Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 1 of 8

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
Vo
EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS,

CIVU., ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the bases of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Jarrod L. Rerminger, who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that Mr. Rerminger, Defendant’s Vice-President, was subjected to unwelcome touching, sexual advances and sexual comments by Defendant’s co-owner, conduct of which he objected to and complained. The Commission further alleges that after Mr. Reuninger complained of sexual harassment, he was thereafter subjected to retaliation when the co-owner harasser excessively scrutinized and criticized his work performance. Mr. Renninger was further subjected to hostile treatment by coworkers who were encouraged to shun, mock, and berate him because he complained of sexual harassment against Defendant’s co-owner. Due to the sexually hostile work environment and the retaliation he suffered, Mr. Rerminger was constructively discharged from his employment with Defendant. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Mr. Rerminger incurred income and benefit losses, as well as severe emotional distress.

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09t07/2005 Page 2,of 8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdictibn.of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451:, !.33!, 1.337,."13;~3 :. and 1345. This actionis authorized and instituted.pursuant to § 706(0 (1) andO) of~itleVlI-ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (’.’Title:VII!’.)-and.S~tion 102 of the Civil .Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § t981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are nowbeing ei~aed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District" of Pen~gyl,cania;
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Cornmission");. 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 actionby Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f) (1) and (3.). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products (the ."Employer") has continuously been and is now a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in-the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Allentown, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged. in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g).and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jarrod L. Renninger filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
Page -2~

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 3 of 8
7. Since at least August 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in tmt~ erriployment practices at its Allentown, Pennsylvania facitityin violation of SectionsT03(a) (1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) (1) and 2000e-3(a) by subjecting Jarrod L. Renninger to sexual harassment and retaliating against him after he complained about unwanted touching and sexual harassment .to the Defendant’s President. As a result of the intolerable sexual harassment and retaliation, Mr. Renninger was forced to resign his employment with Defendant. The unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Starting in or about August 2000, Defendant Employer’s co-owner, Steve Colson, began engaging in unwelcomeand offensive touching of Mr. Renninger. The touching included.rubbing his arms, massaging his neck, stroking his face and neck, conduct of which escalated overtime. On or before November 2003, Mr. Renninger reported the continuous offensive touching to Defendantrs President, Veme Orth, and that these actions by Steve Colson were unwelcome;
(b) On December 24, 2003, Colson lifted Mr. Renninger’s shirt sleeve, sucked on Mr. Renninger’s arm and bit Mr. Renninger’s bicep in the presence of other employees; alarming Mr. Renninger, and causing him to look at his bleep. Later that day, Colson entered Mr. Renninger’s office and complimented.his performance, proclaiming that Mr. Renninger’s efforts.hadmade the company a success. Colson then discussed a bonus for Mr. Renninger and an increase in Mr. Renninger’s role in the company. During this conversation, Colson used sexual phrases such. ask ,’sk my d--k" and instructed Mr. Rerminger that if he wanted the conversation to .continue, he had to "let ....[Mr. Colson]... in," making this statement as he tried several times to push Mr. Renninger’s legs apart and wedge himself between them. Mr. Renninger pushed Colson away and left the room;
(c) Mr. Renninger reported Colson’s unwelcome sexual advances to PresidentVeme Orth;
Page -3-

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09t07t2005 Page 4 of 8
who conducted an investigation into Colson’s inappropriate conduct. In concert with Defendant’.s attorney, recommendations were made to deal with Mr. Colson, as a result of his conduct towardMr. Rerminger and at least two other male employees;
(d) Colson did not follow the directive of Defendant’s attorney to receive counseling,and he failed to follow the attorney’s requirements that he refrain from working directlywith Mr. Renninger, refrain tYom addressing Mr. Renninger directly, and stay out of his office;
(e) Thereafter,. Mr. Rerminger was never placed on a bonus program by Defendant, as promised by Colson;
(f) After Mr. Renninger reported Colson’s sexual advances and President-Orth-began-to investigate the allegations, Mr. Renninger avoided Colson for several weeks on sales calls~ completing his work in .the office on weekends, when he was sure that Colsonwould not.be in the office. Colson.remained away from the office for a period of time but returned, and hega¢i to accost Mr. Renninger and .criticize his performance;
(g) Cotson commented publicly that he was becoming impatient with Mr. Renninger;.began for the first time to require Mr. Rerminger to verify invoices, and blamed Mr. Renninger on several occasions for errors-in areas.that were not Mr. Renninger’s responsibiliW,
(h) .Co-workers of Mr. Rerminger shulmed him, stopped talking, or spoke.quietly when he entered the office, and accused him of trying to.destroy the company and theirj obs. Co-workers made it known that they:disbelieved Mr. Renninger and some employees refused to speak to himand had conversations with Cotson about Mr. Renninger;
(i) Mr. Renninger complained to Defendant’s President about the acts.of~retaliation and the resultant hostile work environment, but the. retaliation did not stop;
Page -4-

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 5 of 8
(j) On March 8, 2004, Defendant interrogated employees about President .Orth and Mr. Renninger. Mr. Renninger was threatened with arrest and suspension when he hesitated, in ~g over his laptop computer due to personal information it contained;
(k) On March 11, 2004, Defendant discharged President Orth, who had initiated and conducted.aninvestigation into complaints against Colson;
(t) Because Defendant had not remedied the hostile work environment caused by the acts of sexual harassment and retaliation against Mr. Renninger, Mr. Renninger was forced to resign on March 19, 2004;
(m) As of March 19, 2004, and Continuing to date, Defendant failed to place Mr. Reuninger on the bonus program, discussed by Colson on December 24, 2003, when Mr. Kennittger vehemently rejected Mr. Colson’s sexual advances.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, has been to deprive Jarrod L. Renninger .of equal employment opporttmities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of his gender and because of retaliation.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, were intentional.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jarrod L. Renninger.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment,
Page -5- ¯

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 6 of 8
or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies and practices which
effectively prohibit sexual harassment and retaliation in the work place, which insure a harassmentfi:ee environment for employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present tmlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out anti-discrimination, antiretaliation and sexual harassment policies.
D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out complaint procedures which encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policies, against discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
E. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination,, nonretaliation and anti-harassment; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report anyincidents and/or complaints of harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the company officials or department charged with handling such complaints.
F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Jarrod L. Renninger by providing appropriate back pay and front pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affi.rmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Jarrod L. Renninger by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including, but not limited to out-of-pocket losses, in amounts, to be
Page -6-

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 7 of 8
determined at. trial. H. Order Defendant Employer¯ to make whole Jarrod L. Rennigner. by_providing
compensation for past and future nonpectmiary losses resulting from the unlawful: practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment~ loss of life’s enjoyment and .pleasures, depression, anxiety and inconvenience, in amounts, to be determined at trial.
I. Order Defendant Employer to pay Jarrod L. Renninger punitive damages for its. maliciousand, reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determinedat trial.

Jo
interest. K.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in¯ the public Award the Commission its costs of this action.

Page - 7-

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 1 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 8 of 8
3URY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20507
. McNAIR Regional Attorney
Supervisory TriM. Attomey
EEOC 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2683 Pennsylvania ID No. 37637
Page -8-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 1 of 17

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

) HON. CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN

)

and

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05 CV 4786

)

JARROD L. RENNINGER,

) JURY DEMAND

85 Kim Winona Court

)

Fleetwood, PA 19522

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v.

)

)

EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD

)

PRODUCTS,

)

)

and

)

)

STEVEN A. COLSON

)

c/o Eastern Engineered Wood Products )

1400 North Sherman Street

)

Allentown, PA 18109

)

)

and

)

)

DOUGLAS F. COLSON

)

c/o Eastern Engineered Wood Products )

1400 North Sherman Street

)

Allentown, PA 18109

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF JARROD L. RENNINGER, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
The above named Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jarrod L. Renninger, (hereinafter
“Renninger”), by and through his undersigned counsel, Frey, Petrakis, Deeb, Blum &
Briggs, files the within Complaint in Intervention and in support thereof alleges:

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 17
JURISDICTION 1. This action was brought by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. The action filed by the EEOC was authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1) and (3); and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. The claims contained in the EEOC’s Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Complaint in Intervention of Renninger is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this action on the basis of federal jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. Renninger has exhausted his administrative remedies. A charge of discrimination was filed with the EEOC in March, 2004 against Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products, which was cross-filed with the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission. 4. The EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in June, 2005 finding that Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products committed violations of Title VII based upon sexual harassment. This action was filed by the EEOC after failure of conciliation. 5. Renninger intervenes as of right in the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. § 24(a) and Title VII § 2000e-5(f)(1). Renninger wishes to participate in this action to protect his individual rights under federal and state law.
2

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 3 of 17
PARTIES 6. Renninger is an adult individual residing at 85 Kim Winona Court, Fleetwood, Pennsylvania, 19522. He was employed by Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products, until he was constructively discharged on March 22, 2004. 7. Co-Plaintiff is the EEOC, a federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII. 8. Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc. (hereinafter “Eastern Engineered”) has continuously been a Pennsylvania corporation doing business in the City of Allentown, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and maintains its principal place of business at 1400 North Sherman Street, Allentown, PA 18109. At all relevant times, Eastern Engineered has employed at least fifteen (15) employees and is an employer within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and within the jurisdictional coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 9. Steven A. Colson, an adult individual, is an Executive Vice President and owner of Eastern Engineered, and is a resident of the state of New Jersey. 10. Douglas F. Colson, an adult individual, is an Executive Vice President and owner of Eastern Engineered, and is a resident of the state of Vermont.
VENUE 11. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Eastern District for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the acts alleged as a basis for the federal claims took place within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. Jarrod Renninger was hired by Eastern Engineered in or about August 2000 in the position of Vice President of Sales.
3

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 4 of 17

13. At the time Renninger was hired, Eastern Engineered was operating at a

financial loss and showed a net loss in 2000. Due in large part to Renninger’s efforts,

Eastern Engineered earned a profit in 2001, doubled its profit in 2002, and again

doubled its profit in 2003.

14. Steven Colson, along with his brother Douglas Colson, own Eastern

Engineered, but at all times relevant hereto, neither was actively involved in sales, and

Steven Colson was only minimally involved in Eastern Engineered’s operations.

However, the Colsons are both Executive Vice Presidents, and are the sole members of

its Board of Directors.

15. Throughout Renninger’s tenure at the company, Steven Colson made

sexually inappropriate comments toward Renninger, and acted in a sexually

suggestive and provocative manner. For example, Steven Colson would massage

Renninger’s arms and/or neck, or touch him in other inappropriate ways. His

harassing conduct made Renninger uncomfortable at work.

16. On December 24, 2003, Steven Colson’s harassing conduct escalated

and he made it clear that his conduct was motivated by his sexual desire for

Renninger.

17.

On December 24, 2003, Eastern Engineered hosted a holiday party for

its employees. The party was held at Eastern Engineered’s offices in Allentown,

Pennsylvania. Early in the day, Steven Colson approached Renninger, lifted his shirt

sleeve, and proceeded to kiss and bite Renninger’s bicep in front of other employees,

including Renninger’s immediate boss, Verne Orth, President of Eastern Engineered.

The bite was so painful that Renninger checked his arm to ensure that Steven Colson

had not punctured his skin and drawn blood.

4

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 5 of 17
18. Renninger indicated to Steven Colson that he had hurt him and that Renninger was shocked by this action, but Mr. Colson merely laughed off his conduct.
19. Later during the holiday party on December 24, 2003, Steven Colson approached Renninger in Renninger’s office. Steven Colson complimented Renninger on his performance with Eastern Engineered and acknowledged the critical role Renninger played in turning Eastern Engineered around and driving it to the profit levels described above. Steven Colson informed Renninger that it was his and Eastern Engineered’s intent to make Renninger an officer, and to structure a bonus program for him similar to Orth’s based on Eastern Engineered’s profits as a reward for Renninger’s sales efforts.
20. When Renninger, who was seated in a chair, inquired as to the details of the promised bonus, Steven Colson stood up, attempted to spread Renninger’s legs apart, and repeatedly told Renninger to let him (Steven Colson) in or he wasn’t going to continue the conversation about the bonus program.
21. Renninger was very uncomfortable with Steven Colson’s sexual advances so he stood up, sat on his desk, and attempted to block Steven Colson’s continued physical advances.
22. Steven Colson, however, continued to demand that Renninger spread his legs, “keep an open mind,” and “let him in.” Renninger understood these advances by Steven Colson as an indication that Steven Colson wanted to perform oral sex on him. Renninger again told Steven Colson to stop and also attempted to push him back.
23. Steven Colson again stated to Renninger that if he wanted the conversation about the bonus to continue, then he had to “let him in.”
24. Finally, Renninger stated that ending the conversation would be fine with him. Unfortunately, Steven Colson then continued his sexual advances by leaning his
5

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 6 of 17
body against Renninger’s closed legs and remarking, among other things, that Renninger had “beautiful blue eyes.” At this point, Renninger pushed Steven Colson away and left the room.
25. Renninger immediately complained about Steven Colson’s actions to Eastern Engineered President Verne Orth (hereinafter “Orth”), and asked another Eastern Engineered employee, Mike Redding, to retrieve his keys from his office. Renninger then left the holiday party. During his drive home, Renninger was so upset over what had transpired that he pulled his car over and vomited.
26. The tremendous stress, discomfort, and anxiety that Steven Colson caused Renninger ruined Renninger’s holiday for himself, his wife, and his young children.
27. Steven Colson also sexually harassed Jason Korpics and Angel Carrasquillo, two other Eastern Engineered employees, at the holiday party on December 24, 2003.
28. On December 27, 2003, Renninger contacted Orth to recount in detail Steven Colson’s sexual advances of December 24, 2003.
29. On December 28, 2003, Orth met with Renninger again to discuss in detail Steven Colson’s sexual advances of December 24, 2003.
30. Orth contacted Eastern Engineered’s lawyer, Robert Stewart (hereinafter “Stewart”), on December 29, 2003. Renninger and Orth met with Stewart later that day. Stewart directed Orth to pursue an investigation into the allegations against Steven Colson.
31. On December 31, 2003, Stewart forwarded correspondence to Orth, wherein Stewart set forth steps for Steven Colson to take to address his conduct of December 24, 2003. Among the steps that Stewart advised Steven Colson to take
6

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 7 of 17
were: a) apologizing to Renninger; b) obtaining counseling; and c) ensuring that Renninger would not need to deal directly with Steven Colson in the future, except through Orth.
32. Unfortunately, this memorandum did not address Renninger’s right to the bonus promised by Steven Colson, and the Colsons, thereafter, did not provide Renninger with such compensation as promised to him as a condition of his consent to the unwanted sexual advances of Steven Colson.
33. Renninger also was not officially given officer status as Steven Colson promised. Moreover, despite Eastern Engineered’s counsel’s recommendation in his memorandum, Steven Colson did not undergo counseling, and he did not refrain from engaging in retaliatory conduct with respect to Renninger or to Orth.
34. On January 1, 2004, Steven Colson placed a letter on Orth’s desk that was addressed to Renninger. Orth later gave Steven Colson’s letter to Renninger. This letter contained an apology of sorts, but did not indicate Steven Colson’s agreement to take the remedial steps recommended by Stewart or that otherwise were necessary under the circumstances.
35. Thereafter, Renninger avoided Steven Colson for several weeks while out of the office on sales calls. Renninger also completed his work in the office on weekends, when he was sure that Steven Colson would not be in the office.
36. Renninger could not continue his practice of working out of the office because Steven Colson was getting frustrated with Renninger’s non-presence at the office. During this time, the atmosphere at Eastern Engineered began to turn hostile toward Renninger, and Steven Colson began to question Renninger’s business practices for the first time. On one occasion, Steven Colson even stood behind
7

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 8 of 17
Renninger’s desk while he worked, and also required Renninger to obtain approval for any invoices over $1,000.00, which was not the normal procedure.
37. On or about January 12, 2004, three Eastern Engineered saleswomen, Tammy Bennett, Sonia Illick, and Cindy Zmarzley, pulled Renninger into a conference room, confronted him, and told him that he was trying to take down the company because of his complaints about Steven Colson and the investigation into the sexual misconduct of Steven Colson.
38. On or about January 28, 2004, co-owner Douglas Colson, removed the company’s President, Orth, from the company’s investigation of Renninger’s claims against Steven Colson, and advised Orth that he (Douglas Colson) was going to complete the investigation of the allegations against his brother, and intended to utilize a third-party investigator. At that meeting, Douglas Colson pounded his fist on the table, and informed Orth that Steven Colson was going to increase his presence at Eastern Engineered’s office by spending three days per week there, and that Orth’s job was limited to taking care of sales and the people. Orth understood that latter comment to mean that Orth was supposed to keep the employees, including Renninger, under control. Orth also understood this change in Steven Colson’s work practices to be a strategy to force Orth and Renninger to submit to the Colsons’ wishes, and was a direct act of retaliation for Renninger’s complaint and Orth’s support of Renninger.
39. Steven Colson did thereafter take on additional responsibilities and increased his presence in the office, in contrast to his activities that predated December 24, 2003.
40. Once Douglas Colson took over the investigation of Renninger’s claims of sexual harassment against his brother Steven Colson, the focus of the investigation
8

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 9 of 17
shifted entirely away from Renninger’s sexual harassment claims. Instead, Douglas Colson hired a private investigation firm to investigate alleged disloyal conduct by Orth. Douglas Colson explicitly told Renninger that “this investigation has nothing to do with you.” Thus once Douglas Colson took over the investigation of Renninger’s claims of sexual harassment against his brother Steven Colson, Eastern Engineered, in fact, ceased all legitimate investigations into Renninger’s claims of sexual harassment.
41. On January 28, 2004, Douglas Colson informed Orth that he was freezing all bonuses, including Orth’s, due to the “potential litigation” in the sexual harassment matter. This policy only affected Orth and Renninger.
42. Steven Colson continued to accost Renninger and criticize his performance. Steven Colson commented publicly that he was becoming impatient with Renninger, blamed Renninger on several occasions for error in areas that were not Renninger’s responsibility, and referred to Renninger as a profiteer.
43. Renninger sought therapy to cope with the December 24, 2003 sexual harassment incident and the ensuing retaliatory environment he faced at Eastern Engineered.
44. On February 27, 2004, Renninger, through his attorney, sent a letter to Eastern Engineered expressing his intent to pursue a lawsuit based on all appropriate causes of action and outlining conditions under which Renninger would be willing to release his claims against Steven and Douglas Colson and Eastern Engineered. These conditions included among others: (1) that the Colsons refrain from further retaliatory conduct and that Steven Colson must stay away from the premises where Renninger is employed; (2) that Steven Colson must enter into an appropriate counseling program; (3) that Eastern Engineered must promote Renninger to an officer position; and (4)
9

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 10 of 17
that Eastern Engineered must pay Renninger a cash bonus based on the net profit enjoyed by Eastern Engineered. None of the conditions set forth in the February 27, 2004 correspondence were ever met by Eastern Engineered or the Colson brothers.
45. On March 1, 2004 Renninger noticed that several files on his word processing and spreadsheet programs had been opened and viewed in his absence. These files concerned correspondence relating to Eastern Engineered’s holiday party.
46. Moreover, at times relevant hereto, co-workers of Renninger shunned him, stopped talking, or spoke quietly when he entered the office, and accused him of trying to destroy Eastern Engineered and their jobs. Co-workers made it known that they disbelieved Renninger and some employees refused to speak to him and had conversations with Steven Colson about Renninger.
47. On March 8, 2004, despite being told that the investigation has “nothing to do with him,” Renninger was required to turn over his computer and laptop as part of a forensic investigation. When Renninger refused to turn over his laptop because it contained personal information, he was forcefully escorted out of the office, suspended, and threatened with arrest.
48. Renninger, through the assistance of his attorney, was able to negotiate a compromise whereby Renninger turned over his laptop in exchange for his being reinstated and gaining access to the personal information contained on his laptop.
49. On March 11, 2004, the Colsons and Eastern Engineered terminated Orth, effective immediately, purportedly for conduct disloyal to Eastern Engineered, which was a pretext for associational discrimination and retaliation for Orth’s position regarding Eastern Engineered’s handling of Renninger’s claims.
50. Following Orth’s termination, Renninger felt lost and hopeless in his situation with Eastern Engineered.
10

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 11 of 17
51. On or about March 15, 2004, Renninger had a conversation with Todd Lindsay (hereinafter “Lindsay”), Eastern Engineered’s new president. Lindsay told Renninger that he felt the situation at Eastern Engineered was a hostile environment for Renninger. Lindsay also told Renninger that Lindsay “cannot get involved.” Lindsay stated that all he could do is tell Eastern Engineered employees that Renninger is still vice-president.
52. Lindsay’s promotion to President was a shock to Renninger because Steven Colson had previously indicated an intent to make Renninger President if something ever happened to Orth.
53. On March 19, 2004, counsel for Renninger sent a letter to counsel for Eastern Engineered setting forth, by reference to the February 27, 2004 correspondence, the intolerable conditions under which Renninger was employed, and again demanding remedy.
54. Eastern Engineered did not favorably respond to the demand, and on March 22, 2004, Renninger was forced to resign from Eastern Engineered as a result of the sexual harassment by Steven Colson on December 24, 2003, the failure to remediate it, and the retaliatory environment that surrounded Renninger at Eastern Engineered.
55. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the preceding paragraphs were intentional.
56. The unlawful practices complained of in the preceding paragraphs were done with malice or reckless indifference to the protected rights of Renninger.
57. Steven Colson, Douglas Colson, and Eastern Engineered, knowingly permitted conditions of discrimination in employment so intolerable that a reasonable person subjected to them would resign.
11

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 12 of 17
COUNT I INTERVENOR’S CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. AGAINST DEFENDANT
EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 58. Renninger incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 57 of the foregoing Complaint in Intervention as though set forth fully herein. 59. Steven Colson conditioned the receipt of the promotion and bonus on Renninger’s submission to Steven Colson’s sexual advances. 60. As a result of Renninger’s refusal of Steven Colson’s sexual advances, he never received the officer status or the bonus program promised by Steven Colson. 61. Steven Colson is a co-owner (with brother Doug Colson) of Eastern Engineered and has the authority to dictate the salaries and promotions of his employees. Indeed, in Steven Colson’s apology letter dated January 2004, he stated that “he was ready to put [Renninger] in charge if he could not get [Orth] to turn around.” 62. Renninger did not get what he was promised in exchange for Steven Colson’s sexual advances. Thus, Renninger suffered consequences that altered his compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment. 63. The acts and conduct of Eastern Engineered through its agents, officers and owners as stated above, including but not limited to, subjecting Renninger to quid pro quo harassment and retaliation for Renninger’s complaint about Steven Colson’s sexual harassment and other protected activities were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
12

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 13 of 17
64. As a direct result of said willful and unlawful retaliatory practices of Eastern Engineered, Renninger has been harassed and deprived of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected in his status as an employee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jarrod L. Renninger, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products and requests this Court to grant relief as follows: award back pay with prejudgment interest, front pay, and compensatory damages for future losses; award damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses; award punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs; and award any other relief that the Court deem necessary and just, as the result of Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products’ unlawful conduct.
COUNT II INTERVENOR’S CLAIMS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
AGAINST DEFENDANT EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 65. Renninger incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 64 of the foregoing Complaint in Intervention as though set forth fully herein. 66. The acts and conduct of Eastern Engineered through its agents, officers and owners as stated above, including but not limited to, subjecting Renninger to quid pro quo harassment and retaliation for Renninger’s complaint about Steven Colson’s sexual harassment and other protected activities were in violation of PHRA, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. 67. As a direct result of said willful and unlawful retaliatory practices of Eastern Engineered, Renninger has been harassed and deprived of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected in his status as an employee.
13

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 14 of 17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jarrod L. Renninger, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products and requests this Court to grant relief as follows: award back pay with prejudgment interest, front pay, and compensatory damages for future losses; award damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses; award attorney’s fees, and costs; and award any other relief that the Court deem necessary and just, as the result of Defendant Eastern Engineered Wood Products’ unlawful conduct.
COUNT III INTERVENOR’S CLAIMS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. AGAINST DOUGLAS F. COLSON 68. Renninger incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the foregoing Complaint in Intervention as though set forth fully herein. 69. Douglas F. Colson attempted, directly or indirectly, to discriminate against Renninger for making a charge of sexual harassment against Steven Colson. 70. Douglas F. Colson aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced the unlawful discriminatory practices of Eastern Engineered as described above, including, but not limited to, subjecting Renninger to quid pro quo harassment and retaliation for Renninger’s complaint about Steven Colson’s sexual harassment and other protected activities in violation of in violation of PHRA, 43 P.S. § 955(e). 71. As a direct result of said willful and unlawful retaliatory practices of Eastern Engineered, Renninger has been harassed and deprived of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected in his status as an employee.
14

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 15 of 17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jarrod L. Renninger, demands judgment in his favor and against Douglas F. Colson and requests this Court to grant relief as follows: award back pay with prejudgment interest, front pay, and compensatory damages for future losses; award damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses; award attorney’s fees, and costs; and award any other relief that the Court deem necessary and just, as the result of Douglas F. Colson’s unlawful conduct.
COUNT IV INTERVENOR’S CLAIMS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
AGAINST STEVEN A. COLSON 72. Renninger incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of the foregoing Complaint in Intervention as though set forth fully herein. 73. Steven A. Colson attempted, directly or indirectly, to discriminate against Renninger for making a charge of sexual harassment against Steven Colson. 74. Steven A. Colson caused, aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced the unlawful discriminatory practices of Eastern Engineered as described above, including, but not limited to, subjecting Renninger to quid pro quo harassment and retaliation for Renninger’s complaint about Steven Colson’s sexual harassment and other protected activities in violation of in violation of PHRA, 43 P.S. § 955(e). 75. As a direct result of said willful and unlawful retaliatory practices of Eastern Engineered, Renninger has been harassed and deprived of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected in his status as an employee.
15

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 16 of 17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jarrod L. Renninger, demands judgment in his favor and against Steven A. Colson and requests this Court to grant relief as follows: award back pay with prejudgment interest, front pay, and compensatory damages for future losses; award damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses; award attorney’s fees, and costs; and award any other relief that the Court deem necessary and just, as the result of Steven A. Colson’s unlawful conduct.
COUNT V INTERVENOR’S CLAIM FOR BATTERY
AGAINST STEVEN A. COLSON 76. Renninger incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 75 of the foregoing Complaint in Intervention as though set forth fully herein. 77. Steven A. Colson, by his acts and/or omissions, intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of Plaintiff-Intervenor Renninger. 78. As a direct and proximate result of the Steven Colson’s acts and omissions, Renninger suffered, and will continue to suffer injury and damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jarrod L. Renninger, demands judgment in his favor and against Steven A. Colson and requests this Court to grant relief as follows: compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages; interest; and other such relief as this Court may deem just, proper and equitable.
16

Case 2:05-cv-04786-CG Document 14-1 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 17 of 17

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jarrod L. Renninger requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by his Complaint in Intervention.
Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: November 15, 2005

By: /s/ Jonathan M. Petrakis Jonathan M. Petrakis, Esquire FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, BLUM & BRIGGS, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-563-0500
By: /s/ Joseph H. Blum Joseph H. Blum, Esquire FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, BLUM & BRIGGS, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-563-0500
Attorney for Jarrod L. Renninger

17

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD

)

PRODUCTS, INC.

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Nos. 04-4490 and 05-4786 (lIOD. Clifford Scott Green)

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff; the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the uCommissionU) and the Defendant, Eastern Engineered \Vood Product~ Inc. ("EEVv'Pj, its directors, officers~ successors and assigns.

The Connuis,ion initi.ted Civil Action No. 04-4490 on September 23, 2004, and Civil

Action No. 05-4786 on September 7, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District ofpennsylvania to enforce the provisions ofTltle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, and Title I of the Ciyil Rights Act of1991. 42 U.S.CO § 2000., et. seq ("Title VII"). In

Ciyil Action No. 04-4490, the BEOC alleged that Defendant violated Title VII by discharging

Verne Orth from his position as President in retaliation for his investigation of an internal

complaint ofsexual harassment. In Civil Action No. 05-4786, the Commission alleged that

Defendant violated Title VII by subjecting Jarred L. Renninger to sexual harassment and acts of

retaliation that led to his constructive discharge. The Commission further contended that alleged

that as a result ofthe discrimination.:Mr, Orth and Mr. Renninger lost wages, bonuses and

benefits, and experienced emotional harm. Defendant has denied that Veme Orth was discharged

in retaliation for his investigation of an internal sexual harassment complaint or for any other

unlawful purpose. Defendant has denied that Jarrod L. Renninger was subjected to any unlawful

employment practices and has denied that he was constructively discbarged. As a result of settlement discussions. and in an attempt to avoid further litigation costs,
the parties to this action do hereby agree to entry of this Consent Decree (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") which shall resolve fully and finally all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaints filed on behalfof Mr. Orth and:Mr. Renninger. [t is the intent of tile parties that this Decree sbnll be a final and binding settlement between the parties signatory hereto, their officers, directors, successors and assigns, in full disposition of all claims alleged in the Conunission's Complaint against EEWP,
The Parties hereby agree that: 1, This Decree is entered into in compromise of the daims asserted in these (;ivil actions, EEWP denies any wrongdoing. and this Decree shall. under no circumstances, be construed or deemed to be evidence or admitted as evidence of (i) any wrongdoing, fault, or liability; or (ii) any infirmity in the defenses that EEWP asserted. 2. The EEOC is the agency of the United States government authorized by Congress to investigate allegations of unlawful emp10yment discrimination, to bring civil actions based upon these allegations of unlawful practices, aud to seek relief for individuals aftbcted by such practices, 3. The parties stipulate that, pursuant to Title VII, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties in these cases, The parties :further stipulate that venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 4. The rights ofEE\VP and those for whom the Conunission seeks relief are protected adequately by this Decrec.
2

5. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties and those for whom the Commission seeks re1ief.
NQN·DISCRIMINATION 6. EEWP agrees to comply fully v.ith all of the provisions ofTitie VII, and will avoid engaging in any employment practice which operates to discriminate against employees or to deny equal opportunities to any employee or applicant for employment in violation ofTitle VII.
NON·RETAUATION 7. EEWP agrees that it shall not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person because ofthat person's cooperation with the EEOC with respect to the Commission's administ:rative investigation of these civil actions. EEWP agrees to comply with Title VII's prohibition of retaliation because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance. or participation in this matter, or in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII. ~othing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion. shall be construed to limit EEWP's obligations under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge ofdiscrimination under Title VII which may be filed against EEWP in the future.
NON·ADMISSION 8. This Deeree, being entered with the consent of the Omunission and EEWP, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission ofliability by EEWP.
DURATION OF THE DECREE 9. The Consent Decree shall be in effuet for an initial period of two (2) years from the date it is entered by the COlin.
3

MONETARY COMPE~SATIO:'< 10. EEWP agrees 10 pay to Verne Orth Ihe sum total ofOne Million, Kine Hundred Thousand Donars ($1. 900,000.00), minus alll.wfni deductions and .tlomey,' fees. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter \Vlthout the need for further litigation. (A) EEWP shall issue a check. in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to Verne Orth within twenty (20) days of receipt of a signed Release from Ven,e Orth. This check shall he sent, via United States first class mai1 return receipt requested, to MI. Orth's legal representatives: Jonathan A. Petrakis, Esquire and Joseph H. Blum, Esquire, at the law firm of Frey, Petrakis, Deeb, Bllum and Briggs, in Plllladelphia, Pennsylvania. EEWP shall mail a copy of the check to CyutlllaA Locke, Trial Atlamey, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 S. 5'" Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106, concurrent with the mailing ofthe check to the Frey, Petrakis firm. EEWP shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service. (B) [n order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Verne Orth will be required to execute a Release in a fonn upon which Mr. Orth and Defendant mutually agree. I L EEWP agrees to pay to Jarrod L Renninger the sum total of One :Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00), minus .IlI.wful deductions and atlorneys' fees. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve trus matter without the need for further litigation. (A) EE\VP shall issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to Jarrod L Renninger within twenty (20) days o[receipt ofa signed Release from Mr. Reouinger. This check shall be sent, via United St.tes ftrst class mail return receipt requesled, to Mr.
4

Renninger's legal representatives: Jonathan A. Petrakis, Esquire and Joseph H, Blum, Esquire, at the law firm afFrey, Petralds, Deeb, Bllum and Briggs, in Philadelphia. PennsylV1l1lla. EEWP shall mail a copy of the check to C}llthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 S, 5'" Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106, concurrent with the mailing of the check to the Frey, Petrakis firm. EEWP shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service,
(B) In order to receive the mauetary relief set forth above, Jarrod L. Renninger will be required to execute a Release in a form upon which).lk Renninger and Defendant mutually agree.
EQUITABLE RELIEF 12, EEWP agrees 10 the following:
(Aj POSTING OF NOTICE EEWP agrees that it shall post a copy ofthe :Sorice attached as Exhibit A in its Allento'»'IL, Pennsylvania facllity in areas where employee notices are regularJy posted. The Notice shall be posted for two (2) years from the date this Decree is entered by the Court, Should the posted copy ofthe Notice become defaced, marred or olherwise made unreadable, EE\VP agrees to immediately post a readable copy of the Notice,
(B) TRAINING EEVlP agrees that it will conduct training on the rights of employees and applicants under Title VII with regard to sexual harassment and retaliation, and the obligations of employ<rs toward employees and applicants for employment under Title VII with regard to sexual harassment and retaliation, for its non-supervisory and non-management employees during calendar year 2006, This training will be conducted by the EEOC or a trainer approved
5

by the EEOC. The training will be presented to all managers and supervisors within twelve (12) months ofthe entry ofthe Consent Decree.
EE\VP will provide EEOC, at least one week prior to each training sessionl with an outline of the topics to be covered and will identify the instructors who will provide the training and their qualifications, if the training is to be conducted by an educator other than EEOC. Within fourteen (14) days after the completion ofeach training, EEWP will provide "Tilten verification to the Commission that the training was conducted, along with a list of attendees and their job titles. and a statement indicating the duration ofthe training,
(C) SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ANTI-RETALIATION POLlCY As part ofthc resolution of this case, EEWP ,"vin redistribute its sexual harassment and anti~retaliation policy to all employees by mail, paycheck enclosure. or interoffice memorandum within thirty (30) days of the cntty of this Consent Deeree.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 12. In the event that the EEOC detennines that a violation of this Decree has occurred, it will) before exercising any remedy provided by law; provide notice to EEWP identifying the alleged violations. EEWP will have thirty (30) days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations, unless the Commission detennines there to be exigent circumstances. If these exigent circumstances exist, the Commission may immediately apply to the Court for relief. The parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court. Upon motion ofeither party, !he Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Decree. The party seeking Court intervention shall be required to give notice to the opposing party ten (10) days before moving for such review. The Court may conduct expedited discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Proeedure for purposes of
6

determining compliaru.:e with this Decree or defending against a c1aim ofnon-compliance. The Court \\':111 have all equitable powers" including injWlctive relief, to enforce this Decree.
MISCELLANEOUS 13. If any provision(s) of the Consent Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific
provision(sJ in question shall be affecled and the other provisions will = i n in full force and effecL
14. The tenus of the Decr.. are and shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, successors and assigns ofEE\VP.
15. The Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the parties. Any modifications to this agreement must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a "",riring signed by EEVvl' and the Commission.
16. When this Decree requires !he submission by EEWP ofany documents to !he Commission, if not otherwise indicated in the Decree or Attachments, they shall be mailed to Cynthia A. Locke, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 S. 5'h Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106.
17, Failure by the Commission to seek enforcement of this Decree with regard to one provision shall not be construed as a waiverofjts rights to do so with regard 10 the same or other provisions of this Decree.
18. Each party to this Decree shall bear its o\vn expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 19. ·This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District COurt for the Eastern District Court ofPenru;ylvania. 20. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms of the Decree.
7

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMM.lSSIO~
James L I"", Deputy General COlll1sel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate ('.reneral Counsel Washington, D,C.

EASTER.'1 EKGIl{EERED WOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
-~.~... Todd Lindsey, President Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc. 1400 N. Shennan Street Allentown, PA 18109

u
Regional Attorney
~LCrA Q/ D~~
Udith A O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney

enioT Trial Attorney U.S, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office 21 S, Sili StreeL Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2683
tf1;ljO( .20'01.
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

s/i eJo"
DATE

DATE

HONORABLE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN

8

NOTICE This Nolice is posted as part ofa settlement reached in the cases captioned as EEOC v. Eastern Engintlefed Wood Products, lne_ C.A. Nos. 04·4490 and 05-4786 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, EEOC filed these actions to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon
their race> color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves oftheir rights under Title VII by engaging in
protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination or participating in all investigation of a claim of unlawful harassment or any other form of discrimination. THE EQI;AL EMPlO'{:\.1EKT OPPORT)JN1TY COMMlSSIO.t; (EEOC) is the federal agency which investigates charges of discrimination and. if necessary. brings lawsuits in the federal district COurts to enforce Title VII.

In its lawsuits against EEwP, the EEOC alleged as follows: (1) that EEwP retaliated against Verne Orth by discharging him from his position as President in retaliation for his investigation of an internal complaint of sexual harassment, and (2) that EEWP subjected Jarrod Renninger to sexual harassment and retaliation and that he was constructively discharged. Defendant has denied that Orth \vas discharged in retaliation for investigating an internal sexual harassment complaint or for any other unlawful reason, and has denied that Renninger was subjected to sexual harassment or any other unlawful practices or was constructively discharged.

To resolve the case, EE,",'P and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree to avoid any further proceedings. This Consent Decree provided, among other things, that: (I) EEwP will train its managers, supervisors, and employees regarding the legal rights ofemployees to be free from sexual harassment and retaliation, and the responsibilities ofemployers in these areas. (2) EEWP will not retaliate against any person because she or he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a charge ofdiscrimination under Title VII, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree, and (3) EEwP paid monetary relief.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC eharges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

THIS NOTICE MUST NOT BE DEFACED OR REMOVED A.'II) MUST REMAIN POSTED
Jl'Ok TWO (2)YEARS OM THE DATE SET FORTH B
I 41

( J

MPWYJ\.U:NT OPPORTUNITY

EASTER.."i ENGINEERED WOOD V

TS,lNC.

\yO~'1:MISSION

Date Posted: _ _s"l-it'_!:>_________~, 2006

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 1 of 6

A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-04786-CG

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Date Filed: 09/07/2005

v. EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS

Date Terminated: 06/13/2006

Assigned to: HONORABLE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment) Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by CYNTHIA A. LOCKE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2683 Email: cynthia.locke@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff JARROD L. RENNINGER

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JONATHAN M. PETRAKIS FREY PETRAKIS DEEB BLUM

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

V.
Defendant
EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS

BRIGGS & MITTS 1601 MARKET ST., 26TH FLOOR PHIALDELPHIA, PA 19103 215-563-0500 Email: jpetrakis@fpdb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSEPH H. BLUM FREY PETRAKIS DEEB BLUM BRIGGS & MITTS 1601 MARKET STREET 26TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-563-0500 Fax: 215-563-5532 Email: jblum@fpdb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID B. LICHTENBERG JACKSON LEWIS, LLP 220 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA EAST TOWER 7TH FLOOR MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960 973-538-6890 Email: lichtend@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DIANE M. SHELLEY JACKSON LEWIS LLP 220 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA EAST TOWER 7TH FL MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN M. NOLAN JACKSON LEWIS LLP 220 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA EAST TOWER 7TH FL MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960 973-538-6890 Fax: 973-539-7626 Email: nolanj@jacksonlewis.com

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 3 of 6

Intervenor Defendant DOUGLAS F. COLSON
Intervenor Defendant STEVEN A. COLSON

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUSTIN B. CUTLIP 200 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA EAST TOWN 7TH FLOOR MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID B. LICHTENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID B. LICHTENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 10/06/2005
10/19/2005
10/19/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(cw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

Summons Issued as to EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS. One Given To: Counsel on 09/07/05 (cw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (cw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Jarrod L. Renniger as Intervenor Plaintiff filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Memorandum, Proposed Order, Certificate of Service, Attachment. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit # 4 Certificate of Service) (PETRAKIS, JONATHAN) **(FILED IN ERROR BY ATTY., ATTY. WILL SUBMIT ORIGINAL TO CLERK'S OFFICE FOR FILING)** Modified on 10/7/2005 (fh) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

3 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint together with and Affirmative Defenses by EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Certificate Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)(LICHTENBERG, DAVID) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

4 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Doug Priest served Summons and Complaint upon Nancy Fekula on behalf of DEFENDANT EASTERN

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

10/21/2005 11/01/2005 11/02/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005
11/08/2005 11/09/2005

ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS by Personal Service on 9/29/2005, answer due 10/19/2005. (mbh, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
5 ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 11/1/2005 AT 1:00 PM IN CHAMBERS. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 10/21/2005. 10/24/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
7 ORDER THAT INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF'S DEFAMATION CLAIMS IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DISCOVERY PERIOD FOR BOTH OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASES SHALL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL 12/31/2005. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 11/1/2005. 11/2/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
6 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN : Settlement Conference held on 11/1/05. (fdc, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac vice Admission filed by EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS.Affidavit. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John M. Nolan# 2 Affidavit of Diane M. Shelley# 3 Affidavit of Justin B. Cutlip# 4 Declaration of David B. Lichtenberg# 5 Defendant's Certificate Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure# 6 Text of Proposed Order Admitting John M. Nolan, Diane M. Shelley and Justin B. Cutlip Pro Hac Vice Admission)(LICHTENBERG, DAVID) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Admission filed by EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS.Affidavit. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John M. Nolan# 2 Affidavit of Diane M. Shelley# 3 Affidavit of Justin B. Cutlip# 4 Declaration of David B. Lichtenberg# 5 Defendant's Certificate Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure# 6 Text of Proposed Order Order Admitting John M. Nolan, Diane M. Shelley and Justin B. Cutlip Pro Hac Vice Admission)(LICHTENBERG, DAVID) **(DUPLICATE FILING, SAME AS DOC. # 8)** Modified on 11/4/2005 (fh, ). (Entered: 11/03/2005)
10 ORDER THAT JOHN M. NOLAN, ESQ., DIANE M. SHELLEY, ESQ. AND JUSTIN B. CUTLIP, ESQ. ARE PERMITTED TO APPEAR AND PARTICIPATE PRO HAC VICE AS COUNSEL IN THE CAPTIONED CASE FOR ALL PURPOSES ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT WITH DAVID B. LICHTENBERG AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 11/7/2005.11/9/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mbh, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
11 ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 2/10/2006. PRETRIAL MOTIONS OR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE TO BE FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE CLOSE

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

11/09/2005 11/09/2005
11/15/2005 11/15/2005 11/22/2005 02/10/2006
05/24/2006 05/26/2006 06/13/2006

OF DISCOVERY. THIS CASE WILL BE PLACED IN THE TRIAL POOL ON 3/10/2006. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 11/9/2005. 11/10/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
12 ORDER THAT THE DISCOVERY PERIOD SCHEDULING PORTION OF THIS COURT'S 11/1/2005 ORDER IS VACATED AS IT PERTAINS TO THESE MATTERS. ACCORDINGLY, A NEW PRETRIAL ORDER IS ENTERED. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 11/9/2005. 11/10/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
13 ORDER THE MOTION TO INTEREVENE AS PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. INTERVENING PLAINTIFF JARROD L. RENNINGER IS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND JOIN DEFENDANTS STEVEN A. COLSON AND DOUGLAS F. COLSON AS DEFENDANTS. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 11/9/2005. 11/10/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(mbh, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2005 (mbh, ). (Entered: 11/10/2005)
14 Complaint in Intervention against INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS STEVEN A. COLSON and DOUGLAS F. COLSON filed by INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF JARROD L. RENNINGER, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
Summons Issued as to DOUGLAS F. COLSON, STEVEN A. COLSON. Forwarded To: Jonathan M. Petrakis on 11/16/2005 (mbh, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
15 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint together with to the Complaint in Intervention and Affirmative Defenses by DOUGLAS F. COLSON, STEVEN A. COLSON, EASTERN ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS.(LICHTENBERG, DAVID) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
16 ORDER THAT 05-4786 AND 04-4490 ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRIAL. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSOLIDATION ARE DUE BY 3/13/06. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE TRIAL DATE IS SET FOR 5/16/2006 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 2/7/06. 2/13/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(stb, ) Modified on 2/13/2006 (stb, ). (Entered: 02/13/2006)
17 STIPULATION of Dismissal by JARROD L. RENNINGER. (BLUM, JOSEPH) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
18 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (LOCKE, CYNTHIA) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
19 ORDER APPROVING THE CONSENT DECREE FILED BY THE

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY JUDGE CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN ON 6/13/06. 6/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gs) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/31/2007 12:39:20

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:05-cv-04786-CG

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?607895261922212-L_353_0-1

5/31/2007

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - June 2006

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc. Nos. 04-4490 and 05-4786 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 2006)
The Philadelphia District Office filed two Title VII suits against defendant, an Allentown, Pennsylvania business unit of International Paper Company that distributes lumber and provides related services. In one case, Philadelphia alleged that defendant subjected charging party (the Vice President of Sales (VP)) to same-sex sexual harassment, retaliated against him for opposing the harassment, and constructively discharged him due to the retaliation. In the other case, the district office claimed that defendant discharged a second CP (the President) in retaliation for opposing harassment of the VP.
Beginning in 2000, one of defendant's co-owners (two brothers) subjected the VP to unwelcome sexual conduct, including kissing, inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and requests for sexual favors. In December 2003, the co-owner offered to make the VP an officer and to structure a bonus program to reward CP's success in turning the company around, but demanded a sexual act in return. The VP refused and complained in writing to the President, who promptly commenced an investigation which substantiated the allegations. The company's attorney recommended remedial measures and the co-owner apologized to the VP by letter. After the internal investigation began, both co-owners berated the CPs in front of staff and questioned their loyalty, and the President was told he would not receive his expected 2003 bonus (over $500,000) because of anticipated litigation over the VP's sexual harassment complaint. Defendant suspended both CPs in early March 2004, the President for disloyalty and the VP for refusing to turn over his laptop computer as "forensic evidence." Defendant fired the President on March 12 and the VP resigned several days later. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving both suits, the CPs will receive $3.1 million in monetary relief ($1.9 million for the President and $1.2 million for the VP).

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-06.html

5/31/2007