for any reaso~ you are unable to file your notice of appeal within the required time, you may make a motion for an extension of time in accordance with the provision of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). That rule requires you to show "cxcusable neglect" or "good cause" for your failure to file your notice of appeal within the time allowed. ..\ny such motion must f1rst be served upon the other parties and then filed with the Pro Se Office no later than ~O days from the date ofentry ofthe judgment (90 days if the United States or an officer or agency of the Ulitod States is a party).

The enclosed Forms 1,2 and 3 cover some commOD situations, and you may choose to use one of

them if appropriate to your circumstances.

iVfo.oo

The Filing fee for a notice of appeal is $5.00 and the appellate docketing fee is U!'9,99 payable to

the "Clerk of the Court, USDC, SONY" by certified check, money order or cash. No personal cbeekJ are

accepted.

J. Mlcbael McMaboa. Clerk of Court by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
, Deputy Clerk

Al'l'IIAL rOIlKl
Docket support Unit

Revised: March 4, 2003

SUountihteedrnSDtaitsetsriDctisotfriNct~iCoYuortrk Office of the Cler~
U.S. Courtboule
500 Pearl Street, New York, N. t. 10007-1213

_._ . .______._. . _________• . . ._______. . . . ._________. . . . ___ OM_OX

I

I

I

-v-

I

I

I

______••••_________•••_______•••••••______•••• ________- - - - - -XI

NOTICE OF APPEAL

civ.

( )

Notice is hereby given that - - - - - - - - - , - - - ; : : : = c c - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(party)
hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the Judgment [describe it1

entered in this action on the __~_ _ day of -----:c:::::;:,--

(doy)

(DIODth)

u-)

(Signature)

Date: _ _ _ _ _ __

("""'"") (City, State and Zip Code)
( )---(-T-el,e=pho=ne-N' umber)

Note: You may use this form. to take an appeal provided that,it is received by the office of the Clerk of the District Court within 30 days of the date on which thejudgm~twas entered (60 days ifthe United States or
an officer or agency of the United States is a party).

Docket support Unit

Revised: ~arch 4, 2003

Uulted States Distriet!Court Soutbern Distriel of N<iw York
Offlc:e of tbe CierI!! U.S. Coartboale 500 Pearl Street. New York, N.V. 10007-1113

______________________________________________________ -----X

I

I

I

-v-

I

I

I

______________________________________________________ -----XI

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL

civ.

( )

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), _ _ _ _ _ _ _,--,.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ respectfully
(porty)
requests leave to file the within notice of appeal out of time;
(porty)
desires to appeal the judgment in this action entered on --:..--=::c------ but failed to file a (day)
notice of appeal within the required number of days because:
[Explain here the "excusable neglect" or "good cauae" which led" your failure to file a notice of appeal within the required number of days.]

(Sipaturc)

Dare: _______________

(Add<eu)
(City, State ODd zq, Codo)
( ) --,=-~- =-.,-~--­ (Telephone Number)

Note: You may use this form, together with a copy of Form 1, if you are seeking to appeal ajudgmcnt and did Dot file a copy of Form 1 within the required time. If you follow this procedure, these forms must be received in the office of the Clerk of the District Court no later than 60 days of the date which the judgment was entered (90 days if the United States or an officer or agency of the Unired States is a party).

1.•••110 I'OIIKI Doc~et Suppcrt Unit

Revieed: March 4. 2003

United Stales Dlstrlct'Court Southern District of N~ York
Offkc of tile Clerk U.S. Courtllaulc 500 Pearl Street, New York. N.Y. 18007-1213

______________________________________________________ ----X

I

I

I

-v-

I

I

I

_______________________....______________________________----XI

NOTICE OF APPEAL
AND
MOtrION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

civ.

( )

I.

Notice is hereby given that - - - - - - - - - ; :(p-or-tf). c c - - - - - - - - - bereby appeals to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit frotn the judgment entered on

[Give a description of the judgment]

2.

In the event that this form was not received in the Clork's office within the required time

______="'"',-______ respectfully requ~ the court to grant an extension aftime in
(porty)
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

a.

In support of this request, - - - - - - - - = = c - - - - - - - - - states that

(porty)

.... this Court's judgment was received on ___---,-,,-,-_____ and that this form was mailed to the ( )
.... court on ---;=7""--( )

(Signature)

(Add<ao)

(City. State and Zip Code)

Date: _ _ _ _ _ __

(

)

(T......... N""""')

Note: You may usc this form if you are mailing your notice of appeal and are not sure the Clerk of the District Court will receive it within the 30 days of the date o. which the judgment was entered (60 days if the United States or an officer or agency of the United States; is a party).

Docket Support Unit

Revised, Ksrch 4, 2003

United States DIstrict Court Southern District of Neiw York
Omce or the Clerk' U.S. COllrtho.se
500 Pearl Street. New York, N.Y. 10007·1213

______________________________________________________ -----X

I

I

I

-y-

I

I

I

I
•••.•••••_._••• _______••••______••••_______ •••_______ •••• -X

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE

civ.

( )

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~' ,declare under penalty of perjury that I have

served a copy of the attached

upon whose address is: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Date: -"""N"c,w,Y=or=k, :Nuew=Y=ork:--
Docket support Unit

(Signatwe) (A.......) (City, State and Zip Code)
Revised, March 4, 2003

 
 Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE

)

ANDERSON, CHARLES

)

WASHINGTON, and EDWARD

)

ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf )

of a class of all other persons similarly )

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

) )

)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 05 Civ. 9131 (PAC) ECF CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiffs St. Clare Rosenberg, W ayne Anderson, Charles W ashington,

and Edward Anderson (“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) are former employees of

IKON Offic e Solutions, Inc. (“IKON,” “The Company,” or “Defendant”). They bring

this action on behalf of them selves and th e class of IKON’s form er, current and future

African American employees who worked, currently work, or will work for the company

in New York State and New York City. 2. IKON presents itself as a 21

st century business leader engaged in

integrating imaging systems and services th at help industry m anage document workflow

and enhance efficiency. Unfortunately, this attractive, self-descriptive veneer m asks an

uglier reality. When it comes to its African American employees in New York State and

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 48
New York City, IKON’s em ployment practices are rem iniscent of the antebellum South and the era of the Night Rider.
3. Black employees have been sub jected to an en vironment permeated with racial h atred, slurs, ep ithets and s tereotypes. Af ter be ing inf ormed of these r acist practices, IKON has d one nothing to address them. Instead the com pany has retaliated against African Am erican employees who have complained about the slurs and epithets by transferring these employees or otherwise making their work duties more onerous.
4. More specifically, certain of IKON’s Caucasian employees routinely use the word “n igger” when referring to African Am erican employees. African Am ericans are referred to “low class black,” “bad ni gger,” “high class black,” and “good nigger.” Despite being told about these derogatory references to black em ployees, IKON’s white managerial and supervisory staff have re fused to discipline or discourage those responsible for this racist behavior.
5. Additionally, IKON ha s denied Plain tiffs and the class of African American employees full and equal pay and promotion opportunities. When an African American employee complains about IKON’ s discrim inatory pay, prom otion and policies, th e com pany swif tly retaliates and d estroys the c omplaining em ployee’s job prospects within the company.
6. These are not simply the ambitious allegations of a boilerplate com plaint. The EEOC has issu ed to Plain tiff Rosenberg a Notice of Right to Sue dated July 29, 2005, concluding that the evidence “supports a reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Parties were subjected to discrimination based on race/color, Black, in violation of Title VII.” The EEOC determined the following:
2

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 48

The investigation supports Char ging Parties’ allegations that

Respondent discrim inated agains t Charging Parties and other

similarly situated Black employees, on the basis of their race and

color, Black, and also supports Charging Partie s’ allegations that

Respondent subsequently retalia ted against them and other

similarly situated individua ls for opposing e

mployment

discrimination. The investigation also reveals that complaints

were m ade about the hostile environm ent and discriminatory

treatment. Respondent knew or sh ould have known of the above

described discrim ination and harassm ent, but failed to

appropriately investigate and remedy the discrimination.

Consequently, based on the testim

ony/interviews with the

Charging P arties, o ther current an d form er employees/witnesses

suffering from si milar discrim ination and/or retaliation, and the

above analysis, [the EEOC] conclude[s] that the evidence obtained

during the Commission’s investigation supports a reasonable cause

to believe that the Charging Parties were subjected to

discrimination based on race/color, Black, in violation of Title VII.

7. Plaintiffs theref ore f ile this Clas s Action Com plaint to red ress the r acial

discrimination perm eating IKON. Allegations of racial discrim ination at IKON are

supported by the EEOC’s investigation and conclusion.

8. The Class Representatives seek to represent African Am erican employees

of IKON who have been subj ected to one or m ore asp ects of the system ic race

discrimination described in this C omplaint, including, but not lim ited to: (a) a hostile

work environm ent and race-based harassm ent; (b) disparate pay; (c) discrim inatory

policies, practices and/or procedures in se lection, prom otion and advancem ent; and (d)

retaliation in the workplace. The system ic race discrim ination describ ed in this

Complaint has been, and is, continuing in nature.

9. The Class Representatives seek on behalf of them selves and the clas s

declaratory and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, affirmative restructuring of

IKON’s anti-discrimination and internal pers onnel policies; selec tion and com pensation

3

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 48
procedures, training and other terms and conditions of e mployment; back pay; front pay; compensatory and nom inal damages; and attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to redress IKON’s discriminatory and retaliatory employment policies, practices and/or procedures.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 10. On December 27, 2004, Plaintiff St. Clare Rosenberg (“Mr. Rosenberg”) filed an individual and class EEO Charge of Discrim ination, allegi ng race-based and color-based discrimination and retaliation. 11. On July 20, 2005, the Equal E mployment Opportunity Comm ission (“EEOC”) issued a determination as to the merits of Mr. Rosenberg’s charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Rosenberg was subjected to discrim ination based on race and color in violation of Title VII. 12. On July 29, 2005, the EEOC issued Mr . Rosenberg a Notice of Right to Sue (“Right to Sue”) which stated th at any lawsuit “must be filed W ITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice...” 13. Plaintiff Rosenberg received the Notice of Right to Sue on August 4, 2005. Mr. Rosenberg tim ely filed suit on Oct ober 26, 2005, within ninety (90) days of receipt of his Notice of Right to Sue. 14. Plaintiff Charles W ashington timely filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Hum an Right s on October 18, 2005. Mr. W ashington’s complaint of racial discrim ination and retaliation is curr ently under investigation. P laintiff Edward Anderson tim ely filed a Charge of Discri mination with the US Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission on January 4, 2006. Mr. Anderson received his Notice of Right to Sue on May 18, 2006.
4

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 5 of 48

15. The Class Representatives are rely ing on their own EEO charges and/or

those of other Class Representatives.

III. PARTIES

A.

The Plaintiffs

16. Plaintiff St. Clare Rosenberg is a resident of Brooklyn. From August

2002 to October 4, 2004, Mr. Rosenberg was e

mployed as a Custom er Sales

Representative (“CSR”) f or IKON at Def endant’s facility located at 950 Third Avenue,

New York, New York. IKON constructively discharged Mr. Rosenberg, who resigned as

of October 4, 2004.

17. Plaintiff Wayne Anderson is a resident of the Bronx. Beginning

approximately January 5, 2004, Mr. Anderson was em ployed as a C ustomer Service

Representative (“CSR”) for IKON at Defendant’s facility located at 810 Seventh Avenue,

New York, New York, 10019. (Mr. Anderson pr eviously worked for IKON in No rfolk,

Virginia from Nove mber 2002). In a pproximately August 2005, Mr. Anderson left

IKON because of the co mpany’s racially disc riminatory pay and promotion policies and

its denial of equal advancement.

18. Plaintiff Charles Washington is a resident of Yonke rs, NY. M r.

Washington began working full-tim e for IKON as a Field Serv ice Representative

(“FSR”) in June 2005, and previously worked for IKON as a te

mporary em ployee

beginning in 2002. In Decem ber 2005, Mr. W ashington resigned fro m IKON due to the

racial harassment and discrimination he experienced on the job.

19. Plaintiff Edw ard Anderson is a resident of St aten Island, NY. Mr.

Anderson began working for IKON as a Key Op erator in October 2001. He was forced

5

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 6 of 48
to resign from IKON on March 9, 2006, due to the discrim inatory and retaliatory treatment he experienced there.
B. The Defendant 20. IKON is a m ultinational corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Malvern, Pennsylvania. IKON c onducts business throughout New York State, including the County of New York. 21. IKON integrates im aging system s a nd services that help businesses manage document workflow and increase efficiency. IKON is an independent distributor of copier and printer technologies and serv ice support. IKON also provides a range of document management services, including outso urcing and professional services, on-site copy and mailroom management, fleet management, off-site digital printing solutions and customized workflow, and imaging application development. 22. IKON e mploys approxim ately 30,250 individuals in 600 locations throughout the United States. In Fiscal Year 2003, IKON earned revenues of $4.7 billion. 23. IKON possesses either actual or cons tructive control, oversight and direction over the operation of its individua l f acilities in New York State, including individual facility employment practices. IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 24. Jurisdiction over Defendant IKON is properly vested under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-5(f), et seq. and 23 U.S.C. § 1981. IKON regularly does business in New York and has nu merous offices throughout Ne w York.
6

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 7 of 48
25. Venue is proper in this Court because IKON transacts business in the State and City of New York a nd the events giving ri se to this claim occurred in the State of New York. Class Representatives all currently reside in New York and Plaintiff Edward Anderson continues to work for IKON in New Yo rk. Absent the vi olations of federal and state law com plained of herein, Plaint iffs St. Clare R osenberg, Wayne Anderson, Charles Washington, and Edward A nderson would have continued to work for IK ON in New York. Most of the records pertaining to the Class Representatives’ employment are or were maintained in New York. V. ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
(a) Class Representative St. Clare Rosenberg 26. Plaintiff St. Clare Rosen berg (“Mr. Rosenberg”) is an African Am erican resident of Brooklyn, New York. 27. Mr. Rosenberg was hired by IKON in approximately August of 2002.
Hostile Work Environment 25. During Mr. Rosenberg’s em ployment at IKON, he was subjected to a gauntlet of racial discrimination and hostile tre atment, encompassing denial of equal pay and promotion, harassment and a hostile work environment. 26. For example, Mr. Rosenberg observed pi ctures of African Americans with the white faces of account m anagers pasted on them. Mr. Rosenberg complained to his supervisor, Michael Caproni (“Mr . Caproni”), that the pictures were offensive to Africa n American employees, but the situation continued. 27. Another incident of racism at IKON occurred when June Caproni (“Ms. Caproni”) said that Mr. Rosenberg looke d liked Hitler. A nother IKON e mployee,
7

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 8 of 48
Monifa Blount, found a picture of Mr. Rosenber g with “H itler” written across it. It was posted in p lain view of other em ployees and the word “ Hitler” was written in Ms. Caproni’s writing. Mr. Rosenberg did not co mplain ab out the incident because his supervisor had made it clear that nothing would be done to redress racial discrimination.
Denial of Pay and Promotion 28. White em ployees were given insi de inform ation on prom otional opportunities whereas African American em ployees, including Mr. Rosenberg, w ere simply told to work hard and they would “eventually” get promoted. 29. Mr. Rosenb erg applied for every Account Man ager pos ition that op ened during his tim e at IKON. Mr. Rosenberg was th e most qualified applicant as to the last four positions for which he ap plied. Instead, white employees from outside the company were hired to fill those positions. 30. White employees were given the best clients whereas Mr. Rosenberg was given the worst. 31. Mr. Rosenberg asked to enroll in a training class for Account Managers. Candidates for the class were required to study materials to qualify for enrollment. While Mr. Rosenberg was told to study his m aterials on his lunch hour, a white CSR, Brian Marsh, was given study tim e during work, went to the class, and was subsequently made a Manager. 32. Upon hearing of Mr. Rosenberg ’s am bition to become an Acco unt Manager, Supervisor Caproni discouraged Mr. Rosenberg by claiming that some Account Managers were forced to leave the com pany because it was difficult work. Mr. Caproni added that b ecause he (Caproni) was “not a good Account Manager, ” he was hesitant to
8

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 9 of 48
let Mr. Rosenberg move up or give him the recommendations needed to do so. Retaliation
33. After Mr. Rosenberg asked for a prom otion to Account Manager, IKON retaliated ag ainst h im. On occasion s when Mr. Rosenberg was tardy f or work, he was singled out for harsh discipline in front of th e other employees or sent hom e from work. When a white employee, Thomas Dasille (“Mr. Dasille”), was habitually late, Mr. Dasille was either not disciplined or spoken to in a closed office.
34. While Mr. Rosenberg was subjected to disc ipline for even the most trivial matters, white em ployees could com mit m ajor infractions w ith few repercussions. For example, Tim Franklin (“Mr. Fran klin”), a white em ployee, left a com pany vehicle unattended and running, and as a result the vehicle was stole n. Mr. Franklin received only a written warning. On another occa sion, a white account m anager, Mark Ardere, painted a Customer Service Manager’s office pink and was not disciplined.
(b) Class Representative Wayne Anderson 35. Plaintiff Wayne Anders on (“Mr. Anderson”) is an African Am erican resident of Bronx, NY. 36. Plaintiff Anderson was hired in Nove mber, 2002 as a driver/CSR in the company’s Norfolk, VA shop.
Hostile Work Environment 37. In Virginia, Mr. Anderson was subjected to the indignity of being called “boy” by his then m anager, Caucasian m ale Randy Gay. Despite Mr. Anderson’s complaint to m ore senior m anagement, upon inf ormation and belief, IK ON did not take any disciplinary action against Mr. Gay.
9

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 10 of 48
Denial of Equal Pay and Promotion 38. In Decem ber, 2003 Mr. Anderson m et with IKON’s Sales Manager, at which time Mr. Anderson expressed an interest in becoming an Account Manager in New York. Mr. Anderson was advise d that he would need m ore training in New York as a CSR in order to qualif y for the Account Manager position. Mr. Anderson thereafter moved to New York and continued working for IKON. 39. During the following months, Mr. Anderson performed ably as a CSR, his work performance was excellent and he received superior reviews. 40. Mr. Anderson subsequently inquired a bout the possibility of advancing to become an Account Manager. Defendant’s New York m anager informed Mr. Anderson that if an Account Manage r position became open, IKON wo uld consider Mr. Anderson. When such Account Manager po sitions beca me available on at least three different occasions from 2004 through 2005, however, IKON did not consider Mr. Anderson at all. Instead, Defendant IKON awarded the Account Manager job to white IKON e mployees or white outsiders. 41. To add insult to injury, IKON awa rded open Account Manager jobs to white employees who had less experience a nd qualifications than Mr. Anderson, and/or without req uiring them to undergo the p re-qualification form alities required for the position.
Retaliation 42. After working in New York and witn essing the prom otions of whites to Account Manager positions, Mr. Anderson compla ined in writing to his white m anager, Kevin Melv ille. Rath er than acknowledge the Com pany’s discriminatory actions, Mr.
10

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 11 of 48
Melville thr eatened Mr . Anderson by preventing Mr. Anderson from leaving Mr. Melville’s office, and telling Mr. Anderson th at he (Melville) did not need Anderson’s approval to make hiring decisions.
43. Realizing th at he had n o f uture in this ra cially-hostile envir onment, Mr. Anderson left the company, in effect being constructively discharged.
(c) Class Representative Charles Washington 44. Plaintiff Charles Washington (“Mr. Washington”) is an African Am erican of Cuban descent. He resides in Yonkers, New York. 45. Mr. Washington was hired by IKON as a Field Service Representative in approximately June of 2005. He began working for IK ON at the IKON account at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a law firm located at 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY.
Hostile Work Environment 46. During Mr. W ashington’s em ployment at IKON, he wa s repeatedly subjected to degrading epithets and comment s by his supervisor, Sergio Torres (“ Mr. Torres”). Mr. Torres consis tently referr ed to African Am ericans, including Mr. Washington, as “niggers,” and told Mr. W ashington to his f ace that he was an “up pity nigger.” 47. While Mr. Torres of ten called M r. Washington a “nigger,” Mr. Torres once said that Mr. Washington should in stead be called a “Black ” because Mr. Washington is educated. 48. After Mr. Washington m oved to Y onkers, New York, Mr. Torres further denigrated him by telling him that he was a black man trying to be a white man. 49. Though IKON m anagers were aware of Mr. Torres’ bias against African
11

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 12 of 48
Americans and dark-skinned Hispanics, they tu rned a blin d eye to th e rac ially h ostile work environm ent. Mr. Torres was not disc iplined f or his rac ially disc riminatory remarks against Mr. Washington and his African American colleagues.
Denial of Pay and Promotion 50. In addition to enduring a near-da ily onslaught of racial slurs, Mr. Washington was also prevented from earning overtime wages, resulting in a signif icant loss of pay. Supervisor Torres often rem oved African Am erican employees’ n ames, including Mr. Washington’s, from Saturday overtime schedules, and replaced them with those of non-African Am erican co-workers , thereby preventing African Am erican employees from earning Saturday overtime pay. 51. Mr. Washington complained about this practice to Site Manager Dam ian Lampariello (“Mr. Lam pariello”), who, upon in formation and belief, did nothing to discipline Torres nor address the situation.
Retaliation 52. After Mr. Washington com plained to Mr. Lampariello about his loss of overtime and Torres’ other discrim inatory actions against A frican American employees, Mr. Lam pariello retaliated against Mr. W ashington. Upon infor mation and belief, Mr. Lampariello complained about Mr. Washington to IKON’s Human Resource Department, calling him “disruptive.” 53. Mr. Lampariello also ch anged Mr. Washington’s shif t. Th e shift change forced Mr. Washington to arra nge for alternative care for his children or take time off to provide care for them himself. As a result, Mr. Washington lost a significant portion of his income.
12

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 13 of 48
54. Though Mr. W ashington attem pted to a ddress his allegations of racial discrimination with his supervisors, hu man resource personnel and IKON’s in-house dispute resolution service, Network, he did not receive a satisfactory response.
55. After enduring hostile work conditions, discriminatory pay and retaliation, Mr. Washington filed a com plaint of e mployment discrimination against IKON wit h the New York State Division of Human Rights on October 18, 2005.
56. Following h is f ormal com plaint with the New York State Division o f Human Rights, Mr. W ashington was m oved to another IKON facility in the late fall of 2005. Mr. Washington, the victim of racial di scrimination, was forced to relocate, while Mr. Torres, the perpetrator, was allowed to remain without incurring any penalty.
57. Though IKON m oved Mr. W ashington to another facility, Mr. Washington found no relief from IKON’s discrim ination against him self and other African Am ericans. Mr. W ashington was singled out and disciplined for m inor infractions that were tolerated when comm itted by his non-African American colleagues. Mr. Washington was eventually rem oved from this second IKON facility on the pretext of tardiness.
58. IKON offered Mr. W ashington a pos ition at a third IKON facility, but again offered him a shift that did no t accommodate his childcare needs. Mr. Washington did not accept this transfer offer, believing that the only way to escape IKON’s racial discrimination would be to leave the company altogether.
59. Mr. Washington resigned from IKON in December 2005.
13

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 14 of 48
(d) Class Representative Edward Anderson 60. Plaintiff Edward Anders on (“Mr. Anderson”) is an African Am erican resident of Staten Island, New York. 61. Mr. Anderson was hired by IKON in October 2001 as a Ke y Operator. In 2005, he was transferred to the IKON account at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a law firm located at 666 F ifth Avenue, New York, NY. He resigned from IKON on March 9, 2006.
Hostile Work Environment 62. Throughout Mr. Anderson’s career at I KON, he has been subjected to harassment from his m anagers because of his race. Mr. Anderson’s firs t manager, Josh Riviera (“Mr. Riviera”) conti nually threaten ed to fire Mr. Anderson if Mr. Anderson made any errors in his wor k. Mr. Anderson made repeated requests to be transferred from Mr. Riviera’s supervision. Though ot her non-black employees were granted their transfer req uests in a tim ely m anner, Mr. Anderson was not transferred for m ore than three years. 63. Mr. Anderson only encountered further r acial hostility when he m oved to the IKON account at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcli ffe. His supervisor, Sergio Torres (“Mr. Torres”) regularly used racial slurs in refe rence to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson’s former colleague Charles Washington, and their other African American colleagues. 64. Specifically, Mr. Torres referred to Mr . Anderson as a “low class black” and “bad nigger,” in comparison to Mr. W ashington, whom Mr. Torres called a “high class black” and “good nigger.” 65. Mr. Torres also m ade references to “the ghetto” around Mr. Anderson,
14

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 15 of 48

which Mr. Anderson found highly offensive.

66. On the job, Mr. Anderson was subject to in tense scru tiny f rom IKON’s

management while his non-black colleagues ha d the f reedom to take lo ng lunches, lef t

work early and read th e paper while on the com pany clock. No such flexibility was

extended to Mr. Anderson; he was the only employee who must clock out for lunch.

67. In addition, Mr. Anderson was discipli ned for m inor violations that are

tolerated when committed by non-black employees.

68. When Mr. Anderson suffered a back injury on the job and took short-term

medical leave to recup erate, Mr. T orres al leged that Mr. Anderson’s doctor’s note was

fake. After Mr. Anderson’s back injury in fall 2005, Mr. Ande rson had to provide

detailed explanations to his superiors when he r equested time off. Mr. Anderson’s non-

African American co-workers can request time off without an explanation.

Denial of Pay and Promotion

69. Mr. Anderson also suffered from a lack of equal pay and prom otion

opportunities. Though Mr. A nderson is unmarried, IKON de ducted a life insurance

premium for a spouse from his bi-weekly paycheck. Mr. A nderson’s efforts to redress

this error were initially rebuffed.

70. Additionally, Mr. Anderson was unable to earn a prom otion in the four

years he has worked at IKON. Non-African Am erican employees of equal or lesser

ability earned prom otions without difficu lty. Though Mr. A nderson’s work was praised

by the attorneys at Orrick, Herrington

& Sutcliffe, his job performance went

unrecognized and unrewarded at IKON.

15

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 16 of 48
Retaliation 71. After Mr. Anderson participated in an internal IKON investigation into Plaintiff Charles Washington’s complaint of race discrimination, IKON retaliated against Mr. Anderson. Though Mr. Ande rson was told his pa rticipation would be confidential, his managers and colleagues learned of his involvement. 72. Mr. Anderson’s supervisor even aske d Mr. Anderson about his discussion with the Human Resources representative conducting the investigation, Nadine Lauzon. 73. After his participation in the i nvestigation, Mr. Anderson’s non-black colleagues becam e noticeab ly co ld to h im a nd m anagement intens ified its d isparate treatment of Mr. Anderson and other Afri can A merican employees. O n Decem ber 23, 2005, Mr. Anderson and another black em ployee we re m ade to stay the full length of their shifts while their non-black colleagues all left their shifts early. 74. In the winter of 2006, Mr. Anderson was informed that IKON would no longer manage the account at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe as of March 2006. Tho ugh several of Mr. Anderson’s co -workers were contacted a bout job transfers, no such transfer was extended to Mr. Anderson. Supervisor Torres alleged that Mr. Anderson would not be offered a transfer and would e ffectively lose his position with IKON as of March 2006. 75. As Mr. Torres alleged, IKON ultim ately did not of fer Mr. Anderson a transfer, though other IKON e mployees we re m oved to other accounts with the company’s aid. Faced with im pending une mployment, Mr. Anders on resigned from IKON on March 9, 2006.
16

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 17 of 48

C. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

(b) Class Definition

76. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Ru

les of Civil Procedure, Class

Representatives St. Clare Rosenb erg, W ayne Anderson, Charles Washington, and

Edward Anderson seek to m aintain claim s on behalf of them selves and on behalf of a

class of IKON’s current, former and future African American employees who worked for

the company in New York City and New York State. Class Representatives are members

of the proposed class.

77. The class consists of all African Americans who are, or have been,

employed by IKON in the State of New York at any tim e during the applicable liability

period. Upon inform ation and belief, there are hundreds of m embers of the proposed

class.

(c) Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder

78. The person s whom Cl ass Representatives seek to repres ent are too

numerous to m ake joinder practicable. Th e proposed class consists of over one hundred

former, current, and future African Am erican applicants and employees who have been,

are, or will be em ployed by IKON. IKON’s pattern and pract ice of racial discrim ination

also m akes joinder im practicable by discouraging African A mericans from applying or

pursuing employm ent opportunities, thereby making it impractical and inefficient to

identify many members of the class prior to determination of the merits of IKON’s class-

wide liability.

(d) Common Questions of Law and Fact

79. The prosecution of the claims of the Class Representatives will require the

17

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 18 of 48
adjudication of num erous questions of law and fact common to both their individual claims and those of th e clas s th ey seek to represent. The common questions of law include, inter alia , (i) w hether Defendant’s racially di scriminatory practices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or perv asive to create an environm ent that is b oth subjectively and objectively r acially hos tile and abusive; (ii) whether Defendant tolerated, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile environment, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take rem edial action; (iii) whether IKON denied its Af rican Am erican em ployees equal pay and promotion opportunities; and (iv) whether the company retaliated against employees who complained about the racist treatment permeating IKON. The common questions of fact include, inter alia, whether th e Defendant’s practices and procedures fostered and/or resulted in (i) a working environment heavily charged with racial discrim ination, resulting largely from the ram pant racial harassment and the use of racial slurs, epithets and stereotypes, and (ii) m anagement’s awar eness of, participation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
80. The disc riminatory trea tment to whic h Class Representatives have been subjected is m anifested by such policies and/ or patterns or practi ces as denying African American employees desirable promotional opportunities, job as signments, training, management positions, com pensation, bonuses, and other benefits an d condition s of employment on the same terms applied to white employees.
81. In particular, IKON de ters African Am erican em ployees from seeking promotions, management positions, and desirabl e job assignments; fails to select African Americans f or desirab le job assig nments and position s; and f ails to enf orce polic ies
18

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 19 of 48
prohibiting racial discrimination and retaliation. 82. As a result of the ille gal policy a nd/or patter ns or prac tices desc ribed
herein, African Am erican em ployees hold a di sproportionate share of the lowest level positions, are den ied equal term s and conditions of em ployment and have not been allowed to advance to better positions.
83. IKON has c reated and m aintained a system -wide em ployment policy of race-based disparate treatm ent, which lim its the em ployment opportunities for African Americans in various aspects of IKON’s employment operation including, but not limited to, job selections. IK ON’s selection practic es and procedures ha ve had a disparate impact on the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.
84. This action in part seeks to enjoin IKON fro m pursuing specific illegal policies and/or practices that have injured a nd continue to injure Plaintiffs and other African American employees and applicants for employment with IKON in all aspects of IKON’s employment operations.
85. IKON’s illegal policy is prem ised on an invidious and racially discriminatory anim us directed against African Am erican employees. It is specifically calculated to deny African Am erican em ployees equal treatm ent and opportunities guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq. and 42 U.S.C § 1981, New Yor k State Executive Law, § 296, subd. 1(a), and N.YC. Administrative Code, § 8-107, subd. 1(a).
(e) Typicality of Relief Sought 85. The claim s of the Class Representative s are typ ical of the claim s of the proposed class. Discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, retaliation and denial of equal pay and prom otions occurs as a pattern and practi ce throughout all levels
19

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 20 of 48
and departm ents o f I KON’s New York fa cilities and adversely affects all Class Representatives and members of the class. In particular, IKON subjects its employees to a working environment heavily charged with racial discrimination, resulting largely from rampant racial harassm ent and the use of r acial s lurs, ep ithets and s tereotypes, and condones m anagement’s awareness of, participa tion in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions. The s ystemic raci al harassm ent and racially hostile work environment described in this Complaint is, and has been, continuing in nature.
86. The relief sought by the Class Repres entatives for racial discrim ination and harassm ent complained of herein is also typical of the relief which is sought on behalf of the proposed class. The Class Representatives seek a perm anent injunction and other equitable relief necessa ry to undo the effects of the Defendant’s past racial discrimination and harassm ent and prevent such discrimination from continuing to adversely affect their lives and careers, including, but not lim ited to, affirmative restructuring of the Defendant’s p ractices a nd procedures that currently result in the racially hos tile and unequal wor k environment at IK ON’s New York f acilities; reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecu ting this action; and atto rneys’ fees. The Class Representatives f urther seek dam ages, back-pay and other equitable rem edies necessary to make the members of the class whole.
87. The relief n ecessary to rem edy the clai ms of the Class Rep resentatives is the same as that necess ary for the class. Class Representatives seek the following relief for their individual claim s and those of the cl ass: 1) a declaratory judgment that IKON has engaged in systemic racial discrimination in limiting the employment opportunities of African Americans to lower classifications and compensation; 2) a declaratory judgm ent
20

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 21 of 48

that IKON has engaged in retaliation ag ainst African Am ericans and non-African

American employees who speak out in opposi tion against race disc rimination at IKON;

3) a permanent injunction against su ch continuing discrimination as described in (1) and

(2) above; 4) restructuring of IKON’s selection and com pensation procedures so that

African Americans are able to learn about and fairly comp ete in the future for better

classifications, com pensation levels, a nd term s and conditions of e mployment

traditionally enjoyed by white em ployees; 5) restructuring of IKON’s workforce so that

African Americans are assigned to the clas sifications, locations and compensation levels

they would have now h eld in the absence of IKON’s past racial discrim ination; and 6)

damages, back-pay, and other equitabl

e rem edies necessary to m ake Class

Representatives and the class they seek to represent whol e from IKON’s past

discrimination and retaliation.

(f) Adequacy of Representation

88. The Class Representatives’ interes ts are co-ex tensive with those of the

members of the proposed class which they seek to represent in this case. The C lass

Representatives seek to remedy the racially hostile work environment at IKON so that all

employees can enjoy their right to w ork in an environment free of r acial discrimination.

The Class Representatives are willing and able to represent the propos ed class fairly and

vigorously as they pursue their sim ilar indi vidual claim s in this action. The Class

Representatives have retained counsel who are qualified, experienced and able to conduct

this litigation and m eet the tim e and fiscal demands required to litigate an em ployment

discrimination class action of this size an d com plexity. The co mbined interests,

experience and resources of the Class Repres entatives a nd their co unsel to litigate

21

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 22 of 48

competently the ind ividual and class claim s at issue in this case clearly satisfy the

adequacy of representation requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).

89. The interests of Class Representative s are coextensiv e with those of the

class in that each seek s to rem edy IKON’s discrim inatory employment practices so that

(1) racially hostile cond itions of work will be eradicated and African Americans will no

longer be consigned to lower paying positions and prevented from obtaining promotional

opportunities, and (2) retaliation against African Am

ericans em ployees will be

eradicated. Class Repre sentatives a re able and willing to r epresent the class f airly and

vigorously, as they pursue their common goals through this action. Plaintiffs’ counsel are

also qualified, experienced, and able to condu ct the litigation and to meet the tim e and

fiscal demands required to litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size

and com plexity. The com bined interest, experience and resources of Class

Representatives and their counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claim s

of race-based em ployment discrimination at issue, satisfy the adequacy of representation

requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

(f) Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Common Claims

90. Certification of a class of Af rican Am ericans s imilarly situ ated to C lass

Representatives is the most efficient and ec onomical means of resolving the questions of

law and fact common to the individual claims of the Class Representatives and the class.

91. The individual claim s of Class Repr esentatives require resolution of the

common qu estions of (1) whether IKON has e ngaged in a system ic pattern of racia l

discrimination, harassm ent and the im position of a hostile work env iroment against

African Americans; and (2) wh ether IKON has engaged in a pa ttern of retaliation against

22

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 23 of 48
African American employees who speak out in opposition of race discrimination. 92. Class Representatives seek rem edies to undo the adverse ef fects of such
discrimination in their own lives, career and working conditions and to prevent continued racial discrimination and retaliation in the future.
93. Class Representatives have standing to seek such relief (1) in part becau se of the adverse effect that racial discrimination against African Americans has had on their own interests in working and living in conditions free from the pernicious effects of racial bias and ho stility, and (2) in part because of th e adverse ef fect that retaliation ag ainst African Americans has had on their own interest in working and living in conditions free from the pernicious effects of re taliation. In order to gain such relief for them selves, as well as for the class m embers, Class Representatives must first establish the existence of systemic racial d iscrimination and retaliatio n as the p remise of the relief th ey s eek. Without class certification, th e same evidence and issues w ould be subject to repeated relitigation in a m ultitude of indiv idual lawsuits with an a ttendant r isk of incons istent adjudications and conflicting obligations.
94. Certification of the clas s of Af rican Am ericans affected by the comm on question of law and fact is the m ost effici ent and jud icious m eans of presentin g the evidence and argument necessary to resolve such questions for the Class Representatives, the class and the Defendant.
95. The individual and class claims of the Class Representatives are prem ised upon the traditional bifurcated m ethod of pr oof and trial for disparate im pact and systemic disparate treatment claims of the typ e at issue in this Clas s Complaint. Such a bifurcated m ethod of proof a nd trial is the most efficien t m ethod of resolving such
23

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 24 of 48
common issues. (g) Certification is Proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)
96. IKON has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by adopting and following systemic practices and procedures which are racially discriminatory.
97. IKON’s racial discrimination is its standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence. IKON has refuse d to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by refusing to adopt or follow sel ection and compensation procedures which do not have disparate im pact or otherw ise do no t systemically discriminate against African Americans and by refusing to establish condition s of work that are not hostile to African American employees who oppose the racial discrimination at IKON.
(h) Certification is Proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 98. The common issues of fact and la w affecting the claims of Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. W ayne Anderson, Mr. W ashington, Mr . Edward Anderson and proposed class members predom inate o ver any is sues affec ting only individual clai ms. These issues include whether IKON has enga ged in racial discrim ination against African Am ericans employed by Defendant in New York Stat e by denying such em ployees equal pay, promotion and advancem ent, and whether I KON has retaliated against these em ployees and tolerated an atm osphere of racist hosti lity and harassm ent against African American employees. 99. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claim s of the Class Re presentatives and m embers of the proposed class. 100. Because of the prohibitive cost of proving IKON’s pattern and practice of
24

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 25 of 48
discrimination, it is im practicable for the Clas s Representatives and the class to control the prosecution of their claims individually.
COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., AS AMENDED RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 101. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in e ach and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 102. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 103. Defendant have subjected the Class Representatives and the clas s to a racially hos tile work environm ent in violat ion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000(e), et seq. 104. Defendant have denied Class Repres entatives a nd m embers of the c lass their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination. 105. Defendant’s racially discrim inatory pr actices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasiv e to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolera ted, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environm ent, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action. 106. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct persisting throughout the em ployment of Class Representati ves and the m embers of the class, Class Representatives and the m embers of the class ar e entitled to applica tion of
25

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 26 of 48
the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein. 107. Defendant’s conduct in violation of T itle VII has injured and damaged the
Class Representatives and the class. 108. The Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and
continue to suffer harm , including, but not limited to, a w orking environm ent heavily charged with racial discrim ination, resulting largely from the ram pant racial harassment and the use of racial slu rs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management’s awareness of, pa rticipation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
109. By reason of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the c lass are en titled to all lega l and equi table rem edies available f or violations of Title VII, including an award for punitive damages.
110. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).
COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., AS AMENDED RACE DISCRIMINATION – PAY AND PROMOTION (African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 111. Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each an d every allegation con tained in each and ever y aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 112. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 113. Class Representatives and the clas s th ey seek to represent have been subject to system ic racial discrim ination including, but not lim ited to, a pattern and
26

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 27 of 48

practice of intentional discrim ination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate

impact on their em ployment opportunities. Th e system ic means of accom plishing such

racial discrim ination include, but are not lim ited to, IKON’s selection procedures, and

unequal terms and conditions of employment.

114. IKON’s selection and compensation pr ocedures incorporate the following

racially discrim inatory pr actices: 1) reliance upon subjec tive procedures and criteria

which permit and encourage the incorporation of racial s tereotypes and bias of IK ON’s

predominantly white m anagerial staf f; 2) ref usal to estab lish or f ollow polic ies,

procedures, or criteria th at reduce or elim inate disparate im pact and/or intentional racial

bias or stereotypes in IKON’s decision making process; 3) pr e-selection of whites before

vacancies o r opportunities b ecome known; and 4) d iscouragement of applications and

expressions of interest by African Am ericans through a reputation for racial bias, racially

hostile conditions of work, a nd unequal term s and conditions of em ployment in such

areas as work hours and position assignments.

115. IKON’s selection procedures have a disparate im pact on the African

American Plain tiffs and the clas s they repres ent. Such procedures are not valid, job

related or justified by business necessity. There are objective and structured selection and

compensation procedures available to IKON wh ich have less disparate impact on African

Americans and equal or greater validity a nd job relatedness, but IKON has refused to

consider or to use such procedures.

116. IKON’s selection procedures ha

ve adversely affected Class

Representatives by excluding Af rican Americans from traditionally white positions, and

denying Plaintiffs equal pay with white employees.

27

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 28 of 48
117. IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified discrim ination which constitutes a continuing violation of Ti tle VII of the Civil Ri ghts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., as amended.
118. Plaintiffs and the class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit for back-pay, an injunction for other equitable relief, and a declar atory judgm ent is their only means of se curing adequate equitable relief. The Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from IKON’s unlawful policie s and practices as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.
119. By reason of IKON’s discrim inatory employment practices, Plaintiffs and the m embers of the proposed class have e xperienced econom ic har m, including loss of compensation, back and front pay, other em ployment benefits, and emotional harm , anguish and humiliation.
120. By reason of the discrim ination suffered at IKON, Class Representatives and the m embers of the proposed class are en titled to all legal and equitable rem edies available under Title VII.
121. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).
COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), AS AMENDED RETALIATION
(African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 122. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though
28

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 29 of 48
fully set forth herein. 123. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 124. IKON has retaliated against Class Repr esentatives and the members of the
proposed class because they insisted upon a work environment free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination.
125. IKON has retaliated against Class Repr esentatives and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retali atory e mployment actio ns, including but not limited to, denying them prom otions for whic h they were qualified and subjecting the m to disparate term s and conditions of e mployment, race discrim ination, a hostile work environment and/or other forms of discrimination in violation of Title VII.
126. IKON’s actions were intentional, delib erate, willful, m alicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representative St. Clare Rosenberg, Class Representative W ayne Anderson, Class Representative Charles Washington, Class Representative E dward Anderson and the m embers of the proposed class.
127. IKON has continuously engaged i n, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing viola tion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S. C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended.
128. As a direct and proximate result of IKON’s aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives and the m embers of the proposed class were dam aged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
129. By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class are entitl ed to all legal and equitable remedies
29

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 30 of 48
available under Title VII. 130. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k). COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, AS AMENDED RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant 131. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each
and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
132. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 133. Defendant has subjected the Class Re presentatives and the class to a racially hostile work environment in violation of § 1981. 134. Defendant has denied Class Represen tatives a nd members of the class their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination. 135. Defendant’s racially discrim inatory pr actices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasiv e to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolera ted, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environm ent, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action. 136. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct persisting throughout the em ployment of Class Representati ves and the m embers of the class, Class Representatives and the m embers of the class ar e entitled to applica tion of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein. 137. Defendant’s conduct in violation of § 1981 has injured and dam aged the
30

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 31 of 48
Class Representatives and the class. 138. Class Representatives and the m embers of the class hav e suffered and
continue to suffer harm , including, but not limited to, a w orking environm ent heavily charged with racial discrim ination, resulting largely from the ram pant racial harassment and the use of racial slu rs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management’s awareness of, pa rticipation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
139. By reason of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the clas s are entitle d to all lega l and equ itable remedies available for violations of § 1981, including an award for punitive damages.
140. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).
COUNT V VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,
42 U.S.C. § 1981, AS AMENDED PAY AND PROMOTION
(African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 141. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 142. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 143. Defendant has denied Class Representa tives and members of the clas s the same right to m ake and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens em ployed by IKON, including rights involving the making, performance, modification and termination of contracts with Defendant, as well as the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, term s
31

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 32 of 48
and conditions of that relationship, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C § 1981, as amended.
144. In the em ployment practices descri bed above, Defendant intentionally engaged in discrim inatory practices with malice or with r eckless indif ference to the federally protected rights of Class Repr esentatives an d the clas s, entitling Class Representatives and the class to punitive damages.
145. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct persisting throughout the employment of Class Representatives and members of the class, Class Representative S t. Clare Rosenberg, Cl ass Representative Wayne Anderson, Class Representative Charles Washington, Class Representative Edwa rd Anderson and the class a re en titled to ap plication of the cont inuing violations doctrin e to all violations alleged herein.
146. Defendant’s conduct in violation of § 1981 has injured and damaged Class Representatives and the class.
147. Class Representatives and the clas s ha ve suffered and continue to suffer harm, including, but not lim ited to, lost earnings, lost benefits and other f inancial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress and mental anguish.
148. By reason of Defendant’s discrim ination, C lass Representatives and the class are entitled to all lega l and equitable rem edies available for violations of § 1981, including an award of punitive damages.
149. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under § 1981, et seq. COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, AS AMENDED
32

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 33 of 48
RETALIATION (African American Class Representatives and Class against Defendant) 150. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 151. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 152. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work environm ent free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination. 153. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory em ployment actions, including but not lim ited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate term s and condi tions of em ployment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment and/or other forms of discrimination in violation of §1981. 154. Defendant IKON’s actions were intenti onal, deliberate, willful, m alicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class. 155. Defendant IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing violation of §1981. 156. As a direct and proximate result of IKON’s aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class were dam aged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation. 157. By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class are entitl ed to all legal and equitable remedies
33

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 34 of 48
available under §1981. 158. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k). COUNT VII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. 1(a) RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
(African American Class Representatives and the Class against Defendant) 159. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each
and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
160. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 161. Defendant has subjected the Class Re presentatives and the class to a racially hostile work environm ent in viol ation of New York Executive Law § 296, subd. 1(a). 162. Defendant have denied Class Repres entatives a nd m embers of the c lass their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination. 163. Defendant’s racially discrim inatory pr actices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasiv e to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolera ted, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environm ent, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action. 164. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct persisting throughout the em ployment of Class Representati ves and the m embers of the class, Class Representatives and the m embers of the class ar e entitled to applica tion of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein.
34

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 35 of 48
165. Defendant’s conduct in violation of New Yor k Executive Law § 296, subd. 1(a) has injured and damaged the Class Representatives and the class.
166. Class Representatives and the m embers of the class hav e suffered and continue to suffer harm , including, but not limited to, a w orking environm ent heavily charged with racial discrim ination, resulting largely from the ram pant racial harassment and the use of racial slu rs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management’s awareness of, pa rticipation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
167. By reason of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the c lass are en titled to all lega l and equi table rem edies available f or violations of New York Executive Law § 296, subd. 1(a), including an award of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
COUNT VIII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK STATE
EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. 1(a) RACE DISCRIMINATION – PAY AND PROMOTION (African American Class Representatives and the Class against Defendant) 168. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 169. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 170. Class Representatives and the clas s th ey seek to represent have been subject to system ic racial discrim ination including, but not lim ited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrim ination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate impact on their em ployment opportunities. Th e system ic means of accom plishing such
35

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 36 of 48
racial discrim ination include, but are not lim ited to, IKON’s selection procedures, and unequal term s and con ditions of employ ment. By these actions, Defendant IKON has discriminated against th e Representative Plain tiffs and the Class in the term s, conditions or privileges of em ployment, thereby violating New York Executive L aw § 296, subd. 1(a).
171. Defendant IKON’s selection and compensation procedures incorporate the following racially discrim inatory practices: 1 ) relian ce upo n subjective procedures and criteria which perm it and encourag e the inco rporation of racial stereotypes and bias of IKON’s predominantly white m anagerial staff; 2) refusal to establish or follow policies, procedures, or criteria th at reduce or elim inate disparate im pact and/or intentional racial bias or stereotypes in IKON’s decision making process; 3) pr e-selection of whites before vacancies o r opportunities b ecome known; and 4) d iscouragement of applications and expressions of interest by African Am ericans through a reputation for racial bias, racially hostile conditions of work, a nd unequal term s and conditions of em ployment in such areas as work hours and position assignments.
172. Defendant IKON’s selection procedures have a disparate im pact on the African American Plain tiffs and the class they represent. Such procedures are not valid, job related or justified by business necessity. There are objective and structured selection and com pensation procedures available to IKON which have less disparate im pact on African Americans and equal or greater validity and job rela tedness, but IKON has refused to consider or to use such procedures.
173. Defendant IKON’s selection procedures have adversely affected Class Representatives by excluding Af rican Americans from traditionally white positions, and
36

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 37 of 48
denying Class Representatives equal pay with white employees. 174. Defendant IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified
discrimination which c onstitutes a continu ing viola tion of New York Executive Law § 296, subd. 1(a).
175. Class Representatives have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and th is suit for back-pay, an injunction other equitable relief, and a declar atory judgm ent is their only means of se curing adequate equitable relief. The Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from IKON’s unlawful policie s and practices as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.
176. By reason of IKON’s discrim inatory em ployment practices, Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class have experienced economic harm, including loss of com pensation, back and fr ont pay, other em ployment benefits, and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
177. By reason of the discrim ination suffe red at IKON, Class Representative St. Clare Rosenberg, Class Representative Wayne Ande rson, Class Representative Charles W ashington, Class Representative Ed ward Anderson and the m embers of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York Executive Law, including attorneys’ fees.
COUNT IX VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW § 296, subd. 1(a)
RETALIATION (African American Class Representatives against Defendant)
37

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 38 of 48
178. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
179. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and the class. 180. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work environm ent free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination. 181. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory em ployment actions, including but not lim ited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate term s and condi tions of em ployment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment and/or other form s of discrimination in violation of New York Executive Law. 182. Defendant IKON’s actions were intenti onal, deliberate, willful, m alicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class. 183. Defendant IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing viol ation of New York Exec utive Law § 296, subd. 1(a). 184. As a direct and proximate result of IKON’s aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class were dam aged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation. 185. By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, Class Representatives and
38

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 39 of 48
the m embers of the pr oposed class are entitl ed to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York Executive Law, including attorneys’ fees.
COUNT X VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. 1(a) RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (Asserted on behalf of IKON’s African American employees who worked in Defendant’s New York City Facilities) 186. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 187. This Count is brought on behalf of th e Class Representatives and the class of Defendant IKON’s past, current and future African American employees employed by IKON in the City of New York. 188. Defendant has subjected the Class Re presentatives and the class to a racially hostile work environm ent in violation of New York City Administrative C ode § 8-107, subd. 1(a). 189. Defendant has denied Class Represen tatives a nd members of the class their personal right to work in an environment free of racial discrimination. 190. Defendant’s racially discrim inatory pr actices have been, and continue to be, sufficiently severe or pervasiv e to create an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and abusive, and the Defendant has tolera ted, condoned, ratified and/or engaged in the hostile work environm ent, or, in the alternative, knew, or should have known, of its existence and failed to take remedial action. 191. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct
39

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 40 of 48
persistent throughout the em ployment of Cla ss Representatives and the m embers of the class, Class Representatives and the m embers of the class ar e entitled to applica tion of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations herein.
192. Defendant’s conduct in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd. 1(a) has injured and damaged the Class Representatives and the class.
193. Class Representatives and the m embers of the class hav e suffered and continue to suffer harm , including, but not limited to, a w orking environm ent heavily charged with racial discrim ination, resulting largely from the ram pant racial harassment and the use of racial slu rs, epithets and stereotypes, displaying of racist photographs, and management’s awareness of, pa rticipation in and/or lack of response to the hostile working conditions.
194. By reason of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Class Representatives and the c lass are en titled to all lega l and equi table rem edies available f or violations of New York City Adm inistrative Code § 8- 107, subd. 1(a), including an award of punitiv e damages and attorneys’ fees.
COUNT XI VIOLATIONS OF N.Y.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. 1(a)
PAY AND PROMOTION (Asserted on behalf of IKON’s African American employees
who worked in Defendant’s New York City Facilities) 195. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 196. This Count is brought on behalf of th e Class Representatives and the class of Defendant IKON’s past, current and future African American employees employed by
40

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 41 of 48
IKON in the City of New York. 197. Class Representatives and the clas s th ey seek to represent have been
subject to system ic racial discrim ination including, but not lim ited to, a pattern and practice of intentional discrim ination and a host of practices having unlawful disparate impact on their em ployment opportunities. Th e system ic means of accom plishing such racial discrim ination include, but are not lim ited to, IKON’s selection procedures, and unequal term s and con ditions of employ ment. By these actions, Defendant IKON has discriminated against th e Representative Plain tiffs and the Class in the term s, conditions or privileges of e mployment, thereby violating New York City Adm inistrative Code § 8107, subd. 1(a).
198. Defendant IKON’s selection and compensation procedures incorporate the following racially discrim inatory practices: 1 ) relian ce upo n subjective procedures and criteria which perm it and encourag e the inco rporation of racial stereotypes and bias of IKON’s predominantly white m anagerial staff; 2) refusal to establish or follow policies, procedures, or criteria th at reduce or elim inate disparate im pact and/or intentional racial bias or stereotypes in IKON’s decision making process; 3) pr e-selection of whites before vacancies o r opportunities b ecome known; and 4) d iscouragement of applications and expressions of interest by African Am ericans through a reputation for racial bias, racially hostile conditions of work, a nd unequal term s and conditions of em ployment in such areas as work hours and position assignments.
199. Defendant IKON’s selection procedures have a disparate im pact on the African American Plain tiffs and the class they represent. Such procedures are not valid, job related or justified by business necessity. There are objective and s tructured selection
41

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 42 of 48
and com pensation procedures available to IKON which have less disparate im pact on African Americans and equal or greater validity and job rela tedness, but IKON has refused to consider or to use such procedures.
200. Defendant IKON’s selection procedures have adversely affected Class Representatives by excluding Af rican Americans from traditionally white positions, and denying Class Representatives equal pay with white employees.
201. Defendant IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified discrimination which constitutes a continuing violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 subd. 1(a). IKON’s discrim inatory conduct has been deliberate, w anton and willful. The Representa tive Plaintiffs and the cla ss of IKON’s New York City employees are therefore entitled to rec over co mpensatory and punitiv e dam ages under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-502, subd. 1(a).
202. Class Representatives have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and th is suit for back-pay, an injunction other equitable relief, and a declar atory judgm ent is their only means of se curing adequate equitable relief. The Class Representatives are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from IKON’s unlawful policie s and practices as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.
203. By reason of IKON’s discrim inatory em ployment practices, Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class have experienced economic harm, including loss of com pensation, back and fr ont pay, other em ployment benefits, and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
204. By reason of the discrim ination suffe red at IKON, Class Representative
42

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 43 of 48
St. Clare Rosenberg, Class Representative Wayne Ande rson, Class Representative Charles W ashington, Class Representative Ed ward Anderson and the m embers of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd. 1(a), including attorneys’ fees.
COUNT XII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107, subd. 1(a)
RETALIATION (Asserted on behalf of IKON’s African American employees
who worked in Defendant’s New York City Facilities) 205. Plaintiff-Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforem entioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 206. This Count is brought on behalf of th e Class Representatives and the class of Defendant IKON’s past, current and future African American employees employed by IKON in the City of New York. 207. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class because they insisted upon a work environm ent free of race discrimination and/or because they complained about race discrimination. 208. Defendant IKON has r etaliated agai nst Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class by subjecting them to retaliatory em ployment actions, including but not lim ited to, denying them promotions for which they were qualified and subjecting them to disparate term s and condi tions of em ployment, race discrimination, a hostile work environment and/or other form s of discrimination in violation of New York City Administrative Code.
43

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 44 of 48
209. Defendant IKON’s actions were intenti onal, deliberate, willful, m alicious, reckless and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Class Representatives and the members of the proposed class.
210. Defendant IKON has c ontinuously engaged in, condoned and ratified retaliation which construes a continuing violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, subd. 1(a).
211. As a direct and proximate result of IKON’s aforementioned conduct, Class Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class were dam aged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm, anguish and humiliation.
212. By reason of the retaliation suffered at IKON, C lass Representatives and the m embers of the pr oposed class are entitl ed to all legal and equitable remedies available under New York City Administrative Code, including attorneys’ fees.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Class Representatives on behalf of them selves and the
class members whom they seek to represent request the following relief: a. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; b. Certification of the case as a class action m aintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Ru le 23 (a), (b)(2 ) and /or (b )(3), on behalf of the proposed pl aintiff class, and designa tion of Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and their counsel of record as class counsel; c. A Declaration and Judg ment that Defendant IKON has v iolated Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VII;
44

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 45 of 48
d. A temporary injunction against Defendant IKO N and its partners, officers, owners, agents , successors, em ployees, re presentatives and any and all persons acting in concert w ith it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, cus toms, usages, racial discrim ination and retaliation by defendant set forth herein; e. A permanent injunction against Defendant IKON and its partners, officers, owners, agents , successors, em ployees, re presentatives and any and all persons acting in concert w ith it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, cus toms, usages, racial discrim ination and retaliation by defendant set forth herein; e. An Order requiring Defendant to initiate and implem ent programs that (i) provide equal em ployment opportunities for African Am erican employees; (ii) rem edy the effect of IKON’s past and present unlawful employment practices ; and (iii) elim inate the continu ing effects of t he discriminatory and retaliatory practices described above; f. An Order requiring Defendant to initiate and implement systems of assigning, training, tran sferring, com pensating, and prom oting African American employees in a non-discriminatory manner; g. An Order establishing a task fo rce on equality and fairness to determine the effectiveness of the program s described in (e) and (f) , above, which would provide for (i) the m onitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal em ployment opportunity, (ii) the assurance that injun ctive relief is properly implem ented, and (iii) a
45

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 46 of 48

quarterly report setting forth informati on relevant to the determ ination of

the effectiveness of the programs described in (e) and (f), above;

h. An Order restoring Class Repr esentative St. Clare Rosenberg,

Class Representative Wayne Anders on, Class Representative Charles

Washington, Class Representative E dward Anderson and the class they

seek to represent to those jobs they would now be occupying but for

IKON’s discriminatory practices;

i. An Order directing IKON to adjust the wage rates and benefits for

Class Representative St. Clare Rose nberg, Class Representative W ayne

Anderson, Class Representative Charles Washington, Class Representative

Edward Anderson and the class they seek to represent to the level that they

would be enjoying but for IKON’s discriminatory practices;

j. An award of back pay; front pay; lost job b enefits; pr eferential

rights to jobs, and other equitable re lief for Mr. St. Clare Rosenberg, Mr.

Wayne Anderson, Mr. Charles Washington, Mr. Edward Anderson and the

class they seek to represent;

k. An award of compensatory damages in an am ount not less than 50

million dollars;

l. Punitive dam ages unde r Counts X, XI and XII in the sum of 50

million dollars on behalf of all past, current and future IKON em ployees

employed by IKON in the city of New York;

m.

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and

46

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 47 of 48

n.

Such other and further relief as the Court m ay deem just and

proper.

VIII. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs and the class demand a trial by jury of all issues.

Dated: August 3, 2006

SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
By: S/___________________________________ Jeremy Heisler, JH-0145 Steven L. Wittels, SLW-8110 SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 Facsimile: (646) 723-2948
David W. Sanford, D.C. Bar No. 457933 SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 742-7777 Fax: (202) 742-7776
Grant Morris, D.C. Bar No. 926253 LAW OFFICES OF GRANT E. MORRIS 1666 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 742-7777 Fax: (202) 742-7776 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

47

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 48 of 48

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JEREMY HEISLER, an attorney duly admitted in this court, hereby certify and
say: I have caused to be served by First Class U.S. Mail on August 3, 2006 a true and
correct cop y of the First Am ended Class Action Com plaint by First Class U.S. Mail,
postage pre-paid, correctly addressed to the following:

Tamsin Newman, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Attorneys for Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc.

Date: New York, New York August 3, 2006
_S/____________________________

JEREMY HEISLER

48

 
 Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 26 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 2

IN THE lJNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE SOUTHER'.I DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDSSDNY
DOCUMENT

ST,CLARE ROSENBERG, WAYNE

)

ANDERSON, CHARLES

)

WASHINGTON,andEDWARD

)

ELECI'B.ONICALLY FILED
~DOTCBtIF: ILBD":"--:-=D':'::Cj'"'3'"'O-.-

ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf )

of a class of an other persons similarly }

situated,

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-9131 (PAC)

Plaintiffs,

) ) District Judge; Honorable Paul A. Crotty

v.

)

)

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

• ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CLASS SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, this matter having been opened to the Court by plaintiff ST. CLARE ROSENBERG, BT AL., by SANFORD, WIITBLS, &; HEISLER, LLP, counsel for plaintiff and the class. by application for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the above captioned class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which.
together with the settlement agreement and appendices annexed thereto sets forth the tenus and
conditions for a proposed settlement of the Action; and the Defendant IKON OFFICE
SOLUTIONS, INC. (hereafter "IKON'1 having appeared by its counsel, MORGAN, LEWIS &;
BOCKIUS LLP and joined in the application;

WHEREAS, the parties and their attorneys have entered into a Settlement Agreement (hereafter
"Settlement Agreement") as revised and submitted to the Court dated October 18. 2007. in which the parties have agreed upon a settlement of the Action~ subject to the fmal approval of
the Court as to the fairness. reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement which" if approved at a fairness hearing. will result in dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

NOWI THEREFORE. upon reviewing the Settlement Agreement, including the appendices attached thereto, and upon reviewing all prior proceedings herein, and upon application of the parties based on the reoord.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement and to show cause. if any exists. why a final judgment dismissing the Action and all Released Claims and awarding compensation to Class Counsel. should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Class and after a hearing on final approval.
2. The Class is preliminarily certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement as follows: All African-American individnals employed by IKON Office SoluttOtlS. Inc. between January 1, 2001 and December 31.2005

Case 1:05-cv-09131-PAC Document 26 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2

in the Legal Documents Services ("LDS") Qr IKON Management Services ("IMS") business units in New York State.
3. A hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") shaU be held before this Court on January 22, 2008 at 2:45 p.m., .t the United SIlI!e. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Str..~ New York, NY 10007, befure the Honorable- Paul A. Crotty, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); and whether the
Judgment as provided in the Settlement should be entered herein.
4. The Court approves, as to form and manner of ootice. the }iotice of Settlement (the "Notice"} and the Claim Fonnj annexed to the Settlement Agreement. Consistent with Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c), thc Notice will inclode:
a) the Settlement Agreement's provisions that a class member may request ~clusion from the monetary relief of the settlement within thirty (30) days after the date Notice
was mailed.
b) a provision providing that a class member may object to the proposed settlement. the plan of allocation. attorneys' fees. or service payments within thirty (30) days after the date Notice was mailed, c) a provision that, In order to receive payments and 10 be bound by the Settlement and associated release of claims, a class member must return the claim fonn to the claims administrator within thirty (30) da)/S after the date Notice and the claim form were mailed, d) a provision that the class member may enter an appearance through counsel, e) that the class judgment will have a binding effect on class members, and f) the date, time, and location of the Fairness Hearing, which will be held after the period for class members to object or opt-OUL The parties are directed to mail sucb Notice and Claim Form to the Class within thirty (30) days after the Court enters this Order.
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(0) and (b), no later than ten (10) business days from October 18, 2007, IKON ,boll serve upon the United States Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530'()OOI, and the New York Attorney General, 120 Broadway, New York City, NY J0271-0332, notice of the proposed class action settlement nod the materials listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). IKON sball provide both the Court and plaintiff,' counsel with proof ofsuch service.
6. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date ofthc Fairness Hearing without further notice to the Class Members; and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising
out of or connected with the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court may approve the Settlement Agreement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by the settling parties, if
appropriate. without further notice to the Class.
7, As. of the date hereof, all discovery and other proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order ofthis Court, ~cept as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.
ITlss0t7~

Hon. Paul A. Crotty UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2t , Dated: October 2007

2

 
 CLOSED, ECF
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−09131−PAC

Rosenberg et al v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Paul A. Crotty Demand: $9,999,000 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff St. Clare Rosenberg individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Wayne Anderson individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Edward Anderson Individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated

Date Filed: 10/26/2005 Date Terminated: 05/11/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jeremy Heisler Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York , NY 10022 (646) 723−2947 Fax: (646) 723−2948 Email: jeremy.heisler@verizon.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lance Wittels Sanford, Wittels &Heisler, LLP 545 Fifth Avenue Suite 960 New York , NY 10017 (646) 723−2947 Fax: (646) 723−2948 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Sanford Sanford, Wittels &Heisler, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, North West Suite 310 Washington , DC 20009 (202) 742−7777 Fax: (202) 742−7776
represented by Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lance Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Sanford (See above for address)
represented by Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charles Washington

David Sanford (See above for address)
Steven Lance Wittels Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York , NY 10022 (646)723−2947 Fax: (646)723−2948 Email: swittels@nydclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Sanford (See above for address)
Steven Lance Wittels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc.

represented by Michael Jonathan Puma Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York , NY 10178 (212) 309−6000 Fax: (212) 309−6273 Email: mpuma@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa J. Chung Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP (Philadelphia) 1701 Market Street Philadelphia , PA 19103 (215) 963−5584 Fax: (215) 963−5001 Email: tchung@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/26/2005
10/26/2005 10/26/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against IKON Office Solutions, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 250.00, Receipt Number 559520)Document filed by St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson.(kco, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/27/2005 (lb, ). (Entered: 10/27/2005)

SUMMONS ISSUED as to IKON Office Solutions, Inc.. (kco, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (kco, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

10/26/2005 02/02/2006 02/07/2006 02/10/2006 03/30/2006 08/03/2006 12/08/2006
05/11/2007 06/06/2007
07/10/2007 07/23/2007

Case Designated ECF. (kco, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
2 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Crotty from Jeremy Heisler dated 02/01/2006 re: The parties request a stay until 03/31/2006. ENDORSEMENT: The Court is prepared to enter a stay upon either proof of service on defendants or an explanation of why service has not been made. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 02/02/2006) (mov, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Letter to The Honorable Paul A. Crotty Requesting Stay of Proceedings served on IKON Office Solutions, Inc. on 02/01/06. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by St. Clare Rosenberg. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. served on 2/10/2006, answer due 3/2/2006. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by St. Clare Rosenberg. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
5 JOINT STIPULATION: It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the defendant agrees to accept service of plaintiff's complaint effective 2/16/2006, provided that defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint is stayed during the pendency of the parties' ongoing settlement discussions... (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 3/28/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against IKON Office Solutions, Inc.Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by Wayne Anderson, St. Clare Rosenberg.(jco, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/11/2006 (jco, ). (Entered: 08/11/2006)
7 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER the parties agree to engage in settlement discussions on an expedited basis, and that such discussions will conculde within ninety (90)days of the date that this joint Stipulation is approved by the Court ("Settlement End Date"). In the event that settlement is not reached on or before the Settlement End Date, the stay entered on March 31,2006 (Docket No. 5) will be lifted on that date, and IKON will answer, move or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint within ninety (90) days after the Settlement End Date. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 12/8/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
8 ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE: this action is discontinued, without costs to either party. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 5/11/07) (db) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
9 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Michael S. Burkhardt dated 6/6/2007 re: to IKON hereby requests an extension of thirty (30) days from the date set forth in the Order to consummate settlement. The parties expert that the settlement agreement will finalized for Your Honor's approval on or before July 11, 2007. ENDORSEMENT: IKON hereby requests an extension of thirty (30) days from the date set forth in the Order to consummate settlement. Application GRANTED SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 6/6/2007) (jmi) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
10 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Jeremy Heisler dated 7/9/2007 re: request that the Court extend the deadline for the parties to comsumate the settlement an additional twelve (12) days, until 7/23/2007. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on Paul A. Crotty) (jar) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Jonathan Puma on behalf of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/24/2007 07/24/2007
07/25/2007
07/26/2007 07/26/2007 08/20/2007 08/23/2007 08/26/2007
08/28/2007 09/05/2007
09/05/2007 09/12/2007

12 STATUS REPORT. Letter to Judge re settlement documents Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson.(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
13 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Crotty from Jeremy Heisler, Esq dated 07/24/2007 re: extension to file settlement agreement and related documents with the Court no later than tomorrow, July 25, 2007.. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 07/24/2007) (mov) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
14 JOINT MOTION for Hearing regarding Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement# 2 Exhibit Claim Form# 3 Exhibit Notice# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Jonathan Puma on behalf of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
16 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson.(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
Calendar Entry (set via e−mail by Chambers − Marlon Ovalles − C.R.D): Preliminary Fairness Hearing set for 8/27/2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (mov) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Jonathan Puma on behalf of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
Calendar Update (CANCELLATION): Preliminary Fairness Hearing previously set for Monday, August 27, 2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty is CANCELLED. All counsel will be contacted via e−mail by Marlon Ovalles, Courtroom Deputy, with a new date for the Hearing. Please contact Judge Crottys Individual Practices (www.nysd.uscourts.gov) for communications with Chambers (− Marlon Ovalles − C.R.D). (Entered: 08/26/2007)
Calendar Entry: (reset via e−mail by Chambers − Marlon Ovalles − C.R.D): Preliminary Fairness Hearing set for 9/5/2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (mov) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Crotty : Plaintiffs additional briefing on the settlement due by Monday, September 10, 2007. A response by defendant due by Friday, September 14, 2007. The next conference will take place on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. See transcript for complete details of this proceeding (Court Reporter − Denise Richards). Visit Judge Crottys Individual Practices with respect to communications with Chambers. Preliminary Fairness Hearing held on 9/5/2007. (mov) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/19/2007 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (mov) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
18 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Crotty from Jeremy Heisler dated 09/10/2007 re: until 09/24/2007 to submit further papers in support of preliminary approival... ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. Defendant's response by 09/28/2007.

09/14/2007 09/24/2007 09/26/2007 10/01/2007 10/03/2007 10/04/2007
10/11/2007 10/18/2007
10/23/2007 10/25/2007 10/29/2007

Conference on Thurs 10/04/2007 at 3:00 p.m. So ordered.Status Conference set for 10/4/2007 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (mov) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
Calendar Entry (set via e−mail by Chambers − Marlon Ovalles − CRD): 10/04/2007 conference adjourned to 10/11/2007 at 01:45 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's 09/24/2007 submission due on 10/02/2007. (mov) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
Calendar Entry (Re−set via e−mail by Chambers − Marlon Oalles − CRD): Preliminary Fairness Hearing set for 10/18/2007 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty not 10/11/2007. (mov) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
19 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Jeremy Heisler dated 9/24/07 re: counsel for plaintiffs request until 10/3/07 to submit further papers in support of preliminary approval and until 10/11/07 for dft to reply to plaintiff's supplemental papers. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/26/07) (dle) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
20 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Theresa J. Chung on behalf of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (Chung, Theresa) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
21 BRIEF re: 16 Settlement Agreement. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Letter# 2 Declaration# 3 Affidavit # 4 Affidavit # 5 Affidavit # 6 Declaration# 7 Certificate of Service)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
22 BRIEF re: 21 Brief, providing supplementary material regarding the revised proposed settlement agreement. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of St. Clare Rosenberg# 2 Affidavit of Wayne Anderson# 3 Declaration of Charles Washington# 4 Revised Proposed Settlement Agreement# 5 Proposed Notice of Settlement# 6 Claim Form)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
23 BRIEF re: 21 Brief, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum. Document filed by IKON Office Solutions, Inc..(Chung, Theresa) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Crotty: Preliminary Settlement approved. Counsel shall meet and confer and resubmit a proposed order. The final approval hearing will go forward on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 2:45 p.m in Courtroom 20−C. See transcript for complete details of this proceeding. Court Reporter Pamela Utter. Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing held on 10/18/2007. Final Settlement Approval Hearing set for 1/22/2008 at 02:45 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (mov) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
24 MOTION for David Sanford to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (jco) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 24 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 10/23/2007, Receipt Number 630951. (jd) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for David W. Sanford to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 10/29/07) (cd) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

10/29/2007 10/30/2007
01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008

Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 25 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (cd) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
26 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CLASS SETTLEMENT: the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as being fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to the right of any Class member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a final judgment dimissing the Action and all Released Claims and awarding compensation to Class Counsel, should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Class and after a hearing on final approval as further set forth in said Order. A "Fairness Hearing" shall be held before this Curt on 1/22/08 at 2:45 p.m. in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 10/29/07) (db) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
27 FILING ERROR − WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − NOTICE of of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Related Relief. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 1/18/2008 (kco). (Entered: 01/17/2008)
28 FILING ERROR − WRONG PDF FILE ASSOCIATED WITH DOCKET ENTRY − FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. Return Date set for 1/22/2008 at 02:45 PM.(Wittels, Steven) Modified on 1/18/2008 (kco). (Entered: 01/17/2008)
29 FILING ERROR − WRONG PDF FILE ASSOCIATED WITH DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Claims Administrator Cathy Dales in Support re: 28 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 1/18/2008 (kco). (Entered: 01/17/2008)
30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. Return Date set for 1/22/2008 at 02:45 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
31 DECLARATION of David Sanford and Jeremy Heisler in Support re: 30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Exhibit E−J)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
32 FILING ERROR − WRONG PDF FILE ASSOCIATED WITH DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Cathy Dales in Support re: 30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 1/18/2008 (kco). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
33 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
34 FILING ERROR − WRONG PDF FILE ASSOCIATED WITH DOCKET ENTRY −DECLARATION of Claims Administrator

01/18/2008 01/22/2008
01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/30/2008

Cathy Dales in Support re: 30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 1/29/2008 (kco). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
35 DECLARATION of Claims Administrator Kathy Dales in Support re: 30 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
36 JUDGMENT #08,0097 in favor of St. Clare Rosenberg against IKON Office Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $ 60,000.00; in favor of Wayne Anderson against IKON Office Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $ 40,000.00; in favor of Charles Washington against IKON Office Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $ 30,000.00; in favor of Edward Anderson against IKON Office Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $ 45,000.00; and in favor of Settlement Class Counsel against IKON Office Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $ 399,983.81 for attorneys' fees and $36,516.19 for costs. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 1/22/08) (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL)(ml) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
37 LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Theresa J. Chung dated 11/6/07 re: Counsel for Defendant enclose with this letter FedEx receipts confirming the delivery of CAFA notices to the U.S. State Attorney General and the New York Attorney General. Document filed by IKON Office Solutions, Inc.(tro) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
38 LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Jeremy Heisler dated 1/17/08 re: Plaintiffs hereby submit by ECF their Motion in Support of Final Approval of the class action settlement and related relief. In conformity with the Settlement Agreement, counsel separately filed the Declaration of Claims Administrator regarding regularity of mailing. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson.(tro) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
39 LETTER (DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (FAX)) addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Theresa J. Chung dated 11/6/07 re: Counsel for Defendant enclose with this letter FedEx receipts confirming the delivery of CAFA notices to the U.S. State Attorney General and the New York Attorney General. Document filed by IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Document filed by Edward Anderson, Charles Washington, St. Clare Rosenberg, Wayne Anderson.(tro) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
40 LETTER addressed to United States Atty General and New York General from Theresa J. Chung dated 10/31/07 re: Defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc provides this updated notice of a proposed settlement in the above captioned class action purs to the Class Action Fairness of 2005. Document filed by IKON Office Solutions, Inc.(djc) (Entered: 02/04/2008)