IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS

)

CORPORATION OF DELAWARE,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to Gregory Stillman and other African-American individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") alleges that Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware ("Consolidated") subjected Gregory Stillman, an African-American, and other African-Americans to a work environment made hostile by racial intimidation, assaults, threats, and harassment from co-workers. The Commission further alleges that Consolidated knew about but did nothing to stop the racial harassment, and that it disciplined Stillman for complaining about the harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Consolidated has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Missouri and the City of Kansas City and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Consolidated has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Gregory Stillman filed a charge with the Commission alleging that Defendant had violated Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least January 1, 1997, Consolidated has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Kansas City, Missouri site, in violation of Sections 703 and 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and 3.
(a) While employing Stillman and other African-American individuals to work in its loading dock in Kansas City, Missouri, Consolidated subjected them to racial harassment, assaults, threats and intimidation from co-workers. Consolidated did not effectively stop the harassment when Stillman and the others made Consolidated aware of the harassment.
(b) Consolidated retaliated against Stillman by disciplining him because he reported the racial harassment and hostile environment.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Stillman and other African-American individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Stillman and other similarly situated individuals.
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Consolidated, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in racial harassment and intimidation and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Consolidated to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for African-Americans and that eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Consolidated to make whole Stillman and other African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement of Stillman and all similarly situated individuals. D. Order Consolidated to make whole Stillman and other African-American individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Consolidated to make whole Stillman and other African-American individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

F. Order Consolidated to pay Stillman and other African-American individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. Respectfully submitted, C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
/s/ Robert G. Johnson ROBERT G. JOHNSON Regional Attorney
/s/ Barbara A. Seely BARBARA A. SEELY Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Jan Shelly JAN SHELLY Senior Trial Attorney 5

/s/ Anne Gusewelle ANNE GUSEWELLE Trial Attorney
/s/ Andrea Baran ANDREA BARAN Local Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7918
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
GREGORY STILLMAN,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4-02-00519-DW ) ) Request for Jury Trial ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff hereby brings this action against Defendant for the following reasons:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Leavenworth, Kansas.

2. Defendant is a foreign corporation transacting business in the State of Missouri, and

specifically in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.

3. Plaintiff asserts these claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as

amended in 1991, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 et seq., the Missouri Human Rights Act

at §213.010 et seq. of the Missouri Revised Statutes, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871,

as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the Court’s pendent jurisdiction.

4. Venue is proper because Defendant resides in the Western District of Missouri within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and © and because the discriminatory actions occurred in Jackson County, Missouri in the Western District of Missouri.
5. Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging that Defendant engaged in the discriminatory actions that are being raised in this lawsuit, or alternatively, the allegations of Plaintiff’s lawsuit would have arisen from the investigation of Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.
6. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the bringing of this claim and has duly exhausted all administrative procedures in accordance with the law prior to instituting this lawsuit. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
7. Plaintiff-Intervenor Stillman, an African-American male was employed by Defendant in 1999 until his termination in August 2001.
8. While employed with Defendant, initially as a non-management employee, and later as a management employee in Defendant’s loading dock in Kansas City, Stillman was subjected to racial harassment, assaults, threats, intimidation from co-workers and management employees.
9. Defendant’s management employees failed to effectively stop the harassment or engage in conduct geared to stopping the harassment when Stillman made Defendant aware of the harassment.
10. Defendant failed to pay Mr. Stillman timely and suspended his pay because of Mr.

Stillman’s race. 11. Mr. Stillman engaged in protected activities of complaining about the racial harassment,
racial slurs, threats, assaults, etc. to both Defendant’s management and in 2000 by filing a charge of discrimination. 12. Defendant retaliated against Stillmanby delayinghis pay, reprimanding and terminating him because of his complaints. 13. Defendant’s unlawful acts were intentional. 14. Defendant’s unlawful acts were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Stillman.
COUNT I RACE DISCRIMINATION, RACIAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION
PURSUANT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED IN 1991
15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-14 into Count I of his Complaint.
16. As a direct result of the discriminatory and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer and sustain damages, including but not limited to loss of past and future wages and benefits, incurring medical bills, extreme emotional distress, humiliation and suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental anguish, a detrimental employment record, and other non-pecuniary losses.
17. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all of her costs, expenses, expert witness fees, and attorneys’
3

fees incurred in this matter as well as other appropriate equitable relief. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment against Defendant for actualdamages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, all costs, expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees incurred herein, reinstatement, appropriate equitable relief, for interest at the highest lawful rate, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-17 into Count II of her Complaint. 19. Defendant’s actions as alleged in Count I also constitute violations of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055. 20. As a direct result of the discriminatory and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer and sustain damages, including but not limited to loss of past and future wages and benefits, emotional distress, humiliation and suffering, mental anguish, a detrimental employment record, and other non-pecuniary losses. 21. The conduct of Defendant, through its employees and agents, was intentional, malicious, in conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and reflected a conscious indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. 22. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all of her costs, expenses, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter as well as other appropriate equitable relief.
4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment against Defendant for actualdamages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, all costs, expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees incurred herein, reinstatement, appropriate equitable relief, for interest at the highest lawful rate, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF SECTION 1981 23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates those allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 into
Count III of his Complaint. 24. Defendant terminated Plaintiff from his position because of his race. 25. As a direct result of the discriminatory and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has been
caused to suffer and sustain damages, including but not limited to loss of past and future wages and benefits, emotional distress, humiliation and suffering, mental anguish, a detrimental employment record, and other non-pecuniary losses. 26. Defendant’s conduct was willful and malicious, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment against Defendant for actualdamages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, all costs, expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees incurred herein, reinstatement, appropriate equitable relief, for interest at the highest lawful rate, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all Counts and all allegations contained herein.
5

BRATCHER & GOCKEL, L.C.
By: /s/Lynne Jaben Bratcher Lynne Jaben Bratcher, Mo. Bar #: 31203 Marie L. Gockel, Mo. Bar #: 31208 1610 City Center Square 1100 Main Street P.O. Box 26156 Kansas City, MO 64196-6156 PH: (816) 221-1614 FAX: (816) 421-5910
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby states that on this 6th day of June, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed and mailed to:
Jan Shelly Equal Employment Opportunity Commission St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Building 1222 Spruce, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103
s/Lynne Jaben Bratcher ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

and

)

)

RODNEY BOSTON,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor

)

)

v.

)

)

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS

)

CORPORATION OF DELAWARE

)

)

SERVE REGISTERED AGENT:

)

Prentice Hall Court System, Inc.

)

222 E. Dunklin Street

)

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 4-02-00519-DW Request for Jury Trial

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Rodney Boston, by and through his attorneys, DeSimone Pearson, LC,

and complains of Defendant, Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware (“Consolidate d

Freightways” or Defendant) as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action to remedy violations of Title VII of the Civil RightAs ct of 1964,

as amended by the Civil Rights of 1991, to remedy violations of 42 U.S. C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. §

1981A providing for the equal rights of all persons in every state and territory within the jurisdictionof the

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

United States, and to remedy violations of state statutory law based upon thependant jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the state law claims in Count II is founded upon the pendant or supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 38 U.S. 715 (1966) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. Plaintiff is an African-American male and a resident of Lee’s Summit, Missouri. Venueof this action lies in the WesternDistrict of Missouri pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. 1391.
4. Defendant, Consolidated Freightways, is a corporationorganized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware and qualified to do business in the state of Missouri.
5. Consolidated Freightways is a “person” within the meaning of Section 701 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
6. Plaintiff has complied with the administrative prerequisites by timely filing a chargoef employment discrimination on the basis of race with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (teh “Missouri Commission”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Background Facts 7. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Consolidated Freightways, Defendant has engaged in or allowed racial discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff and other African American employees have been subjected to humiliation, embarrassment and derision in the workplace based on their race. 9. During the course of employment, Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of race.

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

2

10. Consolidated Freightways never took any effective action to address the raciall y

discriminatory conduct by members of Consolidated Freightways management and Consolidate d

Freightways employees.

11. On information and belief,Consolidated engaged in other racially discriminatory practices

toward other employees of Consolidated Freightways.

12. Consolidated Freightways and its officers, directors and other managerial agents eithre

knew or should have known of the racial discriminatory conduct and practices, reputation and history of

racial discrimination, and either knew or should have known of the racial discrimination against Plaint.iff

Despite such knowledge, Consolidated Freightways took no effective actionto stop such conduct and/or

protect Plaintiff.

13. Consolidated Freightways’s knowledge of the history of racial discrimination, racism and

public acts of racial bigotry and intolerance, and Consolidated Freightways’sfailure to seriously address

such practices and conduct, was tantamount to authorizing its employees to commit such actions againts

Plaintiff.

14. Defendant allowed a pervasively hostile and abusive working environment which a

reasonable person would not tolerate.

15. Defendant’s unlawful acts were intentional.

16. Defendant’s unlawful acts were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the

federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

17. As a result of Consolidated Freightways’s racial discrimination and employment practices

against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and willcontinue to suffer diminished wages, emotional and physical

distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of enjoyment of life.

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

3

COUNT I TITLE VII RACIAL DISCRIMINATION/RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth herein. 19. The racial discrimination by Consolidated Freightways againstPlaintiff was committed by Defendant against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race, and, as such,was an intentional and direct violation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)-2000e(d), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”). 20. Plaintiff’s work environment was one of pervasive racial harassment. Consolidated Freightways’s failure to take any steps to stop such behavior, when it knew or should have known of such behavior, amounted to condonation, ratification, approval and perpetuation of raciadl iscrimination and a racially hostile environment, and constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII. 21. Defendant’s discrimination against Plaintiff in the terms andconditions of employment including, without limitation, work assignments and compensation, constitutes aviolation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights under Title VII. 22. The actions and omissions of Consolidated Freightways, were taken intentionally and wiht reckless indifference and disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and caused Plaintiffto suffer severe humiliation, embarrassment, degradation and emotional distress. 23. As a result ofthe acts and omissions of Consolidated Freightways, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of career prospects and futurearnings capacity and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgement in his favor and against Defendant

as follows:

(a) A finding thatDefendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff with malice or

reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights under Title VII;

(b) That Plaintiff be made whole with all concomitant job titles, compensation and

fringe benefits;

(c) That Plaintiff be awarded all wages, benefits and compensation lost due t o

Defendant’s discriminatory conduct;

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded his actual compensatory damages resulting fro m

Defendant’s discriminatory conduct;

(e) That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages from the Defendant;

(f) That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs;

(g) That Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest; and

(h) That Plaintiff be awarded such other relief as the Court maydeem just and proper.

COUNT II MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION/RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 70 as if fully set forth herein.

25. The racial discrimination by Defendantagainst Plaintiff was committed against Plaintiff

because of Plaintiff’s race, and,as such, was an intentional and direct violation of Plaintiff’s state protected

rights under the Missouri Human Rights Act, R.S.Mo. § 213.055 (the “Missouri Act”).

26. Plaintiff’s work environment was one of pervasive racial harassment. Consolidated

Freightways’s failure to take any steps to stop such behavior, when it knew or should have known of such

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

5

behavior, amounted to condonation, ratification, approval and perpetuation of raciadl iscrimination and a

racially hostile environment, and constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Missouri Act.

27. The actions and omissions of Defendant were taken intentionally and with reckless

indifference and disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Missouri Act and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe

humiliation, embarrassment, degradation and emotional distress. As a result of the intentional acts and

omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary losses, emotional pain,

suffering, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pecuniayr

and non-pecuniary losses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgement in his favor and against Defendant

as follows:

(a) A finding thatDefendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff with malice or

reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s state protected rights under Missouri Act;

(b) That Plaintiff be made whole with all concomitant job titles, compensation and

fringe benefits;

(c) That Plaintiff be awarded all wages, benefits and compensation lost due t o

Defendant’s discriminatory conduct;

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded his actual compensatory damages resulting fro m

Defendant’s discriminatory conduct;

(e) That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages from the Defendant;

(f) That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs;

(g) That Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest; and

(h) That Plaintiff be awarded such other relief as the Court maydeem just and proper.

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

6

COUNT III SECTION 1981 28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth herein. 29. The actions and conduct of the Defendant complained of above were deliberate and willflu and intended to deprive Plaintiff ofhis rights and immunities as guaranteed by the Constitution and Statutse of the United States of America. 30. Such deliberate, willful and intentional acts were taken against Plaintiff solelybecause of his race and color. 31. Plaintiff was so deprived of his rights and immunities as guaranteed by the Constitution and Statutes of the United States of America as a result of the actions and conduct of the Defendant. 32. As a resultof the actions and conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and will contineu to suffer pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of career prospects and future earnings capacity, and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgement in his favor and against Defendant as follows: (a) A finding thatDefendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights; (b) That Plaintiff be awarded all wages, benefits and compensation lost due t o Defendant’s discriminatory conduct; (c) That Plaintiff be awarded his actual compensatory damages resulting fro m Defendant’s discriminatory conduct;

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

7

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages from Defendant; (e) That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs; (f) That Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest; and (g) That Plaintiff be awarded such other relief as the Court maydeem just and proper.
DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL 33. Plaintiff hereby requests that this trial of this matter be held in Kansas City, Missouri.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 34. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS OF HI S COMPLAINT.
Respectfully submitted, DeSIMONE PEARSON, LC

Dated: August 26, 2002

By /s/ Brad I. Pearson

Brad I. Pearson

MO Bar #36154

David J. DeSimone MO Bar #33759

4330 Belleview

Suite 100

Kansas City, MO 64111

(816) 753-2823 (Tel.)

(816) 756-3389 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 26th day of August, 2002, a copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and mailed to:
Jan Shelly, Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7918
Lynne J. Bratcher Bratcher & Gockel, LC 1100 Main, 1610 City Center Square P.O. Box 26156 Kansas City, MO 64196-6156 Attorney for Plaintiff Intervenor, Gregory Stillman
/s/ Brad I. Pearson ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR

E:\Boston\Pleadings\Complaint(Pltf-Intrvnr).wpd

9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and Gregory Stillman, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 4:02-00519-CV-W-DW- ECF

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

Introduction

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) instituted this action

alleging that Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware (“Consolidated”)

discriminated against Gregory Stillman and other African-American individuals by subjecting

them to a work environment made hostile by racial intimidation, assaults, threats, and

harassment from co-workers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”).

For purposes of settlement and compromise only, the parties have advised the Court that

they wish to resolve the instant controversy without the expense, delay, and burden of further

litigation;

1

THEREFORE, it is the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings, the record as a whole, and upon agreement of the parties, that: (i) the Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this action, (ii) the requirements of Title VII will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree, (iii) this Decree is intended to and does resolve all matters in controversy in this lawsuit among all the parties, and (iv) the terms of this Decree constitute a fair and equitable settlement of all issues in this lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: I. General Provision
1. This Decree is being entered with the consent of the parties for purposes of settlement and shall not constitute an adjudication on the merits of this lawsuit or be construed as an admission by Consolidated of any violation of Title VII, or any executive order, law, rule or regulation dealing with race discrimination or racial harassment in employment.
II. Relief for Aggrieved Persons 2. Consolidated agrees to pay Gregory Stillman and his attorney the total sum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00), as and for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Stillman shall execute the attached release (Exhibit A). Mr. Stillman’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in In re Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, et al., Case No. RS-02-24284, now pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Riverside Division (hereinafter “Consolidated Bankruptcy”). 3. Consolidated agrees to pay Monica Moses and her attorney the total sum of Three
2

Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Ms. Moses shall execute the attached release (Exhibit B). Ms. Moses’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
4. Consolidated agrees to pay Rodney Boston and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Boston shall execute the attached release (Exhibit C). Mr. Boston’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
5. Consolidated agrees to pay K.C. Davis and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Davis shall execute the attached release (Exhibit D). Mr. Davis’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
6. Consolidated agrees to pay Leo Grant, Jr. and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Grant shall execute the attached release (Exhibit E). Mr. Grant’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
7. Consolidated agrees to pay James Lindsey and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Lindsey shall execute the attached release
3

(Exhibit F). Mr. Lindsey’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
8. Consolidated agrees to pay Ray Charles McKelvy and his attorney the total sum of
Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. McKelvy shall execute the attached release (Exhibit G). Mr. McKelvy’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
9. Consolidated agrees to pay Ross Newsome and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Newsome shall execute the attached release (Exhibit H). Mr. Newsome’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
10. Consolidated agrees to pay Steven Wallace Reese and his attorney the total sum of
Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Reese shall execute the attached release (Exhibit I). Mr. Reese’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
11. Consolidated agrees to pay Sammie Rimpson and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Rimpson shall execute the attached
4

release (Exhibit J). Mr. Rimpson’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
12. Consolidated agrees to pay Grover Spearman and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Spearman shall execute the attached release (Exhibit K). Mr. Spearman’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
13. Consolidated agrees to pay Terry Gregory and his attorney the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as an for full compensation for the claims made in the Complaint in this lawsuit, in exchange for which Mr. Gregory shall execute the attached release (Exhibit L). Mr. Gregory’s claims in this lawsuit shall be treated as Class 4 Unsecured Claims under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy.
14. The EEOC agrees to withdraw its claim in the Consolidated Bankruptcy. III. Reporting
15. Within thirty (30) days of any payment being made to Mr. Stillman, Ms. Moses, Mr. Boston, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grant, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. McKelvy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Reese, Mr. Rimpson, Mr. Spearman, Mr. Gregory and their attorneys under the Plan of Liquidation in the Consolidated Bankruptcy as required by paragraphs 2-13 above, proof of payment shall be mailed to Anne E. Gusewelle, Senior Trial Attorney, at the Kansas City Area Office of the EEOC, Gateway Tower II, 4th and State Avenue, 9th Floor, Kansas City, KS 66101.
IV. Effect of Decree 16. By entering into this Decree the parties do not intend to resolve any charges of
5

discrimination other than the charges filed by Mr. Stillman, Ms. Moses, Mr. Boston, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grant, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. McKelvy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Reese, Mr. Rimpson, Mr. Spearman, and Mr. Gregory, which form the procedural basis of this lawsuit.
17. The parties shall bear their own costs. IV. Effect of Decree
16. By entering into this Decree the parties do not intend to resolve any charges of discrimination other than the charges filed by Mr. Stillman, Ms. Moses, Mr. Boston, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grant, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. McKelvy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Reese, Mr. Rimpson, Mr. Spearman, and Mr. Gregory, which form the procedural basis of this lawsuit.
17. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

DATE: January 21, 2005
BY CONSENT:
FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC:
ROBERT G. JOHNSON Regional Attorney
DONNA L. HARPER Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Anne E. Gusewelle ANNE E. GUSEWELLE Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMUNITY Kansas City Area Office Gateway Tower II 4th and State Avenue, 9th Floor Kansas City, Kansas 66101

/s/ DEAN WHIPPLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR PLAINTIFF GREGORY STILLMAN
/s/ Lynne J. Bratcher LYNNE J. BRATCHER Bratcher & Gockle, L.C. 1610 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64196
FOR PLAINTIFFS MONICA MOSES, RODNEY BOSTON, K.C. DAVIS, LEO GRANT, JAMES LINDSEY, RAY CHARLES MCKELVY, ROSS NEWSOME, STEVEN WALLACE SAMMIE RIMPSON, GROVER SPEARMAN, TERRY GREGORY
/s/ Brad I. Pearson

6

BRAD I. PEARSON DeSimone Pearson LC 4324 Bellview Suite 100 Kansas City, Missouri 64111
7

FOR DEFENDANT CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE: /s/ Michael L. Blumenthal MICHAEL L. BLUMENTHAL Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64108
8

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 312 B.R. 657 (2004)

312 B.R. 657 United States District Court,
W.D. Missouri, Western Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, Defendant.
No. 02–00519–CV–W–DW. | July 14, 2004.
Synopsis Background: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought action against employer, seeking equitable and monetary relief on behalf of 12 African–American former employees, alleging that employer subjected employees to racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and § 1981. After employer filed bankruptcy petition, it sought discretionary stay of judicial proceedings.
Holdings: The District Court, Whipple, J., held that:
[1] employer failed to show likelihood of success on merits;
[2] employer failed to show threat of irreparable harm if judicial proceedings were not stayed;
[3] balance of hardships did not warrant discretionary stay; and
[4] discretionary stay was not in public interest.
Stay denied.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*658 Anne E. Gusewelle, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Lynne J. Bratcher, Bratcher & Gockel, L.C., Brad I. Pearson, DeSimone Pearson LC, Kansas City, MO, for Intervenor.
Michael L. Blumenthal, Stacie Michelle Destin, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.

Opinion
ORDER
WHIPPLE, District Judge.
I.
On March 31, 2002, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *659 (“EEOC”) filed this action against Defendant Consolidated Freightways (“CF”) seeking equitable and monetary relief on behalf of twelve african-american individuals formerly employed at CF’s Kansas City facility. The Complaint alleges that CF subjected the individuals to racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On September 3, 2002, CF filed for bankruptcy in a federal court in California. Upon the filing of the Notice of Filing Bankruptcy, this Court held that it would refrain from ruling on pending motions until the automatic bankruptcy stay is lifted.
In the pending motion, EEOC maintains that the automatic stay is inapplicable to its lawsuit against the defendant. (Doc. No. 57.) In response, CF concedes that the automatic stay does not halt litigation in this case, but asks that the Court enter a discretionary stay of the action. (Doc. No. 61.) For the following reasons, the Court agrees that the automatic stay does not apply to EEOC’s suit and denies the request for a discretionary stay.
II.
[1] [2] [3] The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of judicial proceedings against the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). “The general policy behind this section is to grant complete, immediate, albeit temporary relief to the debtor from creditors, and also to prevent dissipation of the debtor’s assets before orderly distribution to creditors can be effected.” EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318, 324 (8th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). However, under the police or regulatory power exception, actions by a government unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers are exempt from operation of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The purpose of the exception “is to prevent the bankruptcy court from becoming a haven for wrongdoers.” In re Commonwealth Co., Inc., 913 F.2d 518, 527 (8th Cir. BAP 1990) (citation
1

E.E.O.C. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 312 B.R. 657 (2004)

omitted). The police or regulatory exception applies to actions brought by the EEOC. Rath, 787 F.2d at 325.
In this case, the parties agree that the underlying lawsuit brought by EEOC fits within the police or regulatory power exception to the automatic stay provision. Accordingly, litigation of this action can progress in spite of the pending bankruptcy proceeding.1 However, CF asks that the Court grant a discretionary stay of the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See Commonwealth, 913 F.2d at 527 (stating that § 105(a) gives courts the discretionary power to stay judicial proceedings).

1

The Court reminds the parties that, at this point and

time, EEOC is the only plaintiff in the lawsuit. Though

several individuals have filed motions to intervene,

those motions have not yet been ruled on. As noted,

upon CF’s bankruptcy filing, the Court refrained from

ruling on any pending motions, the motions to

intervene included, until the automatic stay is lifted.

(Doc. No. 53.) Therefore, the Court’s ruling today

pertains only to EEOC’s suit against CF and does not

affect those seeking to intervene.

has ceased operations in Kansas City. The defendant further argues that, even if EEOC is successful in obtaining a money judgment, it is unlikely that it will be able to collect on the judgment through the bankruptcy proceedings as an unsecured creditor. For its part, EEOC does not directly address CF’s arguments, but rather sets forth the facts and arguments supporting its claims of racial discrimination and harassment.
The Court cannot state with any degree of certainty that CF has a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this case. While CF correctly concludes that EEOC cannot obtain equitable relief given the present condition of the company, the same is not true of the monetary relief sought. Moreover, the fact that EEOC may never be able to collect on the money judgment is not a proper consideration in determining whether it will succeed on the merits of this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that CF has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.

[4] [5] A discretionary stay under § 105 is to be granted under the usual rules governing the issuance of injunctions. Id.; Rath, 787 F.2d at 325. A court should therefore consider the following factors in determining whether to grant a discretionary stay: (1) the likelihood of the movant’s success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships; and (4) whether granting the injunction is in the public’s interest. Watkins, Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir.2003).
*660 Likelihood of Success on the Merits
At the outset, it should be noted that a good deal of confusion surrounds what action courts should look to when considering the first factor. Some courts require the movant to show a likelihood of success at the bankruptcy proceeding, while others hold that the relevant focus is on the non-bankruptcy action. See In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., 264 B.R. 634, 653 (C.D.Cal.2001) (discussing the various approaches taken by federal courts). Though the Eighth Circuit has not spoken on the issue, the parties’ briefs only address CF’s likelihood of achieving success on the merits of this case. Finding no binding authority to suggest this is the wrong approach, the Court follows the parties’ lead.
[6] CF contends that its likelihood of success is high because EEOC’s is low. Specifically, CF argues that EEOC’s request for equitable relief is moot because CF

Threat of Irreparable Harm
[7] CF insists that it would suffer irreparable harm if made to litigate the suit before this Court. It first argues that the lawsuit will be costly to defend, estimating the litigation expenses to be over $250,000. Def. Sugg. in Supp. at p. 5. CF points out that EEOC brings this case on behalf of twelve individuals, each with their own version of events and complaints of discrimination. The Court agrees that litigation of the case could be costly—it doesn’t have to be, but the potential is there. However, “Congress by excepting certain actions from the automatic stay provision recognized that the debtor would likely incur litigation expenses as a result of any excepted lawsuit.” Commonwealth, 913 F.2d at 527. Accordingly, courts generally do not find irreparable harm based on litigation expenses alone. Rath, 787 F.2d at 325. Moreover, as the Eighth Circuit has observed, “there will probably be cases where going forward with regulatory proceedings will not threaten the assets of a bankrupt estate, even though they may diminish them.” NLRB v. Superior Forwarding, Inc., 762 F.2d 695, 699 (8th Cir.1985). The Court is unconvinced that this is not one of those cases. The costs associated with litigating this suit will no doubt diminish the assets of the estate, but CF has not shown that the costs pose a significant threat to the assets. Further, it is noteworthy that CF does not argue that litigation in this Court will be costlier than to try the matter in the bankruptcy court. See In re Santa Clara Cty. Fair Ass’n, Inc., 180 B.R. 564, 566 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (concluding that debtor’s failure to argue that resolution of the claim would be less taxing in the bankruptcy court than in district court amounted to a request for delay). For these reasons, little weight is *661 given to the litigation
2

E.E.O.C. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 312 B.R. 657 (2004)

expenses that CF may incur.
CF also asserts that it will suffer irreparable harm because it cannot spare the employees that will be necessary to defend this lawsuit. The company states that if this action is allowed to continue, Kim Mingo, who is in-house counsel for CF, will be forced to devote countless hours to this lawsuit, hours that would otherwise be spent assisting with the liquidation of the bankrupt estate. As one of only twenty-four employees still with the company, CF maintains that Ms. Mingo’s participation in the liquidation is critical.
The added burden that will be placed on Ms. Mingo and other CF employees in defending this suit does not rise to the level of irreparable harm. Though liquidation of the company’s estate is a mighty chore, fortunately it is not one that Ms. Mingo and other CF employees are shouldering alone. According to the record, CF has retained the law firm of Latham & Watkins to assist the company during the bankruptcy process. And such legal assistance appears to be substantial, for in the first three months of 2004 the law firm charged CF over $1.3 million. Moreover, the Court finds suspect CF’s claim that it would be over-burdened by this case in light of the California bankruptcy court’s recent decision to lift the automatic stay of an unrelated discrimination case. See Lee v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 4:99–CV–1227–SOW. Presumably, before lifting the stay the bankruptcy court considered the added burden that would be placed on CF if forced to litigate the Lee case.

allowed to proceed with their actions in their chosen forums includes harms different in character from the harms normally considered on motions for injunctions under § 105....As Congress recognized when it created the regulatory and police powers exception, the goals of public policy, punishment, and deterrence may sometimes conflict with the goals of maximizing an individual estate’s assets and efficiently processing claims. It is the former goals, which are difficult to...measure in dollars and cents, that are impaired when a governmental unit loses the ability to enforce its laws in its own forum.
Considering deterrence in particular, the harm to the governmental units must be measured with a broader perspective in mind than these parties alone.... [T]he governmental units are entitled to make the choice that, over time, [members of the public] benefit more when companies do not violate the law in part *662 because they know that bankruptcy will not provide a way out when their wrongs are discovered.
First Alliance, 264 B.R. at 659.
The harms facing each party are qualitatively different. However, the Court is not convinced that one harm is more substantial than the other—that is, it is not obvious that CF faces more harm if the case continues than EEOC suffers if the stay is granted. Under these circumstances, the balance of the hardships factor does not favor nor disfavor a stay in this case.

For these reasons, the Court does not find that CF will suffer irreparable harm if this case is allowed to continue.
Balance of Hardships
[8] The harm that will be experienced by CF if a discretionary is not entered, see discussion above, must be balanced against the harm that EEOC will suffer if the Court enters a stay. CF argues that EEOC would not experience any harm because the agency could prosecute the action before the bankruptcy court. The Court finds a number of problems with CF’s argument. First, because a jury trial has been demanded, it is not entirely clear whether the bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction to hear EEOC’s suit against CF. See In re United Missouri Bank of Kansas City, N.A., 901 F.2d 1449 (8th Cir.1990)(recognizing the bankruptcy court’s limited authority to conduct jury trials). Second, CF’s position fails to account for the harm that EEOC will suffer if not allowed to prosecute the case in its chosen forum. As one court has phrased it:
[T]he hardship to the governmental units of not being

Public Interest
[9] Lastly, the Court must consider whether a stay is in the public interest. As with the previous factor, both sides make valid arguments that the public interest factor supports their position. CF maintains that the creditors of the estate will be harmed if CF is forced to expend assets by litigating this case. EEOC contends that the twelve individuals who were allegedly discriminated against deserve their day in court, and further argues that a stay would send a message to the public that bankruptcy court is, in fact, a haven for wrongdoers. See Commonwealth, 913 F.2d at 527. Because the positions of both sides have merit, the Court finds the public interest factor of little use.
On balance, the factors discussed above do not support a stay of this action. The Court therefore finds that CF has not satisfied its burden of showing that a discretionary stay is necessary in this case.
3

E.E.O.C. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 312 B.R. 657 (2004)

III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the defendant’s motion for a discretionary stay—but it does so reluctantly. Assuming EEOC succeeds and obtains a money judgment against CF, the Court questions whether CF will have sufficient assets to cover the judgment once the company’s secured creditors are paid. A hollow victory for EEOC in this case would be a waste of time and resources for CF, the government, the injured employees, and this Court. With that said, the Court

encourages the parties to attempt a quick settlement of this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Parallel Citations 43 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 103
	  

4

 
 CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

CLOSED, EAPADMIN
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:02-cv-00519-DW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Assigned to: District Judge Dean Whipple Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 05/31/2002 Date Terminated: 01/21/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jan Shelly Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, Mo 63103 (314)539-7918 Fax: (314)539-7895 Email: jan.shelly@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/12/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne E. Gusewelle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Gateway Tower II 4th and State Avenue, 9th Flr. Kansas City, KS 66101 (913)551-6641 Fax: (913) 551-6957 Email: anne.gusewelle@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware

represented by Stacie Michelle Destin Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64108-4600 (816)472-6400 Fax: (816)472-6401 Email: sdestin@constangy.com

1 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report
Intervenor Gregory Stillman
Intervenor Mr. Rodney Boston
Intervenor Mr. K. C. Davis Intervenor Mr. Leo Grant, Jr. Intervenor Mr. James R. Lindsey
2 of 10

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...
TERMINATED: 07/21/2004
Michael L. Blumenthal Seyferth Knittig & Blumenthal LLC 300 Wyandotte Street Ste. 430 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 756-0700 Fax: (816) 756-3700 Email: mike@skblawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynne J. Bratcher Bratcher Gockel & Kingston, L.C. 1100 Main St., P. O. Box 26156 1610 City Center Square Kansas City, MO 64196-6156 (816) 221-1614 Fax: (816) 421-5910 Email: ljbratcher@bratchergockel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson DeSimone Pearson LC 4324 Belleview Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64111 (816)753-2823 Fax: (816)753-2924 Email: bip@dpkclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

Intervenor Mr. Ray C. McKelvy
Intervenor Mr. Ross Newsome
Intervenor Mr. Steven Wallace Reese
Intervenor Mr. Sammie Rimpson, III
Intervenor Mr. Grover C. Spearman, III
Intervenor Ms. Monica Moses
Intervenor Mr. Terry K. Gregory

represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad I Pearson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/31/2002
05/31/2002 06/06/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. Filed by Jan Shelly on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Receipt number - 0 -. Service due by 9/30/2002, (Shelly, Jan) Civil Cover Sheet added on 6/3/2002 (Henson, Tanya). (Entered: 05/31/2002)
2 Notice of EAPADMIN was mailed to filer. (Henson, Tanya) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
3 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Lynne J. Bratcher on behalf of Gregory Stillman. Service due by 10/4/2002, (Bratcher, Lynne) (Entered:

3 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

06/07/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002

06/06/2002)
4 RULE 16 NOTICE - by Judge Dean Whipple; Joint proposed scheduling order due by 10/1/2002. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
5 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Rodney Boston. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
6 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of K. C. Davis. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
7 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Leo Grant Jr.. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
8 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of James R. Lindsey. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
9 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Ray C. McKelvy. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
10 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Ross Newsome. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
11 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Steven Wallace Reese. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
12 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Sammie Rimpson III. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
13 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Grover C. Spearman III. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
14 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Monica Moses. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)

4 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

07/03/2002
07/03/2002
08/16/2002
08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/27/2002

15 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Terry K. Gregory. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
16 MOTION to intervene filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Monica Moses. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Pearson, Brad) Modified on 2/14/2003 to terminate motion deadline (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/03/2002)
17 RETURN OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT EXECUTED ON Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware 8/12/2002, answer due on 9/3/2002 filed by Lynne J. Bratcher on behalf of Gregory Stillman. (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
18 First COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Rodney Boston. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
19 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of K. C. Davis. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
20 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Leo Grant Jr.. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
21 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Terry K. Gregory. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
22 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of James R. Lindsey. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
23 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Ray C. McKelvy. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
24 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Monica Moses. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
25 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Ross Newsome. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
26 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Steven Wallace Reese. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
27 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Sammie Rimpson III. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
28 COMPLAINT (Intervenor) against. Filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Grover C. Spearman III. Service due by 12/23/2002, (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
29 MOTION for extension of time to answer complaint Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Answer Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. suggestions in opposition due by 9/11/2002. (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2002)

5 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

08/31/2002 09/16/2002 09/17/2002 09/27/2002
10/10/2002 10/29/2002 10/29/2002 01/07/2003
01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003

30 Order by Judge Dean Whipple entered on 8/31/2002 granting dft's motion for extension of time to answer complaint (Related Doc # 29) Answer due by 10/3/2002, (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
31 NOTICE OF FILING BKCY filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
32 RETURN OF SERVICE received signed return receipt dated 9/9/02 filed by Jan Shelly on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
33 MOTION for extension of time to answer complaint Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Answer Plaintiff-EEOC's Complaint filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. suggestions in opposition due by 10/15/2002. (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
34 Order by Judge Dean Whipple entered on 10/10/2002 granting defednat's motion for extension of time to answer complaint (Related Doc # 33) Answer due by 10/29/2002, (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
35 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE filed by Stacie Michelle Johnson on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. (Johnson, Stacie) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
36 ANSWER to complaint (Related Doc # 1) filed by Stacie Michelle Johnson on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. (Johnson, Stacie) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
37 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation by Rodney Boston, Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, K. C. Davis, Leo Grant Jr., Terry K. Gregory, James R. Lindsey, Ray C. McKelvy, Monica Moses, Ross Newsome, Steven Wallace Reese, Sammie Rimpson III, Grover C. Spearman III. (Johnson, Stacie) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
38 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Rodney Boston. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
39 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by K. C. Davis. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
40 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Leo Grant Jr.. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
41 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Terry K. Gregory. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
42 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by James R. Lindsey. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

6 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/30/2003 02/12/2003 03/06/2003
03/11/2003
03/11/2003

43 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Ray C. McKelvy. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
44 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Monica Moses. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
45 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Ross Newsome. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
46 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Steven Wallace Reese. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
47 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Sammie Rimpson III. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
48 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Grover C. Spearman III. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware served on 12/18/2002, answer due 1/7/2003. (Pearson, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
49 MOTION to substitute attorney filed by Anne E. Gusewelle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/14/2003 (Gusewelle, Anne) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
50 ORDER granting 49 motion to substitute attorney. Added attorney Anne E. Gusewelle for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Jan Shelly terminated. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 2/11/2003. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
51 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - That Rodney Boston, K.C. Davis, Leon Grant, Jr., James R. Lindsey, Ray C. McKelvy, Ross Newsome, Steven Wallace Reese, Sammie Rimpson, III, Grover C. Spearman, III, Monica Moses and Terry K. Gregory to SHOW CAUSE within seven (7) days (3/13/2003), of this Order why the Court should not order that the pending motions be withdrawn until the bankruptcy stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 3/6/2003. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
52 RESPONSE to order re 51 Order to Show Cause, filed by Brad I Pearson on behalf of Intervenor Rodney Boston, K.C. Davis, Leo Grant Jr., Terry K. Gregory, James R. Lindsey, Ray C. McKelvy, Monica Moses, Ross Newsome, Steven Wallace Reese, Sammie Rimpson III, and Grover C. Spearman III. (Related document(s)51) (Pearson, Brad) Modified on 3/12/2003 to add and reflect that all intervenor filers were filing this response (Larson, Susan). (Entered: 03/11/2003)
***Remark-Documents 53 thru 62 have been deleted from this case. They were duplicate documents to #52. Document #52 was modified to relect that all the intervenors were responding to the order to show cause, doc. #5. (Larson, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2003)

7 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

03/24/2003 10/30/2003 11/05/2003
11/13/2003 03/29/2004 04/09/2004 04/15/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 05/05/2004 05/19/2004

53 ORDER - The court will STAY ruling on the pending motions to intervene until after the bankruptcy stay is lifted.. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 3/24/2003. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
54 ORDER setting telephone conference for 11/5/2003 at 09:30 AM before Judge Larsen re: settlement conference and directing counsel to provide names/telephone numbers by 11/3/03. Signed by Judge Robert E. Larsen on 10/30/03. (Marullo, Carol) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert E. Larsen: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 11/5/2003 re setting settlement conference; counsel to get together to discuss possible dates for a settlement conference to be set; counsel agree any settlement is subject to approval by Bankruptcy Court in Central California. (Court Reporter Shannon Brogan.) (Anderson-Porter, Sue) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
56 ORDER setting settlement conference for 12/18/03. Signed by Judge Robert E. Larsen on 11/13/03. (Marullo, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
57 MOTION to lift stay filed by Anne E. Gusewelle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Gusewelle, Anne) Modified on 7/15/2004 to clean up motion (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 03/29/2004)
58 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply (Unopposed) filed by Stacie Michelle Destin on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/26/2004 (Destin, Stacie) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
59 ORDER - granting defendant's motion for extension of time to file 58 response/reply to motion to lift stay to 4/30/2004. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 4/15/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
60 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 57 MOTION to lift stay filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. Reply Suggestions due by 5/17/2004. (Related document(s)57) (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
61 MOTION to stay filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/17/2004 (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
62 SUGGESTIONS in support re 61 MOTION to stay filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s)61) (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
63 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 61 MOTION to stay filed by Anne E. Gusewelle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/20/2004 (Related document(s)61) (Gusewelle, Anne) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
64 ORDER granting 63 motion for extension of time to file response/reply re 57 MOTION to lift stay, 61 MOTION to stay Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/30/2004 Reply Suggestions due by 6/14/2004.. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 5/19/2004. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 05/19/2004)

8 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

05/28/2004
06/01/2004 06/07/2004 06/16/2004 06/23/2004 07/13/2004 07/14/2004 07/21/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 09/08/2004 09/08/2004 01/12/2005

65 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 61 MOTION to stay filed by Anne E. Gusewelle on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Reply Suggestions due by 6/14/2004. (Related document(s)61) (Gusewelle, Anne) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2004 to include Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment that was previously filed as Document #66 (McDowell, Shelly). Modified on 6/1/2004 to acknowledge receipt of exhibits in Clerk's office (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
***Remark - Original Document #66 (NOTICE of filing by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Exhibit Attachment) has been deleted as a separate entry and added as an attachment to Document #65. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
66 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply Suggestions in Support of its Motion for a Discretionary Stay filed by Stacie Michelle Destin on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/22/2004 (Destin, Stacie) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
67 ORDER - granting defendant's motion for extension of time to file response/reply 66 Reply Suggestions due by 6/23/2004. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 6/16/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
68 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 61 MOTION to stay filed by Michael L. Blumenthal on behalf of Defendant Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware. (Related document(s)61) (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
69 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Stacie Michelle Destin on behalf of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/28/2004 (Destin, Stacie) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
70 ORDER - denying defendant's motion for a discretionary stay. 61 Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 7/14/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
71 ORDER - granting defendant's motion to withdraw as attorney. 69 Attorney Stacie Michelle Destin terminated. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 7/21/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
72 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Gusewelle, Anne) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
73 NOTICE of Endorsement by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware (Blumenthal, Michael) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
74 TRIAL ORDER: Case specially set for jury trial on the trial docket to commence on 2/27/2006, and continues through the end of the week of 3/6/2006 at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. before Dean Whipple. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 9/8/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
75 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery shall close as of 4/29/2005. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 9/8/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
***Remark: Document #76 (Notice of Exhibit Attachment) has been deleted. The exhibits will be contained in the Clerk's Office. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

9 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?648485498830628-L_...

01/21/2005

76 CONSENT DECREE - See order for details. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 1/21/2005. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/29/2007 09:43:48

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 4:02-cv-00519-DW 0.48

10 of 10

5/29/2007 9:42 AM

 
 Consolidated Freightways to Pay $2.75 Million For Racial Harassment o...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-12-05.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 12, 2005

Contact:

Lynn Y. Bruner District Director (314) 539-7830 Cell (913) 530-0394

Robert G. Johnson Regional Attorney (314) 539-7910

Donna L. Harper Supervisory Attorney (314) 539-7914
Anne E. Gusewelle Senior Trial Attorney (913) 551-6641

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS TO PAY $2.75 MILLION FOR RACIAL HARASSMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS
EEOC Suit Said Dockworkers Subjected to Physical Assault, Nooses and Racial Slurs
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act against Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware for $2,750,000 on behalf of 12 African American dockworkers who were subjected to a racially hostile work environment at the Kansas City, Missouri, facility.
The Commission alleged in the lawsuit that co-workers subjected the African American employees to racial intimidation which included hanging nooses in the workplace, assaults, threats of physical harm, displaying racially offensive graffiti, damaging property and other harassment. Consolidated, which filed a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on September 3, 2002, and is now in the process of liquidation, was one of the largest freight transportation companies in North America.
In EEOC's suit, filed on May 31, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division (No. 4:02-CV-00519-DW), the Commission alleged that Consolidated knew about but did nothing to stop the racial harassment, and that it disciplined one of the employees for complaining about the harassment. The litigation was filed by EEOC after the agency investigated charges of discrimination, found merit, and exhausted its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
The settlement, in the form of a Consent Decree, provides monetary relief to former dockworkers at Consolidated's Kansas City, Mo.-based facility. It calls for Consolidated to pay $2,750,000 to the former employees and their private attorneys. The amount of the actual recovery will be determined by the Bankruptcy Court based on the company's remaining assets.
Lynn Bruner, Director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office, said, "No employee should be subjected to graphic racial symbols, racial graffiti or threats of physical violence, and no company should tolerate such behavior in their workplace. By continuing to pursue this case even after the company filed for bankruptcy, EEOC hopes to alert employers everywhere that it considers this issue to be extremely serious and will act accordingly."
Consolidated denies the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination and asserts that it is entering into the Consent Decree because it believes that it is in the best interests of its bankruptcy estate and its creditors.
Robert Johnson, the EEOC's Regional Attorney in St. Louis, said, "The company's bankruptcy keeps us from obtaining full relief for these victims of gross racial harassment, but we expect that they will soon receive substantial compensation from the bankruptcy proceedings."
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the EEOC enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments and prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal sector; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on January 12, 2005.

1 of 2

5/29/2007 10:27 AM

Consolidated Freightways to Pay $2.75 Million For Racial Harassment o... Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-12-05.html

2 of 2

5/29/2007 10:27 AM