/ .~ ..

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 1 of 22 EASU?.SE.r.D~~! SFDTIfILS'IEmSDTlCCfOOUFRTLA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, Individually and *

on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated *

*

VERSUS

*

*
THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, TOM *

BENSON, BENSON FOOTBALL, INC., *

AND BENZ-SAINTS MANAGEMENT *

COMPANY,L.C.

*

* * *** * * * * * * * *

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
01- 2451 SECTION:
MASsECT.l MAG. 4-

COMPLAINT

I.

This is a suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act

of 1964,2 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 and the

Equal Pay Act of 1963. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-

5(t) and U.S.C. Section 1343 (4). Declaratory relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and

2202. The jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of

those rights of the plaintiff and all others similarly situated secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et

~ providing for injunctive and other relief against sex discrimination, including pregnancy

discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile workplace environment and retaliation in employment.

_Process---..~~::'
-L-Oktd _--t-'o~-J
CtRmOct-L-....,..- Doc.No'_--f--

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 2 of 22
II. This is also a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993,29 USCA §§ 2601, et seq. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USCA § 1331. The jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked to seek the protection of and to redress deprivation ofthose rights of the plaintiff and all others similarly situated which are secured under the Family & Medical Leave Act, 29 USCA § 2601, et seq., providing for relief against prohibited acts deemed unlawful by the employer in interfering with and/or restraining and/or denying the exercise or attempted exercise ofrights under the Family & Medical Leave Act. Venue under 28 USCA § 1391 is proper in this district as the challenged practices occurred within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Defendant, The New Orleans Saints, is an employer within the meaning of29 USCA § 2601, et seq., employing more than fifty (50) employees on a fulltime permanent basis.
III. This is also an action brought by the plaintiffindividually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act [lithe Act" or "FLSA"], 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., to enjoin and redress violations ofminimum wages and overtime pay requirements of Sections 206 and 207 of the Act. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 216(b) ofthe Act. Venue, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, is proper in this district as the challenged employment practices occurred within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. At all relevant times, the Defendant, The New Orleans Saints, has continuously been doing business in the State ofLouisiana
-2-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 3 of 22
and has been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of29 US.C. § 203, and IS an "employer" subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as defined at 29 US.C. § 203.
IV. The Complaint ofMelanie Kramer, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, respectfully represents that plaintiff has injuries common to all those similarly situated in this class action, brought on behalf of all former and current female employees ofthe Defendant with respect to those claims arising under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of1964, 2 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 and arising under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
V. The Complaint ofMelanie Kramer, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated, respectfully represents that plaintiff has injuries common to all those similarly situated in this class action, brought on behalfofall former and current employees ofthe Defendant with respect to those claims arising under the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993,29 USCA §§ 2601, et seq.
VI. The Complaint ofMelanie Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully represents that plaintiff has injuries common to all those similarly situated in this class action, brought on behalf of all former and current non-exempt employees of the Defendant with respect to those claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ["the Act" or "FLSA"], 29 US. C. § 201, et seq., to enjoin and redress violations ofminimum wages and overtime pay requirements of Sections 206 and 207 of the Act.
-3-

.'

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 4 of 22

THE PARTIES VIT.
Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, is a Caucasian female citizen ofthe United States who, at all times pertinent herein, residing in the State ofLouisiana and the Parish ofJefferson, and further appears pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b), on behalf of all classes of former and current employees ofthe Defendants enumerated above in Paragraphs IV-VI.
VIll.
As will appear in the allegations set forth hereinbelow: A. The persons which plaintiff seeks to represent is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable~ B. There are questions of law and/or fact common to all members of the respective
classes/subclasses~
C. The claims ofthe representative are typical of the claims of each class/subclass; and D. The representative will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests ofthe
classes/subclasses. IX.
Further, as will appear in the allegations set forth herein below, this action may be maintained pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) because:
A. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the classes/subclasses would create a risk ofinconsistent and/or varying adjudication with
-4-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 5 of 22
respect to individual members of the classes/subclasses which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants; B. The questions of law and/or fact common to the members of each of the classes/subclasses predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and C. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, the alternative being a multiplicity of duplicative litigation to settle the matters which could most easily and economically be settled herein..
X. Defendant, The New Orleans Saints, is a domestic partnership and/or sale proprietorship licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State ofLouisiana; Defendant, Tom Benson, a person of the full age of majority and domiciled in the Parish of Jefferson, State ofLouisiana, is an owner and/or partner of The New Orleans Saints; Defendant, Benson Football, Inc., a foreign corporation licensed to do and doing business in the Parish ofJefferson, State ofLouisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of The New Orleans Saints; Defendant, Benz-Saints Management Company, L.C., a foreign limited liability company licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State ofLouisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of The New Orleans Saints. Upon information and belief, the Defendants TomBenson, Benson FootbaU, Inc. and/or BenzSaints Management Company, L.C. owned and/or managed the Defendant, The New Orleans Saints
-5-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 6 of 22
and directed its day-to-day management decisions which adversely affected plaintiff and all others similarly situated in the manner described in this Complaint.
THE TITLE vn AND EQUAL PAY ACT VIOLATIONS
XI. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to plaintiff's rights, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and for a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from maintaining a policy, practice, custom or usage of discriminating against plaintiffand other female employees (former and current) similarly situated because of gender, because of pregnancy, further restraining the Defendants from imposing upon the female employees unequal standards ofdiscipline and evaluation, from adversely impacting the female employees in their "restructuring" of The New Orleans Saints organization, further restraining the Defendants from denying female employees promotional opportunities and equal pay opportunities, from maintaining a hostile workplace, from sexual harassment of the female employees, and from retaliation against plaintiff and all others similarly situated because ofthe exercise oftheir civil rights.
XII. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction under 42 U. S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) have occurred or been complied with, to wit: a charge of employment discrimination was filed by Ms. Kramer (individually and on behalf of all female workers similarly situated) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days from the date ofthe commission ofthe unfair employment practices; a Notification of Right to Sue was received from the Equal Employment Opportunity
-6-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 7 of 22
Commission on May 16, 2001; this Complaint has been filed within ninety (90) days ofreceipt ofthe Notification ofRight to Sue.
XIII. This Complaint also seeks restitution to plaintiffand all others similarly situated of all rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by them but for the Defendants' unlawful, intentional and tortio~s practices under Title VII.
XIV. But for the unlawful employment practices alleged below, Melanie Kramer would have continued to work for the Defendant, The New Orleans Saints. Plaintiff, a college graduate with a degree in marketing, commenced her employment with the New Orleans Saints on March 7, 1997, which position she held until her unlawful termination on or about March 8, 2000. As an Administrative Assistant, her job duties included, but were not limited to, making arrangements for summer training camp for the employees in her department. In addition, aside from her "camp" responsibilities, Ms. Kramer was to handle all correspondence, communications, answering the telephone, sending faxes and all other office administrative duties in her department. She also was responsible for the non-graphic production of the play books and was responsible for coordinating with the printer, ordering the binders, and merging the graphics with the text ofthose play books. She was also responsible for assimilating all ofthe data for the scouting books. Her duties also encompassed rotating Saturdays to cover for the receptionist along with other female staffmembers. No male staff members were required to cover for the receptionist on Saturdays.
-7-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 8 of 22
xv.
Plaintiffcommenced her employment with The New Orleans Saints with the expectation that there would be promotional opportunities within an organization ofthat size, especially given the fact that Plaintiff held a Bachelor's of Science in Marketing from Indiana State University. Despite the fact that she held such a degree, that she had worked in an assistant managerial capacity for one year post-college and that she had an excellent work history with The New Orleans Saints, Plaintiff was afforded no opportunities for advancement as no opportunities were made known to her through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give female employees notice of any such opportunities.
XVI. In addition to the fact that The New Orleans Saints afforded her no promotional opportunities, approximately five or six weeks before her termination, Plaintiffwas forced to endure a barrage of sexually suggestive comments made by her new supervisor. Her new supervisor, together with other of his male co-workers made numerous demeaning remarks about her. Plaintiff had not had this problem with her former supervisor so she chose to ignore the remarks or act as if they did not bother her, all in an effort to get along with her new supervisor, in the hopes that such remarks would cease when he realized she was not interested in him. At about this same time, Ms. Kramer had notified her supervisor of her pregnant condition so as to apprise him when she would be taking a brief period offamily leave, for four-to-six weeks. Ms. Kramer did assure him, however, that she could in fact fulfill all of her duties, including attendance at summer camp from mid-July to early August of2000. The plaintiff's child was due to
-8-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 9 of 22
be born in late August/early September of2000. Her supervisor expressed doubt as to her ability to fulfill her job and, second, he made sexually suggestive remarks regarding her anatomy. Further, he made other remarks to her about her unmarried state, her being pregnant, and inquiring as to her interest in staying with her fiancee. In addition, her supervisor would make comments to the effect that perhaps she was not committed to her fiancee and that she should be after someone with money. Then the supervisor would flash her a stack of currency.
XVII. Despite these offensive remarks which occurred over a five to six-week time frame prior to her termination(which time-frame coincided with the commencement of her new supervisor's employment with The New Orleans Saints), plaintiffcontinued to politely rebuffher new supervisor because she wanted to perform her job in a professional manner. Accordingly, she did not bring his remarks to anyone's attention because she believed, wrongly, that she had resolved the issue without causing anyone embarrassment. Plaintiff avers that the supervisor's repeated offensive remarks, together with the close connection in time between Ms. Kramer's announcement to her supervisor that she was pregnant, his lack oftime in the position to judge her performance, her excellent work history preceding her new supervisor's arrival, and the supervisor's abrupt firing of her demonstrate the real reasons for her termination, those being that she was being terminated for unlawful causes, i.e., Title VII gender/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation due to not responding to her supervisor's sexual advances. As a result of the actions taken by her employer, plaintiff avers that she was forced to
-9-

, ' Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 10 of 22
work in a hostile environment and was retaliated against by her employer for rebuffing her new supefV1sor.
XVTII. Plaintiff also avers that she was adversely impacted by the alleged "restructuring" by the Defendants. On Plaintiff's pink slip, the Defendant's official "position" was that there was a "restructuring" and that her position was "eliminated"; however, a white male, Ms. Kramer's replacement, was given less secretarial duties, the same other responsibilities which Ms. Kramer handled or like job duties which Ms. Kramer could have handled, given her experience. Her male replacement was given an increase in pay over that which Ms. Kramer was making.
XIX.
Further, Plaintiffwas told by her supervisor, at the time that he fired her, that he would talk to Arnold Fielkow (the Director of Administration) and set something up with him because he thought there were a couple ofpositions open in ticket sales. When Plaintiffmet with Mr. Fielkow the next day, Mr. Fielkow told her that there were some positions open in ticket sales, but the positions paid much less than what Plaintiffhad been making. Plaintiffthen inquired ofMr. Fielkow ifthere were any marketing positions open which positions would have been considered either lateral or promotional in that the pay would have been equal or greater than that which she was making as an Administrative Assistant.
Mr. Fielkow told her there were none, despite the fact that there were at least two or more openings which were filled by males shortly after Plaintiff's departure. Plaintiffwas never called to
-10-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 11 of 22
interview for those positions despite the fact that Mr. Fielkow knew she needed another job and that she had a marketing degree, as he had commented on it in their meeting.
XX. Plaintiffhas suffered emotional distress, humiliation, concern over her financial well-being and that of her family during a time which was most stressful, that being, while she was pregnant. As a result of the Defendant's violations, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer has lost substantial income and other benefits associated with her employment, including health benefits.
XXI. Plaintiff avers that she and other females similarly situated, both former and current employees ofThe New Orleans Saints have been treated differently and/or adversely impacted in the following respects: a) they were given more onerous job functions than the male workers employed in the same capacity, yet with less pay and less benefits than their male co-workers; b) they were afforded no opportunities for advancement as no opportunities were made known to female workers through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give female employees notice of any such opportunities. New positions were announced after the said positions had been filled by the male employees; c) they were evaluated, disciplined, and/or terminated with the Defendants using a much more stringent performance criteria than was utilized in evaluating, disciplining and/or terminating the male employees;
-11-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 12 of 22
d) they were adversely impacted by the "restructuring" efforts ofthe Defendants due to the fact that certain positions held by female workers were allegedly "restructured" to give male workers an opportunity to fill newly created positions at higher pay than what the female workers had been paid, although the newly created positions could have been held by the female employees;
e) they were also adversely impacted by the "restructuring" efforts ofthe Defendants due to the fact that certain positions held by female workers were undervalued and given no pay increase whatsoever while certain positions held by male workers or certain positions newly created for male workers were given substantial pay increases;
t) they were also adversely impacted by the "restructuring" in that female workers' positions were eliminated without allowing female workers to make lateral or promotional moves into other available openings;
g) they were adversely treated in other non-exclusive ways, all ofwhich will be shown at the trial ofthis matter.
Plaintifffurther avers that she and other females similarly situated, both former and current employees of The New Orleans Saints have been sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile workplace environment.
XXII. Plaintiffavers that the Defendants intentionally engaged in the pattern ofcontinuing tortious conduct outlined above against her and all others similarly situated. As a result ofthe above conduct, the Defendant has violated Title VII by unlawfully and intentionally allowing sexual harassment of female workers, and a hostile environment in the workplace, allowing gender and pregnancy
-12-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 13 of 22
discrimination against plaintiff and all others similarly situated and retaliation against all female employees with reckless indifference to their federally protected rights under Title VII and in violation offederal common law. Further, Plaintiff avers that the Defendants, by their actions, have violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963, thereby causing the Defendants to be liable unto Plaintiff and all other females similarly situated.
XXIII. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, and other females similarly situated, have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged, and this suit for injunctive relief is their only means ofsecuring adequate relief Plaintiffand other females similarly situated are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants' policies, practices, customs and usages as set forth herein until and unless enjoined by the Court.
XXIV. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, both individually and on behalfofother females similarly situated, further avers that such Title VII violations on the part of the Defendants constitute willful and reckless indifference to federally protected rights. As such, plaintiff and the class are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional distress and anguish, and to punitive/statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law, in addition to plaintiff's and the class' pecuniary damages and attorney's fees. As well, plaintiff and the class which she seeks to represent are entitled to all costs of expert witness fees and for judicial interest from date of demand until paid.
-13-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 14 of 22
XXV. The revision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 entitles plaintiff and all others similarly situated to a trial by jury.
THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT VIOLATIONS XXVI.
Plaintiffre-urges and re-avers all ofthe allegations contained in Paragraphs II, V, VIIX, XIV, XVI-XX of this Complaint. Plaintiff further avers that as a result of the above conduct, Defendants have violated The Family and Medical Leave Act by unlawfully and intentionally interfering with and/or restraining or denying the exercise or attempted exercise of rights to which the former employee plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, was entitled under FMLA., and this Complaint seeks restitution to the plaintiffand all others similarly situated ofall rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by them but for the Defendants' unlawful, intentional and tortious practices.
XXVII. As a result of the Defendants' FMLA violations, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, alleges that she has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress over losing her job. In addition, plaintiffhas lost benefits and back pay. Plaintiffalso is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs resulting from such conduct. Additionally, plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement, recovery of reasonable attorney's fees, punitive/statutory damages, and court costs resulting from such conduct.
-14-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 15 of 22
XXVIII. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, further avers that such FMLA violations on the part of the Defendants were in willful and reckless indifference to her federally protected rights. As such, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages and to punitive/statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law in addition to plaintiff's pecuniary damages and attorney's fees. As well, plaintiff is entitled to and seeks all costs ofher expert witness fees and for judicial interest from date of demand until paid, and is entitled to a trial by jury. Plaintifffurther avers that she is representative of all class members, former and current employees ofDefendants, who have been adversely affected by the exercise or the attempted exercise oftheir rights under FMLA.
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT VIOLATIONS XXIX.
Plaintiffre-urges and re-avers all ofthe allegations contained in Paragraphs III, VI, VII-X of this Complaint. In addition to the above violations, the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to the maintaining of records and to the calculation of overtime for its non-exempt staff, including Ms. Kramer. The New Orleans Saints had no bonafide agreement with the employees regarding any alternative method ofkeeping or calculating overtime permissible under the Act and, as such, the Defendants have failed and/or refused to keep the appropriate books and records regarding employee overtime worked.
During the course ofPlaintiiFs tenure, and that ofthe other non-exempt employees similarly situated, many ofthe non-exempt employees ofDefendants regularly and routinely worked in excess
-15-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 16 of 22
offorty hours per week. Plaintiffavers that she and each such employee ofDefendants should have been paid for those excess hours at the statutory overtime rate ofone and one-halftimes their normal hourly wage for each hour worked in excess offorty hours per week. Instead, Defendants paid some non-exempt employees no additional wages whatsoever for hours worked over forty; other nonexempt employees were paid only straight time or half time for hours worked over forty; and nonexempt employees were improperly classified as exempt and placed on a salary, whereby their hours were not recorded by Defendants, and the employees received either no additional compensation for hours worked over forty or the inappropriate compensation. These practices on the part of Defendants are in violation ofthe overtime provisions ofthe FLSA, 29 U. S.C. § 207. No exemption under the Act applies to excuse Defendant's failure to pay the appropriate overtime wages to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees.
xxx.
In addition to the minimum wage and overtime violations alleged herein, Defendants also engaged in prohibited acts by failing to properly record the working time of its non-exempt employees, in violation ofthe record-keeping requirements ofSection ll(c) ofthe FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
XXXI. The information necessary for the exact determination ofthe wages owed, and ofthe identities of the current and former employees to whom those wages are owed, is within the control of Defendants. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 16(b) with respect to the joinder of similarly situated employees, and to enable those individuals who might wish to join in this matter
-16-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 17 of 22
to seek recovery ofback wages owed to them, Plaintiffrequests this Court to require Defendants to provide the names and addresses of all current and former employees who worked for Defendants during the three years prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit. Plaintifffurther prays for a trial by jury and for the Court's supervision of notification to these individuals, pursuant to the guidelines of Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).
XXXII. Inasmuch as Defendants have willfully violated provisions of the Act, Plaintiff, on behalf of herselfand other employees similarly situated, demands payment for all compensation due and owing for three (3) years prior to the day of filing this action, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other employees similarly situated, demands from the Defendants an additional amount, equal to the total compensation due, as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216 and 269. In accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 216, Plaintiff demands from Defendants reasonable attorneys' fees and such costs as may be required to prosecute this action. Finally, Plaintiff further prays that this Court exercise judicial control and supervision over the notification of this lawsuit to similarly situated individuals, and of their rights to opt-in by providing their consent in writing to become a party, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, prays this Court deem this Complaint as just and sufficient, advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable date, cause this case to be in every way expedited and on such hearing to the Court, that it:
-17-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 18 of 22
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the practices complained ofherein are unlawful and violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its amendments and the Equal Pay Act of 1963;
2. Permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, successors, officers, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them from engaging each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages set forth herein, and from continuing any and all of the practices shown to be in violation of applicable law;
3. Order modification or elimination ofpractices, policies, customs set forth herein and all other such practices shown to be in violation of applicable law;
4. Compensate and make whole plaintiffand all others similarly situated for all earnings, wages and other benefits they would have received but for the unlawful, intentional discrimination by Defendants and by their unlawful violations of Title VII, of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, of The Family & Medical Leave Act and of the Fair Labor Standards Act;
5. Award plaintiff and all others similarly situated the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, lOOOe-5(k), as amended, and pursuant to Title VII, the Equal Pay Act of1963, The Family & Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act;:
6. Award plaintiff and all others similarly situated the cost of any and all expert witness fees pursuant to the above statutes;
-18-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 19 of 22
7. Award plaintiff and all others similarly situated punitive/statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law pursuant to the above statutes;
8. Grant plaintiff a trial by jury; 9. Award plaintiffand all others similarly situated compensatory damages, including but
not limited to, damages for their emotional distress and anguish and physical infirmities related thereto, in an amount to be determined by the evidence presented, together with judgment interest from date ofdemand until paid, pursuant to the relief afforded in the above statutes; 10. Grant such other relief as may be just and proper; 11. Assuming jurisdiction of the case and certifying the proposed classes and any appropriate sub-classes thereof under the provisions of FRCP 23 and appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the classes and/or sub-classes; 12. For the actual damages suffered by the plaintiffand others similarly situated as alleged hereinabove to be established at trial, all as recoverable under the statutes referenced herein; 13. For statutory, punitive, and exemplary damages against Defendants for all federal law violations complained of herein; 14. For all attorney's fees incurred by the classes and/or sub-classes members; 15. For pre-judgment interest and all costs;
-19-

•

I ••

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 20 of 22

16. For all such equitable and other relief as the Court may deemjust and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Cl~ --- PAULA PERRONE (#10518) -r/J
PATRICIA PANNELL(#18665) Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin & Murray One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer

-20-

II

••

•

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 21 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOmSIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, IndividuaUy and * on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated *

*

VERSUS

*

* THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, TOM * BENSON, BENSON FOOTBALL, INC., *
AND BENZ-SAINTS MANAGEMENT *

COMPANY,L.C.

*

* * *** * * * * * * * *

CIVIL ACTION NO.: SECTION: MAGISTRATE:

VERIFICATION

STATE OF LOmSIANA PARISH OF JEFFERSON

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared: MELANIE KRAMER
a person of the full age of majority, domiciled in and a resident of the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, who, after being first duly sworn, did declare and state that she is a plaintiff in the above entitled and numbered proceedings; that she has read the above and foregoing Complaint; and, that

II

••

..

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 1 Filed 08/13/01 Page 22 of 22

all of the allegations offact contained therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE

ME, TIDS13THDAY OF AUGUST, 2001.

~

PAULA PERRONE

~

Notary Public

-2-

 
 Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 1 of 9
FILED uS OISTRICi COURT (AS'TERN D!STRICT OF LA
2001 NOV 26 PH I: 25 TE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, Individually and *

on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated *

*

VERSUS

*

* THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, TOM *

BENSON, BENSON FOOTBALL, INC., *

AND BENZ-SAINTS MANAGEMENT *

COMPANY, L.C.

*

* * *** * * * * * * * *

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2451 SECTION "L" MAGISTRATE 4

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, and

additional party plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, individually and on behalfofothers similarly situated who

wish to amend the original Complaint filed on August 13,2001, in the following particulars:

1.

By amending the caption of the case to read: "Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish,

Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated versus New Orleans Louisiana Saints

LimitedPartnership, Tom Benson, Benson Football, Inc., andBenz-Saints Management Company,
L.e. "

---------
Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 2 of 9
2. By amending each paragraph where Melanie Kramer's name appears by adding Sylvia Alfortish as a party plaintiff, both in her individual capacity and on behalfofothers similarly situated, including but not limited to paragraphs IV, V, and VI.
3. By amending each paragraph where the defendant, The New Orleans Saints appears replacing it with New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership.
4. By adding paragraph VII(a) to read as follows:
"VII(a). "Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, is a Caucasian female citizen ofthe United States who, at all times pertinent herein, residing in the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Jefferson, and further appears pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b), on behalf of all classes of former and current employees of the Defendants enumerated above in Paragraphs IV-VI."
5. By amending paragraph X to read as follows:
"X. "Defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership, is a domestic partnership and/or sole proprietorship licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana; "Defendant, Tom Benson, a person ofthe full age ofmajority and domiciled in the Parish of
-2-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 3 of 9
Jefferson, State of Louisiana, is an owner and/or partner of New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership;
"Defendant, Benson Football, Inc., a foreign corporation licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership;
"Defendant, Benz-Saints Management Company, L.C., a foreign limited liability company licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership."
6.
By adding paragraph XII(a) to read as follows: "XII(a).
"All conditions precedent to jurisdiction under 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) have occurred or been complied with, to wit: a charge of employment discrimination was filed by Ms. Alfortish (individually and on behalf of all female workers similarly situated) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days from the date ofthe commission ofthe unfair employment practices; a Notification of Right to Sue was received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 22, 2001; the Complaint of Sylvia Alfortish has been filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Notification of Right to Sue."
7. By amending paragraph XIII to read as follows:
-3-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 4 of 9
"XIII. "This Complaint also seeks restitution to Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish and all others similarly situated ofall rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by them but for the Defendants' unlawful, intentional and tortious practices under Title VI!."
8. By adding XX(a) to read as follows:
"XX(a). "But for the unlawful employment practices alleged below, Sylvia Alfortish would have continued to work for the Defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partneship. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, commenced her employment with New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership on or about September of1974, where she worked until her forced resignation!constructive discharge on July 13, 2001. Sylvia Alfortish's first position was that of Public Relations Secretary, a position she held for approximately ten (10) years. During the course of that first ten (10) year period of employment, her job title changed to Public Relations Assistant, with no raise other than cost of living. Her job duties as Public Relations SecretarylPublic Relations Assistant during her first ten (10) years for the Saints included such activities as preparing press releases, press packages to the media, arranging player interviews and appearances and dealing with the media on a daily basis."
9. By adding paragraph XX(b) to read as follows:
"XX(b). "Over the years Sylvia Alfortish continued to do public relations work, and in addition to
-4-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 5 of 9
those duties, she was responsible for training the dance team, the Saintsations, and working pre-game and half-time events."
10. By adding paragraph XX(c) to read as follows:
"XX(c). "In addition to her 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. obligations to remain at the Saints office during the day, Ms. Alfortish had rehearsals every Tuesday and Thursday night from 7: 00 p. m. to 9: 00 p.m. from June to December and January through May and she was also responsible for the Saintsations public appearances and working promotions for the Saints. Ms. Alfortish was not paid any overtime for any of the hours she worked above 40 hours, despite the fact that such activities required her to work nights, weekends, mini-camps, drafts, training camps, summer camps and events on Saints' locations."
II. By adding paragraph XX(d) to read as follows:
"XX(d). "Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, commenced her employment with the Saints and over the years she expected that there would be promotional opportunities within an organization of that size, especially given the fact that plaintiff had more tenure and seniority than virtually all of the administrative staff. Although Sylvia Alfortish had work experience which included all phases of public relations and marketing, and although she was familiar with virtually very aspect ofthe Saints administrative operation, she was afforded no opportunities for advancement and no opportunities
-5-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 6 of 9
were made known to her through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give female employees notice of any such opportunities."
12. By adding paragraph XX(e) to read as follows:
"XX(e). "Over the years, Sylvia Alfortish repeatedly requested increases in pay when she was given additional duties and despite the fact that she was promised pay raises to be commensurate with her additional responsibilities, she never received same. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, maintains that males who worked in the administrative/public relations/marketing departments along with Sylvia Alfortish made more money than she did despite the fact that their duties were less onerous and/or they had much less experience than her. Further, these white males were given car allowances and cell phones and other benefits including travel benefits, benefits which Sylvia Alfortish did not have. In addition, these male employees made at least $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 more per year than Ms. Alfortish."
13. By adding paragraph XX(f) to read as follows:
"XX(f). "Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, avers that when job openings would become available for which she was qualified (which would enable her to make more money), those openings were not announced nor were there any postings ofthe jobs to allow competition for the position; rather, males were hired for those positions without advertising and/or announcing the position. This exclusion of women from the better paying positions and opportunities for promotions occurred during Ms. Alfortish's
-6-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 7 of 9
entire tenure at the Saints, culminating on July 13, 2000 when she was denied an appropriate pay raise in my position as Marketing Assistant/Saintsations Director."
14. By adding paragraph XX(g) to read as follows:
"XX(g). "Sometime in February of2000, Mr. Arnold Fielkow was hired as the Senior Vice-President of Administration for the Saints. When he began his employment with the Saints, he informed all staff, including Ms. Alfortish, that every staff position would be evaluated for restructuring and for pay purposes. Mr. Fielkow then required that each and every employee provide him with their job descriptions and a list of their duties in connection therewith. During that same time, in the Spring of2000, several males were hired in ticket sales, ticket operations and other administrative posts, any number of which positions Ms. Alfortish could have filled had Ms. Alfortish known of the vacancy beforehand. Several of the new male hires in the Spring of2000 were being hired in salary ranges which were at least $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 greater than Ms. Alfortish's then-salary, which led Ms. Alfortish to believe that once her position was evaluated her salary would be increased significantly."
15. By adding paragraph XX(h) to read as follows:
"XX(h). "Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, made known her concerns about her salary to Mr. Fielkow on several occasions, informing him that she had been underpaid for many years and was expecting compensation commensurate to her responsibilities and tenure. Mr. Fielkow assured her that he was
-7-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 8 of 9
reviewing her position and that there would be a pay raise forth coming." 16.
By adding paragraph XX(i) to read as follows: "XX(i).
"Given the fact that Ms. Alfortish was led to believe by Mr. Fielkow that a significant pay increase was forthcoming, when she opened her paycheck for July 1, 2000, and noted that the only pay raise she received was a $20.00 per pay period increase, she was shocked and dismayed. This menial pay raise was in stark contrast to both new male hires and long-tenured male employees who had positions comparable to that of Ms. Alfortish. On July 13,2000, upon learning that she would not receive any other pay increase, Ms. Alfortish resigned."
17.
By adding paragraph XXG) to read as follows: "XXG).
"Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, concern over her wellbeing and that of her family. As a result ofthe defendant's violations, plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish has lost substantial income and other benefits associated with her employment."
18. By amending paragraphs XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXIX, XXXI and XXXII of the Complaint to substitute the word "plaintiff' to read "plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish. "
-8-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 11 Filed 11/26/01 Page 9 of 9
19.
By amending the prayer ofthe Complaint to substitute the word "plaintiff" to read "plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish."
Respectfully submitted,
Qrw1i2J'A/V{~
PAULA PERRONE (#10518) PATRICIA PANNELL(#I8665) Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin & Murray One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish
-9-

 
 Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 1 of 20

"n'~7 t~l I 9 LUiJ~ ..J1\~ 11 PH 3: 06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER and

SYLVIA ALFORTISH

•

VERSUS

NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS •
AIKIA NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, TOM • BENSON, BENSON FOOTBALL, INC., •
AND BENZ-SAINTS MANAGEMENT •
COMPANY, L.c.
•••••••••••••

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2451
SECTION L-
MAGISTRATE 4

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and

Sylvia Alfortish, who have been ordered by this Court to amend their original and First Amended

Complaints filed herein. Accordingly, plaintiffs hereby amend their Complaint in the following

particulars:

1.

By amending the caption of the case to read, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish v. New

Orleans Louisiana Saints aIkIa New Orleans Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football, Inc., and Benz-

Saints Management Company, L. C.

_ _Fee_-=~
_ Proces~
L Dktd_~I+_ - _
_ CtRmDen
_Doc. No.. , (

- -----------------------
Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 2 of 20
2. By amending all paragraphs ofthe original Complaint and First Amended Complaint so that the Second Amended Complaint shall read as follows:
"I. This is a suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act
. of 1964, 2 US.C. Section 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 10.5 Stat. 1071 and the
Equal Pay Act of 1963. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e5(f) and U.S.C. Section 1343 (4). Declaratory reliefis sought under 28 US.C. Section 2201 and 2202. The jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of those rights of the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, secured by 42 US.c. Section 2000e et seq., providing for injunctive and other reliefagainst sex discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile workplace environment and retaliation in employment.
II. This is also a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993,29 USCA §§ 2601 et seq. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USCA § 1331. The jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked to seek the protection ofand to redress deprivation ofthose rights ofthe plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, which are secured under the Family & Medical Leave Act, 29 USCA § 2601 et seq., providing for relief against prohibited acts deemed unlawful by the employer in interfering with and/or restraining and/or denying the exercise or attempted exercise ofrights under the Family & Medical Leave Act. Venue under 28 USCA § 1391 is proper in this district as the challenged practices occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
-2-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 3 of 20
Eastern District ofLouisiana. The defendants are employers within the meaning of29 USCA § 2601 et seq., employing more than fifty (50) employees on a full-time permanent basis.
III. This is also an action brought by the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ["the Act" or "FLSA"], 29 US.C. § 201 et seq., to enjoin and redress violations of minimum wages and overtime pay requirements of Sections 206 and 207 of the Act. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 US.c. § 1331. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Act. Venue, under 28 US.c. § 1391, is proper in this district as the challenged employment practices occurred within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofLouisiana. At all relevant times, the defendants have been continuously doing business in the State ofLouisiana and have been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of29 US.C. § 203, and is an "employer" subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as defined at 29 US.c. § 203.
THE PARTIES
IV.
Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, are Caucasian female citizens of the United States who, at all times pertinent herein, reside in the State ofLouisiana and the Parish ofJefferson.
V. Defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints also known as The New Orleans Saints, is a partnership and/or sole proprietorship licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana;
-3-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 4 of 20
Defendant, Tom Benson, a person of the full age of majority and domiciled in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, is an owner and/or partner of The New Orleans Saints;
Defendant, Benson Football, Inc., a foreign corporation licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State ofLouisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of The New Orleans Saints;
Defendant, Benz-Saints Management Company, L.C., a foreign limited liability company licensed to do and doing business in the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, is a partner and/or owner and/or managing entity of The New Orleans Saints.
Upon information and belief, the defendants, Tom Benson, Benson Football, Inc. and/or Benz-Saints Management Company, L.c., owned and/or managed the defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints also known as The New Orleans Saints, and directed its day-to-day management decisions which adversely affected plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish.
THE TITLE VII AND EQUAL PAY ACT VIOLATIONS VI.
This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to plaintiffs' rights and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants from maintaining a policy, practice, custom or usage of discriminating against plaintiffs because of gender, because of pregnancy (Melanie Kramer only), further restraining the defendants from imposing upon the female employees unequal standards of discipline and evaluation, from adversely impacting the female employees in their "restructuring" of The New Orleans Saints organization, further restraining the defendants from denying female employees promotional opportunities and equal pay opportunities, from maintaining a hostile
-4-

------------
Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 5 of 20
workplace, from sexual harassment of the female employees, and from retaliation against plaintiffs because of the exercise of their civil rights.
VII. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction under 42 U. S. C. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) have occurred or been complied with, to wit: a charge of employment discrimination was filed by Ms. Kramer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days from the date of the commission of the unfair employment practices; a Notification of Right to Sue was received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 16, 2001; a Complaint by Melanie Kramer was filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Notification of Right to Sue. Similarly, a charge ofemployment discrimination was filed by Sylvia A1fortish with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days from the date ofthe commission ofthe unfair employment practices; a Notification of Right to Sue was received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 22, 2001; the Complaint of Sylvia A1fortish was filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Notification of Right to Sue.
VIII. This Complaint also seeks restitution to plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia A1fortish, of all rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by them but for the defendants' unlawful, intentional and tortious practices under Title VII.
IX. But for the unlawful employment practices alleged below, Melanie Kramer would have continued to work for the defendant, The New Orleans Saints. Plaintiff, a college graduate with a
-5-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 6 of 20
degree in marketing, commenced her employment with the New Orleans Saints on March 7, 1997, which position she held until her unlawful termination on or about March 8, 2000. As an Administrative Assistant, her job duties included, but were not limited to, making arrangements for summer training camp for the employees in her department.
In addition, aside from her "camp" responsibilities, Ms. Kramer was to handle all correspondence, communications, answering the telephone, sending faxes and all other office administrative duties in her department. She also was responsible for the non-graphic production of the play books and was responsible for coordinating with the printer, ordering the binders, and merging the graphics with the text ofthose play books. She was also responsible for assimilating all ofthe data for the scouting books. Her duties also encompassed rotating Saturdays to cover for the receptionist along with other female staff members. No male staff members were required to cover for the receptionist on Saturdays.
x.
Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, commenced her employment with The New Orleans Saints with the expectation that there would be promotional opportunities within an organization of that size, especially given the fact that plaintiff held a Bachelor's of Science in Marketing from Indiana State University. Despite the fact that she held such a degree, that she had worked in an assistant managerial capacity for one year post-college and that she had an excellent work history with The New Orleans Saints, plaintiff was afforded no opportunities for advancement as no opportunities were made known to her through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give her employees notice of any such opportunities.
-6-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 7 of 20
XI. In addition to the fact that the defendants afforded Melanie Kramer no promotional opportunities, approximately five or six weeks before her termination, plaintiffwas forced to endure a barrage of sexually suggestive comments made by her new supervisor. Her new supervisor, together with other of his male co-workers made numerous demeaning remarks about her. Plaintiff had not had this problem with her former supervisor so she chose to ignore the remarks or act as if they did not bother her, all in an effort to get along with her new supervisor, in the hopes that such remarks would cease when he realized she was not interested in him. At about this same time, Ms. Kramer had notified her supervisor of her pregnant condition so as to apprise him when she would be taking a brief period offamily leave, for four-to-six weeks. Ms. Kramer did assure him, however, that she could in fact fulfill all of her duties, including attendance at summer camp from mid-July to early August of2000. The plaintiff's child was due to be born in late August/early September of2000. Her supervisor expressed doubt as to her ability to fulfill her job and, second, he made sexually suggestive remarks regarding her anatomy. Further, he made other remarks to her about her unmarried state, her being pregnant, and inquiring as to her interest in staying with her fiancee. In addition, her supervisor would make comments to the effect that perhaps she was not committed to her fiancee and that she should be after someone with money. Then the supervisor would flash her a stack of currency.
XII. Despite these offensive remarks which occurred over a five to six-week time frame prior to Melanie Kramer's termination (which time-frame coincided with the commencement of her new
-7-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 8 of 20
supervisor's employment with The New Orleans Saints), plaintiffcontinued to politely rebuffher new supervisor because she wanted to perform her job in a professional manner. Accordingly, she did not bring his remarks to anyone's attention because she believed, wrongly, that she had resolved the issue without causing anyone embarrassment.
Plaintiff avers that the supervisor's repeated offensive remarks, together with the close connection in time between Ms. Kramer's announcement to her supervisor that she was pregnant, his lack oftime in the position to judge her performance, her excellent work history preceding her new supervisor's arrival, and the supervisor's abrupt firing of her demonstrate the real reasons for her termination, those being that she was being terminated for unlawful causes, i.e., Title VII gender/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation due to not responding to her supervisor's sexual advances. As a result of the actions taken by her employer, plaintiff avers that she was forced to work in a hostile environment and was retaliated against by her employer for rebuffing her new supervIsor.
XIII. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, also avers that she was adversely impacted by the alleged "restructuring" by the defendants. On plaintiff's pink slip, the defendant's official "position" was that there was a "restructuring" and that her position was "eliminated"; however, a white male, Ms. Kramer's replacement, was given less secretarial duties, the same other responsibilities which Ms. Kramer handled or like job duties which Ms. Kramer could have handled, given her experience. Her male replacement was given an increase in pay over that which Ms. Kramer was making.
-8-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 9 of 20
XIV. Further, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, was told by her supervisor, at the time that he fired her, that he would talk to Arnold Fielkow (the Director ofAdministration) and set something up with him because he thought there were a couple ofpositions open in ticket sales. When plaintiffmet with Mr. Fielkow the next day, Mr. Fielkow told her that there were some positions open in ticket sales, but the positions paid much less than what plaintiff had been making. Plaintiff then inquired of Mr. Fielkow if there were any marketing positions open which positions would have been considered either lateral or promotional in that the pay would have been equal or greater than that which she was making as an Administrative Assistant. Mr. Fielkow told her there were none, despite the fact that there were at least two or more openings which were filled by males shortly after plaintiff's departure. Plaintiff was never called to interview for those positions despite the fact that Mr. Fielkow knew she needed another job and that she had a marketing degree, as he had commented on it in their meeting.
xv.
Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, concern over her financial well-being and that of her family during a time which was most stressful, that being, while she was pregnant. As a result of the defendant's violations, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer has lost substantial income and other benefits associated with her employment, including health benefits.
XVI. Similarly, but for the unlawful employment practices alleged below, plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, would have continued to work for the defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership.
-9-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 10 of 20
Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, commenced her employment with New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership on or about September of 1974, where she worked until her forced resignation/constructive discharge on July 13, 2001. Sylvia Alfortish's first position was that of Public Relations Secretary, a position she held for approximately ten (10) years. During the course of that first ten (10) year period of employment, her job title changed to Public Relations Assistant, with no raise other than cost ofliving. Her job duties as Public Relations SecretarylPublic Relations Assistant during her first ten (10) years for the Saints included such activities as preparing press releases, press packages to the media, arranging player interviews and appearances and dealing with the media on a daily basis.
XVII. Over the years, plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, continued to do public relations work, and in addition to those duties, she was responsible for training the dance team, the Saintsations, and working pre-game and half-time events. In addition to her 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. obligations to remain at the Saints office during the day, Ms. Alfortish had rehearsals every Tuesday and Thursday night from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. from June to December and January through May and she was also responsible for the Saintsations public appearances and working promotions for the Saints. Ms. Alfortish was not paid any overtime for any ofthe hours she worked above 40 hours, despite the fact that such activities required her to work nights, weekends, mini-camps, drafts, training camps, summer camps and events on Saints' locations.
XVIII. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, commenced her employment with the Saints and over the years she
-10-

---------
Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 11 of 20
expected that there would be promotional opportunities within an organization ofthat size, especially given the fact that plaintiffhad more tenure and seniority than virtually all ofthe administrative staff Although Sylvia Alfortish had work experience which included all phases of public relations and marketing, and although she was familiar with virtually very aspect of the Saints administrative operation, she was afforded no opportunities for advancement and no opportunities were made known to her through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give female employees notice of any such opportunities.
XIX. Over the years, plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, repeatedly requested increases in pay when she was given additional duties and despite the fact that she was promised pay raises to be commensurate with her additional responsibilities, she never received same. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, maintains that males who worked in the administrative/public relations/marketing departments along with Sylvia Alfortish made more money than she did despite the fact that their duties were less onerous and/or they had much less experience than her. Further, these white males were given car allowances and cell phones and other benefits including travel benefits, benefits which Sylvia Alfortish did not have. In addition, these male employees made at least $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 more per year than Ms. Alfortish.
xx.
Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, avers that when job openings would become available for which she was qualified (which would enable her to make more money), those openings were not announced nor were there any postings ofthe jobs to allow competition for the position; rather, males were hired
-11-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 12 of 20
for those positions without advertising and/or announcing the position. This exclusion of women from the better paying positions and opportunities for promotions occurred during Ms. Alfortish' s entire tenure at the Saints, culminating on July 13,2000 when she was denied an appropriate pay raise in my position as Marketing AssistantiSaintsations Director.
XXI. Sometime in February of2000, Mr. Arnold Fielkow was hired as the Senior Vice-President of Administration for the Saints. When he began his employment with the Saints, he informed all staff, including Ms. Alfortish, that every staff position would be evaluated for restructuring and for pay purposes. Mr. Fielkow then required that each and every employee provide him with their job descriptions and a list of their duties in connection therewith. During that same time, in the Spring of2000, several males were hired in ticket sales, ticket operations and other administrative posts, any number of which positions Ms. Alfortish could have filled had Ms. Alfortish known of the vacancy beforehand. Several of the new male hires in the Spring of 2000 were being hired in salary ranges which were at least $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 greater than Ms. Alfortish's then-salary, which led Ms. Alfortish to believe that once her position was evaluated her salary would be increased significantly.
XXII. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, made known her concerns about her salary to Mr. Fielkow on several occasions, informing him that she had been underpaid for many years and was expecting compensation commensurate to her responsibilities and tenure. Mr. Fielkow assured her that he was reviewing her position and that there would be a pay raise forth coming.
-12-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 13 of 20
XXIII. Given the fact that Ms. Alfortish was led to believe by Mr. Fielkow that a significant pay increase was forthcoming, when she opened her paycheck for July 1, 2000, and noted that the only pay raise she received was a $20.00 per pay period increase, she was shocked and dismayed. This menial pay raise was in stark contrast to both new male hires and long-tenured male employees who had positions comparable to that of Ms. Alfortish. On July 13, 2000, upon learning that she would not receive any other pay increase, Ms. Alfortish resigned. Ms. Alfortish maintains that the actions of the defendants resulted in her constructive discharge.
XXIV. Plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish, has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, concern over her wellbeing and that of her family. As a result of the defendant's violations, plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish has lost substantial income and other benefits associated with her employment.
XXV. Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, aver that they were treated differently and!or that their employment was adversely impacted in the following respects: a) they were given more onerous job functions than the male workers employed in the
same capacity, yet with less pay and less benefits than their male co-workers; b) they were afforded no opportunities for advancement as no opportunities were made
known to them through job postings or any other means reasonably calculated to give female employees notice of any such opportunities. New positions were announced after the said positions had been filled by the male employees;
-13-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 14 of 20
c) they were evaluated, disciplined, and/or terminated using a much more stringent performance criteria than was utilized in evaluating, disciplining and/or terminating the male employees;
d) they were adversely impacted by the "restructuring" efforts of the defendants due to the fact that certain positions held by female workers were allegedly "restructured" to give male workers an opportunity to fill newly created positions at higher pay than what the female workers had been paid, although the newly created positions could have been held by the female employees;
e) they were also adversely impacted by the "restructuring" efforts ofthe defendants due to the fact that certain positions held by female workers were undervalued and given no pay increase whatsoever while certain positions held by male workers or certain positions newly created for male workers were given substantial pay increases;
f) they were also adversely impacted by the "restructuring" in that female workers' positions were eliminated without allowing female workers to make lateral or promotional moves into other available openings;
g) they were adversely treated in other non-exclusive ways, all of which will be shown at the trial of this matter.
Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, further avers that she has been sexually harassed and/or retaliated against and both plaintiffs aver that they have been subjected to a hostile workplace environment and/or retaliated against due to their voicing of concerns to management.
-14-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 15 of 20
XXVI. Plaintiff saver that the defendants intentionally engaged in the pattern of continuing tortious conduct outlined above against them. As a result ofthe above conduct, the defendants have violated Title VII by unlawfully and intentionally allowing sexual harassment offemale workers, engendering a hostile environment in the workplace, allowing pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination and retaliation with reckless indifference to the plaintiffs' federally protected rights under Title VII and in violation offederal common law. Further, plaintiffs aver that the defendants, by their actions, have violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963, thereby causing the defendants to be liable unto plaintiffs.
XXVII. Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged, and this suit for injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief Plaintiffs are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendants' policies, practices, customs and usages as set forth herein until and unless enjoined by the Court.
XXVIII. Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, further aver that such Title VII violations on the part of the defendants constitute willful and reckless indifference to federally protected rights. As such, plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional distress and anguish, and to punitive/statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law, in addition to plaintiffs' pecuniary damages, lost wages, past, present and future, and attorney's fees. As well, plaintiffs are entitled to all costs ofexpert witness fees, costs ofcourt and for judicial interest from date of demand
-15-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 16 of 20
until paid. XXIX.
The revision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 entitle plaintiffs to a trial by jury. Further, plaintiffs' other claims are entitled to be tried by a jury.
THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT VIOLATIONS XXX.
Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, re-urges and re-avers all ofthe allegations contained in this Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, further avers that as a result of the above conduct, defendants have violated The Family and Medical Leave Act by unlawfully and intentionally interfering with and/or restraining or denying the exercise or attempted exercise of rights to which the former employee plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, was entitled under FMLA, and this Complaint seeks restitution to the plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, of all rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by her but for the defendants' unlawful, intentional and tortious practices.
XXXI. As a result of the defendants' FMLA violations, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, alleges that she has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress over losing her job. In addition, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, has lost benefits and back pay. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, also is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs resulting from such conduct. Additionally, Melanie Kramer is entitled to reinstatement and/or lost pay, recovery of reasonable attorney's fees, interest from date ofjudicial demand, statutory damages and court costs resulting from such conduct.
-16-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 17 of 20
XXXII. Plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, further avers that such FMLA violations on the part of the defendants were in willful and reckless indifference to her federally protected rights. As such, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages and to statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law in addition to attorney's fees. As well, plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, is entitled to and seeks all costs and judicial interest from date of demand until paid, and is entitled to a trial by jury.
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT VIOLATIONS XXXIII.
Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, re-urge and re-aver all of the allegations contained in this Second Amended Complaint. In addition to the above violations, the defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to the maintaining of records and to the calculation of overtime for its non-exempt staff, including Ms. Kramer and Ms. Alfortish. The defendants had no bonafide agreement with their employees regarding any alternative method of keeping or calculating overtime permissible under the Act and, as such, the defendants have failed and/or refused to keep the appropriate books and records regarding employee overtime worked.
During the course of plaintiffs' tenure, they regularly and routinely worked in excess offorty hours per week. Plaintiffs aver that they should have been paid for those excess hours at the statutory overtime rate of one and one-halftimes their normal hourly wage for each hour worked in excess of forty hours per week. Instead, defendants either paid plaintiffs no additional wages whatsoever for hours worked over forty and/or plaintiffs were paid only straight time or halftime for hours worked over forty. As such, plaintiffs received either no additional compensation for hours worked over forty
-17-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 18 of 20

or the inappropriate compensation. These practices on the part of defendants are in violation of the

overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 US.C. § 207. No exemption under the Act applies to excuse

defendants' failure to pay the appropriate overtime wages to plaintiffs.

XXXIV.

In addition to the minimum wage and overtime violations alleged herein, defendants also

engaged in prohibited acts by failing to properly record the working time of its non-exempt

employees, in violation ofthe record-keeping requirements of Section II(c) ofthe FLSA, 29 US.c.

§ 211(c).

xxxv.

Inasmuch as defendants have willfully violated provisions of the Act, plaintiffs demand

payment for all compensation due and owing for three (3) years prior to the day offiling this action,

in accordance with 29 US.C. § 255(a). Plaintiffs demand from the defendants an additional amount,

equal to the total compensation due, as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 US.c. §§ 216 and 269.

In accordance with 29 US.c. § 216, plaintiffs demand from defendants reasonable attorneys' fees,

interest from date ofjudicial demand until paid, and such costs as may be required to prosecute this

action.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, pray that this Court deem

this Second Amended Complaint as just and sufficient, and in compliance with this Court's Order,

advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable date, cause this case

to be in every way expedited and on such hearing to the Court, that it:

1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the practices complained ofherein are unlawful and

-18-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 19 of 20
violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its amendments and the Equal Pay Act of 1963; 2. Permanently enjoin the defendants, their agents, successors, officers, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them from engaging each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages set forth herein, and from continuing any and all of the practices shown to be in violation of applicable law; 3. Order modification or elimination of practices, policies, customs set forth herein and all other such practices shown to be in violation of applicable law; 4. Compensate and make whole plaintiffs for all earnings, wages and other benefits they would have received but for the unlawful, intentional discrimination by defendants and by their unlawful violations of Title VII, ofthe Equal Pay Act of 1963, of The Family & Medical Leave Act and of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 5. Award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with 42 U.S. C. Section 1988, 1000e-5(k), as amended, and pursuant to Title VII, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, The Family & Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act;: 6. Award plaintiffs the costs of any and all expert witness fees pursuant to the above statutes; 7. Award plaintiffs punitive and/or statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law pursuant to the above statutes; 8. Award plaintiffs compensatory damages, including but not limited to, damages for
-19-

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 37 Filed 06/19/02 Page 20 of 20

their emotional distress and anguish in an amount to be determined by the evidence presented, together with judicial interest from date of demand until paid, pursuant to the relief afforded in the above statutes; 9. Award plaintiffs their actual damages as alleged hereinabove to be established at trial, all as recoverable under the statutes referenced herein; 10. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees; 11. Grant plaintiffs a trial by jury; 12. Grant all such equitable and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper." WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, pray that this Second Amended Complaint be deemed sufficient and permitted to be filed herein.
Respectfully submitted,

PAULA PERRONE (#10518) PATRICIA PANNELL(#1866S) Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin & Murray One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certity that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon counsel for

defendants, via facsimile transmission, this 19th day of Ju~e, 2002. /i

~

iJ?~L d/iA/U!/LL

PAULA PERRONE

-20-

 
 • Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 47

•Filed 11/04/02 Page 1 of 2 .}". U S. DISTRICT COURT tAS1'!RN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FILED NOV - A 2002
..- " ~,
,
LORETTA G. WHYTE
CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER and

*

SYLVIA ALFORTISH

*

*

VERSUS

*

* NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS *

AIKIA NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, TOM *

BENSON, BENSON FOOTBALL, INC., *

* ANDBEN~SAINTSMANAGEMENT

COMPANY, L.C.

*

* * *** * * * * * * * *

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2451 SECTION "L" MAGISTRATE 4

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and

Sylvia Alfortish, who wish to amend the Original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint and the

Second Amended Complaint in the following particulars:

1.

By amending paragraph 23 to read as follows:

"Given the fact that Ms. Alfortish was led to believe by Mr. Fielkow that a significant pay

increase was forthcoming, when she opened her paycheck ofJuly 1, 2000 and noted that the only pay

raise she received was a $20.00 per pay period increase, she was shocked and dismayed. This menial

pay raise was in stark contrast to both new male hires and long-tenured male employees who have
Fee__~
=proces6'"Y:.L--
JLDktd_"trV- -
_CtRmDe Pch4DOCoN00-r-;-

• Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 47

•Filed 11/04/02 Page 2 of 2

positions comparable to that of Ms. Alfortish. On July 13, 2000, upon learning that she would not receive any other pay increase, Ms. Alfortish resigned due to the fact that she had felt humiliated and that her working conditions had become so intolerable that she felt forced to resign, given her length of tenure of service and the actions of the defendant in continually undervaluing her service as an employee. Additionally, Ms. Alfortish avers that the constant degradation, harassment, badgering and/or humiliation by the employer culminating in the 'pay raise of a menial amount' was calculated to encourage Ms. Alfortish's resignation. Ms. Alfortish maintains that the actions ofthe defendants results in her constructive discharge."
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, pray that this Third Amended Complaint be deemed sufficient and permitted to be filed herein.
Respectfully submitted,

PAULA PERRONE (#10518) Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin
Murray & Recile One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Tel.: (504) 833-5600/ Fax: (504) 833-8080 Attorneys for Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon counsel for defendants, via facsimile transmission, this 9th day o~ 200..2.....~-""
--~------------=-------~~~~
PAULA PERRONE
-2-

 
 Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 25 Filed 03/27/02 Page 1 of 1

MINUTE ENTRY ROBY, M.J. March 27, 2002

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER VERSUS THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-2451 SECTION: "L" (4)

On March 12, 2002, the defendant, The New Orleans Saints, filed a Motion to Compel

Discovery (doc. # 21) seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to answer its Interrogatories and

Request for Production of Documents. The motion was scheduled for hearing before the

undersigned for March 27, 2002. Local Rule 7.5E requires that:
"[e]ach party opposing a motion shall file, in duplicate, a memorandum of the reasons advanced in opposition to the motion and a list of... authorities .... [relied upon] ...no later than the eighth calendar day prior to the noticed hearing and shall at the same time serve a copy thereof on the opposing parties. "
No memorandum in opposition, nor request for extension of time within which to oppose the

motion has been filed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. # 21) is GRANTED.

DATE OF ENTRY

-'.

MAR 28 2002

 
 ., .\

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 96 Filed 07/31/03 Page 1 of 3

MINUTE ENTRY ROBY,M.J. July 30, 2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, ET AL VERSUS THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-2451 SECTION: "L" (4)

On July 11,2003, the defendants, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, et aI, filed a Motion for Protective Order (doc. #88). Three days later, the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of Tom Benson and Motion for Leave of Court to Continue the Deposition Until Complete (doc. # 82). Also, the plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish filed a Motion to Compel (doc. #84) and the plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, filed a Motion to Compel

(doc. #86). A hearing on the motions was held on July 30,2003. All parties were present. After listening to the arguments of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order (doc. #88) is CONTINUED. The
Court ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the issues presented in the proposed Protective Order submitted by the defendants. A hearing on this matter is continued to continued to 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2003 with oral arguments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of

"DATE OF ENTRY
JUL 3 1 2003

_Fee----

_ Process ~

to . --4'Dktd ~­
..::L CtRmDePl!J

_ Doc. No.

-_.

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 96 Filed 07/31/03 Page 2 of 3
Tom Benson and Motion for Leave of Court to Continue the Deposition Until Complete (doc.
# 82) is CONTINUED. The Court will contact Judge Eldon Fallon to determine whether Tom
Benson may be deposed prior to the end of the football season. A hearing on this matter is
continued to 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2003 with oral arguments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sylvia Alfortish's Motion to Compel (doc. #84) is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and CONTINUED IN PART as follows:
1. GRANTED as to Request for Admission No.5. The defendants shall respond within 10 days of this order.
2. GRANTED as to Request for Admission Nos. 9, 10 and 11. The defendants will amend their responses within 10 days of this order.
3. GRANTED as to Request for Production No.8. The request shall be limited to 5 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. The defendants shall respond within 10 days of this order.
4. GRANTED as to Request for Production No.1 O. The defendants shall respond only to the extent the plaintiffseeks documents pertaining to Rick Porter. The defendants shall respond within 10 days of this order.
5. GRANTED as to Request for Production No. 12. The defendants shall respond within 10 days ofthis order.
6. GRANTED as to Request for Production No. 15. The request shall be limited to 5 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. The defendants shall respond within 10 days of this order.
7. DENIED as to Request for Admission Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
8. DENIED as to Request for Production Nos. 4, 11, 17 and.19.
9. CONTINUED as to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 6. The plaintiffwill provide the relevant deposition testimony to the Court no later than August 4, 2003. A hearing on this matter is continued to 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2003 with oral arguments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melanie Kramer's Motion to Compel (doc. #86) is
2

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 96 Filed 07/31/03 Page 3 of 3 DENIED IN PART and CONTINUED IN PART as follows:
1. DENIED as to Request for Admission Nos. 9, 10 and 13. 2. DENIED as to Interrogatories Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20. 3. DENIED as to Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16. 4. CONTINUED as to Request for Production No.5. The parties will work to resolve
this issue. A hearing on this matter is continued to 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2003 with oral arguments. To obtain a transcript ofthe proceedings for the Court's findings, the parties should contact Gaynell Banta, Court Recorder Supervisor, at 589-7720.
3

 
 .~

. / "'J"

•

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 100 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 2

MINUTE ENTRY ROBY, M.J. August 13, 2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, ET AL VERSUS THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-2451 SECTION: "L" (4)

On July 11, 2003, the defendants, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, et aI, filed a Motion for Protective Order (doc. #88). Three days later, the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish,

filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of Tom Benson and Motion for Leave of

Court to Continue the Deposition Until Complete (doc. # 82). Also, the plaintiff, Sylvia Alfortish

filed a Motion to Compel (doc. #84) and the plaintiff, Melanie Kramer, filed a Motion to Compel

(doc. #86). A hearing on the motions was held on July 30,2003. After listening to the arguments of the parties, a ruling was deferred in part to allow the
parties to resolve several issues.' A hearing on the motions was held on August 13,2003. During the hearing, the Court granted the plaintiffs' request to depose Tom Benson. Also during the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had resolved the issues raised in the Motion for Protective Order. They also informed the Court that they had resolved the dispute as to Request for Production

ISee Rec. Doc. No. 96.

DATE 01= ~I\ITPY
AUG 1 4 2003

. ----- - Fee
.~.L*cktde~~2 ~ '
-- DCotRc.mNDoe.p-'-'7t-f{-)=

I~/.

.

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 100 Filed 08/14/03 Page 2 of 2

Nos. 5 and 6 of Sylvia Alfortish's Motion to Compel and Request for Production No.5 of Melanie Kramer's Motion to Compel.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Tom Benson and Motion for Leave of Court to Continue Deposition Until Complete (doc. #82) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. GRANTED to the extent the plaintiffs seek to depose Tom Benson during the
football season. The deposition shall be conducted during the Saints' bye week. 2. DENIED to the extent the plaintiffs seek to depose Benson for more than seven
hours. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sylvia Alfortish's Motion to Compel (doc. #84) is DENIED as MOOT as to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melanie Kramer's Motion to Compel (doc. #86) is DENIED as MOOT as to Request for Production No.5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order (doc. #88) is DENIED as MOOT. To obtain a transcript ofthe proceedings for the Court's findings, the parties should contact Gaynell Banta, Court Recorder Supervisor, at 589-7720.

TEJUDGE

2

 
 Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 70 Filed 02/13/03 Page 1 of 3

s y 2003 FEB 13 Pt~ 3:

LO

'I;'f:"
, ....

r1TCALEGm. W, HYTE

MINUTE ENTRY ROBY,M.J. February 13, 2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELANIE KRAMER, ET AL VERSUS NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-2451 SECTION: "L" (4)

On February 10, 2003, the defendant, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, et ai, filed a Motion

for Protective Order to Prohibit Videotaping Deposition (doc. #69), An expedited hearing on

the motion was held via telephone conference on February 10,2003, Participating in the hearing

were Paula Perrone, representing the plaintiffs, Melanie Kramer, et ai, and Leslie Lanusse and Janis

van Meerveld, representing the defendants, New Orleans Saints, et al.

During the hearing, the defendants contended that they sought to prohibit the plaintiffs from videotaping the deponent's deposition because the only purpose in doing so was to annoy, embarrass

and invade the privacy of the deponent. They indicated that although the notice of deposition does

indicate that the deposition would be videotaped, they did not learn that the plaintiffs wished to

videotape the deposition until February 7,2003.

The defendants expressed concern about the confidentiality of the information that may be

revealed during the deposition. Ms. Lanusse argued that the video deposition was unnecessary as

DATE OF ENTRY
FEB 1 4 Z003

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 70 Filed 02/13/03 Page 2 of 3
the deponent is not a flight risk or death risk and will be present at trial. She indicated that the parties recently held a conference with District Judge Eldon Fallon where it was discussed that everything relating to the deposition shall be kept under seal. Ms. Lanusse indicated that despite the verbal protective order, the defendants were contacted by the local media prior to the deposition which indicates that information is being made pUblic.
Ms. Perrone responded by stating the she issued a notice of deposition on January 9,2003 which clearly stated that the deposition would be videotaped. She stated that there has never been an issue as to the deposition being kept confidential. Ms. Perrone stated that Judge Fallon has worked with counsel to work through several confidentiality issues and the parties have entered a verbal agreement that information received will not be disseminated to the media. She also stated that the information revealed during the deposition will be kept confidential as the deposition will not be filed in the record.
Ms. Perrone contended that she has every right to videotape the deposition in order to prepare for trial and assess the credibility of the witness. She also stated that she will have to obtain new counsel for the plaintiff because of an illness in her family. She contended that although she can assess the credibility of the witness during the deposition, new counsel will need to be shown the videotape of the deponent in order to make their own assessment of credibility.
After listening to the arguments of the parties, the undersigned allowed the deposition to proceed by video. The stenographer and videographer were advised that the deponent's testimony is subject to a protective order and is not be disclosed to anyone. The videographer was ordered to not make any copies of the videotape and was ordered to deliver the videotape to the chambers of the undersigned following the deposition. The videotape will be kept under seal and will only be
2

Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 70 Filed 02/13/03 Page 3 of 3 accessible to the attorney's in this matter. The stenographer was ordered to disseminate the written transcript to counsel only.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Videotaping Deposition (doc. #69) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Recorder Supervisor is designated as custodian of the cassette tape used to record the hearing.
3

 
 Case 2:01-cv-02451-EEF Document 106 Filed 11/12/03 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2003 NOV I 2 AM II: 14 LO!·{t i LL, G. WHYTE
CLER:,

MELANIE KRAMER, ET AL.

* CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

* NO. 01-2451

NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL.

* SECTION "L"(4)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that all of the parties to Civil Action No. 01-2451, entitled

Melanie Kramer, et al. v. New Orleans Saints, et al. have firmly agreed upon a compromise,

IT IS ORDERED that the action be and it is hereby DISMISSED without costs and without

prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown, to reopen the action or to seek summary judgment

enforcing the compromise if settlement is not consummated within a reasonable time. The Court

retains jurisdiction for all purposes, including enforcing the settlement agreement entered into by the

parties.

COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT, if witnesses have been subpoenaed, EVERY

WITNESS MUST be notified by counsel not to appear.

J L New Orleans, Louisiana this

day of November

~f

DATE 01= I2NT~Y
NOV 1 2 2003

 
 Kramer v. New Orleans Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)

Opinion

2002 WL 1163619 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
Melanie KRAMER, et al. v.
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, et al.
No. Civ.A. 01-2451. | May 30, 2002.

ORDER
FALLON, J.
*1 Before the Court is the motion of plaintiffs to extend the deadlines for class certification in this case. Also before the Court is the defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to comply with the court-ordered deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification. The Court heard oral argument from the parties on these motions on May 28, 2002.
Plaintiffs seek to extend the deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification in this case for the third time. This lawsuit was filed on August 13, 2001. On November 11, 2001 plaintiffs moved for an extension of the 90 day time period set by local rule for the filing of a motion for class certification. The Court granted the motion and extended the deadline to March 12, 2002. On March 11, 2002, plaintiffs again moved the Court for extension of the deadline in which to file a motion for class certification. The Court again granted the request and extended the deadline to May 20, 2002. On May 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed the instant motion. Counsel for plaintiffs explains that she has been preoccupied with other pressing legal matters which were not expected. Counsel further explains that further discovery is required before class certification can be sought.
Defendants oppose the motion to extend, contending that counsel for plaintiffs has had ample opportunity to participate in discovery but that she has not cooperated. Defendants point out that over the course of the past year, defendants have been forced to file against the plaintiffs two motions to compel the production of discovery materials. Defendants also point out that as of this date no depositions have been conducted in this case.
As a condition to class certification, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly an adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court finds this prerequisite lacking in this case. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a lack of interest in aggressively pursuing the interests of the putative class in matters of discovery and class certification.
In East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the failure to move in a timely fashion for certification of a class bears strongly on the adequacy of representation that the class members might expect to receive. Indeed, several courts have denied class certification on the basis of delays in seeking certification even if that is the sole indicia of inadequate representation. See Wilson v. Seven Seventeen HB Philadelphia Corp., 2001 WL 484193 (E.D.Pa.); In re Folding Carton Litigation, 88 F.R.D. 211 (N.D.Ill.1980) (citing cases); and Flora v. Moore, 78 F.R.D. 358 (N.D.Miss.1979).
Having considered the facts of this case and the arguments of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to extend deadlines for class certification be and hereby is DENIED.
*2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations, be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly,
1

Kramer v. New Orleans Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for plaintiffs shall with twenty (20) days file in this Court an amended complaint in which the previously asserted class allegation are stricken.
2

 
 Kramer v. New Orleans Saints
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana February 11, 2004, Decided ; February 12, 2004, Filed, Entered
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2451 SECTION "L"(4)

Reporter: 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1934; 2004 WL 288779 MELANIE KRAMER, ET AL. VERSUS NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, ET AL.
Prior History: Kramer v. New Orleans Saints, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10389 (E.D. La., May 28, 2002)
Disposition: [*1] Motion for Leave of Court to Reopen Case and to File Intervention DENIED.
Counsel: For MELANIE KRAMER, SYLVIA ALFORTISH, plaintiffs: Sean D. Alfortish, Law Office of Sean D. Alfortish, Gretna, LA.
For NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, defendant: Leslie A. Lanusse, Janis van Meerveld, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA.
For CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, ELLIS, BRESLIN, MURRAY & RECILE, L.L.P., movant: Paula Anne Perrone, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin, Murray & Recile LLP, Metairie, LA.
Judges: Eldon E. Fallon, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Opinion by: Eldon E. Fallon

reimbursed for costs and expenses advanced and was to be paid one-third of all proceeds of any settlement/judgment which may have resulted from the litigation as compensation to Chehardy for services rendered. In February of 2003, the parties participated in an unsuccessful settlement conference. Thereafter, Perrone and Chehardy withdrew as counsel for personal reasons. On April 2, 2003, Sean Alfortish, Plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish's son, was substituted as counsel with the approval of Chehardy.
The parties participated in a second settlement agreement that was successful on November 10, 2003. This Court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to re-open the action upon good cause shown. On January 6, 2004, this Court entered the final order dismissing the matter with prejudice. On January 7, 2004, the present motion was filed.
In its motion, Chehardy urges the Court to re-open [*3] the matter to allow it to intervene and assert a claim to part of any funds which may be due and/or held by the Plaintiffs in the form of attorney's fees. Chehardy represents that it entered into a fee split arrangement with substituted counsel upon transferring the case to him. Chehardy claims that its intervention is permitted by Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Opinion
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court is in receipt of Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin, Murray & Reciles, L.L.P.'s (hereinafter "Chehardy") Motion for Leave of Court to Reopen Case and to File Intervention. For the following reasons the Motion is DENIED.

The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, stating that no such agreement was entered into and that Chehardy has been reimbursed costs. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that part of the consideration in the confidential settlement agreement was that attorney's fees would not be paid. Thus, the settlement proceeds have been disbursed to the Plaintiffs.
II. Law and Analysis

I. Background
This matter arises from a claim filed by a class, including Melanie Kramer and Sylvia Alfortish, alleging various violations of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kramer and Alfortish hired Chehardy [*2] in approximately April of 2000 to represent them in their claims arising out of their respective terminations from employment. Attorney Paula Perrone, a member of the Chehardy law firm, was trial counsel in the matter. Under the terms of their agreement, Chehardy was to be

It is axiomatic that a final order of dismissal with prejudice divests the district court of jurisdiction to re-open a matter absent very limited circumstances. Chehardy provides no basis to accomplish re-opening the case in the face of a dismissal with prejudice. Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), a party is entitled to an intervention [*4] of right if, inter alia, the motion to intervene is filed timely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); see Ford v. City of Hunstville, 242 F.3d 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2001).
When determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, a court must consider the following four factors: (1) how

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1934, *4

Page 2 of 2

long the potential intervener knew or reasonably should have jurisdiction to grant the motion to intervene, the motion was

known of her stake in the case into which she seeks to not timely filed.

intervene; (2) the prejudice, if any, the existing parties may suffer because the potential intervener failed to intervene when she knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in that case; (3) the prejudice, if any, the potential intervener may suffer if the court does not let her intervene; and (4) any unusual circumstances that weigh in favor of or against a

The decision of the Court regarding the instant motion has no bearing on the rights of Chehardy to move against the Plaintiffs in an action sounding in contract for breach of any fee splitting agreement that may have existed between counsel.

finding of timeliness. Ford, 242 F.3d at 239.

III. Conclusion

In the instant case, an order substituting counsel was entered in April of 2003. At that point, Chehardy knew or should have For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reopen Case and to known of its interest in the outcome of the litigation. Rather Intervene should be and hereby is DENIED.

than filing a motion to intervene at that time, Chehardy waited approximately nine months and until after a final order New Orleans, Louisiana this 11 day of February, 2004

dismissing [*5] the matter with prejudice was entered. Even if the Court had a basis for

Eldon E. Fallon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 1 of 10
2000E, CLOSED, PROTO
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01−cv−02451−EEF

Kramer, et al v. New Orleans Saints, et al Assigned to: Judge Eldon E. Fallon Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/13/2001 Date Terminated: 11/12/2003 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Melanie Kramer individually and on behalf of others similarly situated

represented by Paula Anne Perrone Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Griffith,Stakelum One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 (504) 833−5600 TERMINATED: 04/01/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Sean D. Alfortish Law Office of Sean D. Alfortish 525 Clay St. Kenner, LA 70062 504−704−1194 Email: lawqb@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Hudson Ellis Michael H. Ellis, Attorney at Law One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 (504) 833−5600 Email: mhe@chehardy.com TERMINATED: 04/01/2003

Patricia E. Pannell Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Griffith,Stakelum One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 (504) 833−5600 Email: pep@chehardy.com TERMINATED: 04/01/2003

Plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish

represented by Paula Anne Perrone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/01/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Sean D. Alfortish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Hudson Ellis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/01/2003

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 2 of 10
Patricia E. Pannell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/01/2003

V. Defendant NO Saints TERMINATED: 10/19/2001
Defendant Tom Benson TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
Defendant Benson Football Inc TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
Defendant Benz−Saints Management Company, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
Defendant New Orleans Louisiana Saints

represented by Leslie A. Lanusse Adams &Reese, LLP (New Orleans) One Shell Square 701 Poydras St. Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−581−3234 Email: leslie.lanusse@arlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/19/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Leslie A. Lanusse (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janis van Meerveld Adams &Reese, LLP (New Orleans) One Shell Square 701 Poydras St. Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−581−3234 Email: janis.vanmeerveld@arlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
represented by Leslie A. Lanusse (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janis van Meerveld (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
represented by Leslie A. Lanusse (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janis van Meerveld (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2003
represented by Leslie A. Lanusse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 3 of 10

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janis van Meerveld (See above for address)

Movant
Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin, Murray &Recile, L.L.P.

represented by Paula Anne Perrone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/15/2001
09/06/2001
09/12/2001
09/13/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
11/15/2001
11/16/2001 11/26/2001 11/29/2001 12/04/2001

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; 4 summons(es) issued (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Payment of filing fee by plaintiff Melanie Kramer in amount of $ 150.00 (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Automatic Referral (Utility Event) to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
2 Request by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and summons re−issued on orig complaint as to defendant New Orleans Saints, defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co; issd 4 sms (bb) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
3 Motion by defendant Benson Football Inc and ORDER extending time to answer complaint until 9/24/01 by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 9/10/01 (bc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
5 Motion by defendant New Orleans Saints, defendant Tom Benson and ORDER extending time to answer pla's complaint until 9/26/01 by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 9/14/01 (bb) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon defendant New Orleans Saints, defendant Tom Benson; no service dates given (bb) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
(Utility Event) Substituting party(s): terminating New Orleans Saints, adding NO Louisiana Saints (dw) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
6 ANSWER by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant NO Louisiana Saints to complaint by plaintiff Melanie Kramer [1−1] (dw) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
7 Request by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and summons re−issued on orig complaint as to defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co; issd 2 sms (bb) Modified on 12/26/2001 (Entered: 11/14/2001)
9 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and ORDER that the deadline for pla to file her class motion is extended until 3/12/02 by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 11/15/01 (dw) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co through Tom Benson on 11/13/01 (bb) Modified on 11/15/2001 (Entered: 11/15/2001)
10 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and ORDER for leave to file amended cmp by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 11/20/01 (bb) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
11 PLAINTIFF'S 1ST AMENDED complaint [1−1]; adding Sylvia Alfortish as party plaintiff (bb) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
12 ANSWER by defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co to complaint by plaintiff Melanie Kramer [1−1] (bb) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
13 ANSWER by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO Louisiana Saints to 1st amended complaint by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish [11−1] (bb) (Entered:

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 4 of 10

12/05/2001 12/12/2001 01/24/2002
01/28/2002 02/08/2002 02/13/2002 03/11/2002 03/11/2002
03/12/2002
03/12/2002 03/25/2002 03/27/2002 04/18/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002
05/20/2002
05/22/2002

12/05/2001)
14 MINUTE ENTRY ( 12/5/01 ) ; Preliminary Conference is set at 1:30 1/24/02 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bb) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
15 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co on 11/15/01 (bb) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
16 MINUTE ENTRY ( 1/24/02 ) A Rule 16 Scheduling Conference was held 1:30 1/24/02; parties will notify the Mag of their decision to consent pursuant to 28:636(c) by 2/1/02 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bb) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
17 MINUTE ENTRY ( 1/25/02 ) Notice of 636(c) non consent to proceed bfr a Mag Judge by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bb) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
18 Notice of Deposition by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints of Sylvia Alfortish on 3/18/02 &Melanie Kramer on 3/21/02 (bb) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
19 NOTICE/ORDER that a preliminary conference is scheduled by telephone before courtroom deputy at 10:15 3/7/02 by Clerk (gml) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
20 MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/8/02 ) Ordered that the Preliminary Conference is cont to 10:15 3/19/02 by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (bb) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
23 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and ORDER extending deadlines as follows: 5/20/02 as the date for plas to file mtns for class certification and/or collective action; 6/3/02 as the date for dft's filing of an opp; 6/17/02 as the date for plas' reply memo to be due by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 3/12/02 (bb) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
21 MOTION by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints to compel disc referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby to be heard before Mag Roby at 11:00 3/27/02 (bb) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
22 Notice of Deposition by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints of Melanie Kramer on 4/17/02 and Sylvia Alfortish on 4/19/02 (bb) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
24 MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/19/02 ) Ordered that the Preliminary Conference set at 10:15 3/19/02 is cont to be reset by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (bb) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
25 MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/27/02 ) granting dfts' motion to compel disc [21−1] by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bb) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
26 Re−Notice of Deposition by defendants Tom Benson of Melanie Kramer on 5/6/02 and Sylvia Alfortish on 5/8/02 (bb) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
27 Motion by plaintiffs Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER for appearance of atty Michael Hudson Ellis as additional co−counsel of record for same. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 5/21/02 (dno) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
28 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER for expedited hrg on their mtn to extend class certification deadlines; hrg set for 5/28/02 at 9:00 w/oral argument; by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 5/21/02 (rg) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
30 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER that plas' mtn to extend class certification deadlines be heard w/oral argument 5/28/02 at 9:00 a.m.; by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 5/21/02 (rg) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
29 Exp MOTION by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish to extend deadlines for class certification to be heard before Judge Fallon at 9:00 5/28/02 (rg) (Entered: 05/23/2002)

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 5 of 10

05/24/2002 05/24/2002 05/28/2002 05/29/2002 05/30/2002
06/19/2002
06/19/2002 07/11/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/20/2002 09/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/16/2002 10/17/2002

32 Motion by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co and ORDER expediting their mtn to strike class allegations − hrg set for 5/28/02 at 9:00am w/oral argument bfr Judge Fallon. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
34 Opposition by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co to motion to extend deadlines for class certification [29−1] filed by plaintiffs Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish (dno) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
31 SMOOTH MINUTES: Reported by O.J. Robert. Hrg on the plas' motion to extend deadlines for class certification [29−1] was held on 5/28/02. After argument by counsel, mtn taken under submission. Court adjourned. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
33 MOTION by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co to strike class allegations to be heard before Judge at 9:00 5/28/02 (dno) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
35 ORDERED that the plas' motion to extend deadlines for class certification [29−1] is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the dfts' motion to strike plas' class allegations [33−1] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plas' counsel shall w/in 20 days file in this Court an amended cmp in which the previously asserted class allegations are stricken. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 5/28/02 (dno) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
36 MINUTE ENTRY ( 6/18/02 ) On this date counsel for plas contacted the Court to inquire as to whether the 20 day amendment period set forth in this Court's order dated 5/28/02 would be calculated from the date on which the order was executed (5/28/02) or from the date of the filing of the order (5/30/02); The Court informed counsel that the 20 day period will be calculated from the date of the order's filing by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (gw) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
37 PLAINTIFFS' 2ND AMENDED complaint [1−1], [11−1]; no new ptys added, no summons issued (dno) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
38 ANSWER by defendant NO LA Saints, defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co to 2nd amd complaint by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish [37−1]; jury demand (dg) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
39 NOTICE/ORDER that a preliminary conference is scheduled by telephone before courtroom deputy at 10:00 9/9/02 by Clerk (gml) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
40 Re−Notice of Deposition by dfts New Orleans Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc, Benz−Saints Mgt Co &NO LA Saints of Sylvia Alfortish on 9/20/02. (dno) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
41 MINUTE ENTRY ( 8/19/02 ) ORDERED that the referral to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby is VACATED. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
42 MINUTE ENTRY ( 09/09/02 ) ; Preliminary Conference held 10:00 9/9/02 ; Status Conf is set 1:30 10/15/02 ; Pre−Trial Conference is set 8:30 6/3/03 ; jury trial is set 8:30 6/16/03 before Judge; by Clerk (gml) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
43 MOTION by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish for leave to file 3rd amended complaint referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby for hrg at 11:00 10/30/02 (proposed original attached) (dno) Modified on 10/11/2002 (Entered: 10/11/2002)
44 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/15/02 ): A settlement conference is scheduled before magistrate at 2:00 12/3/02 ; settlement letters due at least 2 days prior to the conf. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
45 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/15/02 ) A Status Conf was held this date in chambers. Following the conf, defense counsel informed the Court by phone that a settlement conf was scheduled for 12/3/02 in Mag Roby's chambers. ORDERED that pla's counsel shall produce the diary to the defense counsel w/in 10 days of the date of this conf. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conf is SCHEDULED for 1/8/03 at 8:30am. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 10/17/2002)

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 6 of 10

11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/08/2002 11/12/2002 11/14/2002
11/14/2002
12/03/2002 12/06/2002
12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/10/2003

46 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/4/02 ) ORDERED that the plas' motion for leave to file 3rd amended complaint [43−1] is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
47 PLAINTIFFS' 3RD AMENDED complaint [1−1], [11−1], [37−1] ; no new ptys added, no summons issued (dno) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
48 Re−Notice of Deposition by dfts New Orleans Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc, Benz−Saints Mgt Co &NO LA Saints of Melanie Kramer on 12/10/02. (dno) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
49 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/8/02 ) ORDERED that a Status Conf shall be held in chambers on 11/14/02 at 8:30am. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
50 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/14/02 ) A Status Conf was held this date in chambers. ORDERED that defense counsel shall provide plas' counsel w/available dates for depos of Jim Haslett &Tom Benson by 11/15/02. Defense counsel shall provide 2 available dates in 1/03 w/2 back−ups dates for these depos in 2/03. FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall inform Court in writing as to the selection of these dates. Additionally, Court notes following scheduled depos as set out in doc. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
51 ANSWER by defendant NO LA Saints, defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co to 3rd amended complaint by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish [47−1]; jury demand (bc) Modified on 11/15/2002 (Entered: 11/15/2002)
52 Notice of Deposition by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints of Melanie Kramer on 12/11/02. (rg) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
53 MINUTE ENTRY ( 12/4/02 ) Settlement confs were held on 12/3/02 &continued to this date. ORDERED that another settlement conf is set bfr Mag Roby on 5/5/03 at 2:00pm. Suppl settlement position letters are due to Mag by 5/1/03. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
54 Notice of Deposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish of Dennis Lauscha on 12/18/02. (dno) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
55 Notice of Deposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish of Arnold Fielkow on 12/12/02. (dno) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
56 Notice of Deposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish of Jim Haslett on 1/23/03. (dno) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
57 Notice of Deposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish of Tom Benson on 1/8/03. (dno) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
58 MINUTE ENTRY ( 1/6/03 ) ORDERED that the status conf scheduled for 1/8/03 be CONT until 8:30 2/4/03. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
59 Response by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co to plas' unopposed mtn for continuance of depos &continuance of status conf. (dno) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
62 Unopposed motion by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish for continuance of depo &continuance of status conf and UNSIGNED ORDER − See Court's M.E. dated 1/9/03 (dno) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
60 Notice of Deposition by plaintiff Melanie Kramer of Jim Haslett on 2/10/03 (vld) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
61 Notice of Deposition by plaintiff Melanie Kramer of Tom Benson on 2/21/03 (vld) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
63 MINUTE ENTRY ( 1/9/03 ) ORDERED that pla's unopposed mtn for continuance of status conf [62−1] is DENIED AS MOOT. As for the mtn for continuance of the depos of James Haslett &Tom Benson previously scheduled for 1/8/03, the Court GRANTS a continuance as set out in doc. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered:

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 7 of 10

01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/22/2003 02/04/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/13/2003
02/13/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/25/2003 02/27/2003 03/12/2003
03/28/2003 04/01/2003

01/13/2003)
64 Notice of Records Deposition by defendant NO LA Saints of Vincennes University, c/o Donna Jo Weaver on 2/7/03. (dno) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
65 Notice of Records Deposition by defendant NO LA Saints of Indiana State University c/o Ms. Carolyn Kidder on 2/7/03. (dno) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
66 Re−Notice of Deposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish of Tom Benson on 2/20/03. (dno) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
67 MINUTE ENTRY ( 2/4/03 ) Status Conf held 2/4/03 ; ORDERED that counsel shall contact the Court no later than 2/10/03 to notify the Court of plas' counsel's decision regarding the enrollment of co−counsel by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dw) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
68 Motion by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co and ORDER expediting their mtn for protective order to prohibit videotaping depo − hrg set for 8:45am on 2/10/03. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
69 MOTION by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co for protective order to prohibit videotaping depo referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby for hrg at 8:45 2/10/03 (dno) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
70 MINUTE ENTRY ( 2/13/03 ) ORDERED that dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co's motion for protective order to prohibit videotaping depo [69−1] is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Recorder Supervisor is designated as custodian of the cassette tape used to record the hrg. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
71 Motion by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints expediting hearing on dfts mtn for protective order and UNSIGNED ORDER (ca) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
72 MOTION by defendant Tom Benson, defendant Benson Football Inc, defendant Benz−Saints Mgt Co, defendant NO LA Saints for protective order to be heard before Mag Judge Roby no hearing date set (ca) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
73 MINUTE ENTRY ( 02/18/03 ) denying as moot dft's motion for portective order [72−1] by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (ca) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
74 RETURN OF SERVICE of subps to Vincennes University svd 1/21/03 &Indiana State University svd 1/28/03. (dno) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
75 MOTION by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish to continue trial and trial deadlines and unopposed mtn to continue the depo of Tom Benson and UNSIGNED ORDER; see minute entry dated 3/11/03 (dw) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
76 MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/11/03 ) ORDERED that plas' motion to continue trial and trial deadlines be GRANTED and that the trial be CONTINUED with new trial dates to be selected upon the plas' retention of new counsel; FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of Tom Benson, Saints coaches, or key administrators be CONTINUED until after the 2003−2004 football season [75−1]; FURTHER ORDERED that the request of plas' counsel Paula Perrone to withdraw from representation be DENIED until new counsel is retained; FURTHER ORDERED that the plas and/or plas' counsel shall have 3 weeks from the date of this Minute Entry in which to obtain new counsel by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dw) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
77 MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/25/03 ) ORDERED that a telephone status conf shall be held 1:30 4/8/03. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
78 Motion by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER withdrawing attorney Paula Perrone &Cherhardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin, Murray &Recile, L.L.P. and substituting attorney Sean D. Alfortish as counsel for same. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 4/2/03 (dno) (Entered: 04/02/2003)

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 8 of 10

04/09/2003
05/05/2003 07/11/2003 07/11/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/16/2003 07/16/2003
07/18/2003 07/23/2003

79 MINUTE ENTRY ( 04/08/03 ) Status Conf was held 1:30 4/8/03; counsel to finalize an order of dismissal as to non−legal entities as well as a proto no later than 2 weeks from the date of this m.e.; counsel to prepare for trial as set forth in doc; Pre−Trial Conference is set for 8:30 1/26/04; jury trial is set for 8:30 2/9/04 , by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dmg) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
80 MINUTE ENTRY ( 5/5/03 ): a settlement conference is re−scheduled before magistrate at 10:00 1/5/04; statement of evidence w/outline of settlement negotiations due 2 days bfr conf; by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (rg) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
81 Motion by dfts NO Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc, Benz−Saints Mgt Co &NO LA Saints and ORDER that dfts Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co are dismissed w/o prej. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 7/14/03 (dno) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
88 MOTION by dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co for protective order and UNSIGNED ORDER (dno) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
82 MOTION by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby for hrg at 11:00 7/30/03 (dno) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
83 Request for Oral Argument by Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish regarding their motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] (dno) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
84 MOTION by plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby to be heard before Mag Judge Roby at 11:00 7/30/03 (dmg) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
85 Motion by plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER granting her request for oral argument on her motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions [84−1] at 11:00 7/30/03 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby Date Signed: 07/15/03 (dmg) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
86 MOTION by plaintiff Melanie Kramer to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and admissions referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby to be heard before Mag Judge Roby at 11:00 7/30/03 (dmg) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
87 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer and ORDER granting her request for oral argument on her motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and admissions [86−1] at 11:00 7/30/03 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby Date Signed: 07/15/03 (dmg) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
89 MINUTE ENTRY ( 7/15/03 ) Dfts' motion for protective order [88−1] will be held WITH ORAL ARGUMENTS on 7/30/03 at 11:00am. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) Modified on 07/23/2003 (Entered: 07/16/2003)
90 MINUTE ENTRY ( 7/15/03 ) ORDERED that the plas' request for oral argument [83−1] on their motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] is GRANTED. Mtn will be heard by oral argument on 7/30/03 at 11:00am bfr Mag Roby. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
91 Motion by defendant NO LA Saints and ORDER extending time until 7/25/03 to file its opp to plas' mtns to compel that are set for oral argument on 7/30/03. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby Date Signed: 7/21/03 (dno) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
92 Memo in opposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish to motion for protective order [88−1] filed by defendant NO LA Saints (dno) (Entered: 07/23/2003)

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 9 of 10

07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/31/2003
08/06/2003 08/07/2003 08/11/2003 08/14/2003
08/15/2003 09/30/2003 10/22/2003 10/27/2003

93 Memo in opposition by defendant NO LA Saints to motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and admissions [86−1] filed by plaintiff Melanie Kramer (dno) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
94 Memo in opposition by defendant NO LA Saints to motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions [84−1] filed by plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish (dno) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
95 Memo in opposition by defendant NO LA Saints to motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] filed by plaintiffs Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish (dno) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
96 MINUTE ENTRY (7/30/03) ORDERED that dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co's mtn for protective order [88−1] is CONT to 8/8/03 at 9:00am w/oral arguments. FURTHER ORDERED that the plas' motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] is CONT to 8/8/03 w/oral arguments. FURTHER ORDERED that the plas' mtn to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions [84−1] is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART &CONT IN PART to 8/8/03 at 9:00am w/oral arguments. FURTHER ORDERED that the plas' mtn to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and admissions [86−1] is DENIED IN PART &CONT IN PART to 8/8/03 at 9:00am w/oral arguments. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
97 Supplemental memorandum by plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish regarding her [84−1] motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions (dno) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
98 Motion by defendant NO LA Saints expediting hrg on their mtn to continue hearing set for 08/08/03 and UNSIGNED ORDER DENIED AS MOOT − see m.e. dated 08/11/03 (dmg) Modified on 08/12/2003 (Entered: 08/12/2003)
99 MINUTE ENTRY (08/11/03) discovery conf was held 08/07/03; continuing pla's motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] until 11:00 8/13/03 w/oral argument; Court Recorder Supervisor is designated as custodian of the tape used at hearing by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dmg) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
100 MINUTE ENTRY ( 8/13/03 ) ORDERED that plas' motion to compel the depo testimony of Tom Benson &for leave to continue the depo until complete [82−1] is GRANTED IN PART &DENIED IN PART AS STATED HEREIN; Sylvia Alfortish's motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and for admissions [84−1] is DENIED AS MOOT as to req for Production Nos. 5 &6; Melanie Kramer's motion to compel NO Saints, et al to answer interrogs, request for prod of docs and [86−1] is DENIED AS MOOT as to req for Production No. 5; dfts NO LA Saints, Tom Benson, Benson Football Inc &Benz−Saints Mgt Co's motion for protective order [88−1] is DENIED AS MOOT by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bc) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
101 PROTECTIVE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby Date Signed: 08/14/03 (dmg) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
102 MINUTE ENTRY ( 9/30/03 ) At the req of dft's counsel &the consent of pla's counsel, a settlement conf in addition to the one scheduled on 1/5/04 at 10:00 am has been set; All lead counsel are ORDERED to appear in chambers at 8:30 am on 10/20/03 ; Settlement ltrs due at least two days bfr the conf by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (gw) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
103 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/20/03 ) Settlement conference held this date; ORDERED that another settlement conf is set bfr Mag Judge at 9:00 11/5/03; position papers due by 11/3/03 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bc) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
104 MINUTE ENTRY (10/24/03): the settlement conference is rescheduled before magistrate at 9:00 11/5/03 ; settlement letters due by 11/03/03 by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dmg) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

Case: 2:01-cv-2451 As of: 06/08/2010 06:59 AM CDT 10 of 10

11/06/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 01/02/2004 01/07/2004 01/20/2004 01/22/2004 01/28/2004 02/12/2004

105 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/5/03 ) Settlement conference held 9:00 11/5/03, negotiations are continuing by telephone by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (lg) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
106 ORDER OF DISMISSAL of case w/o costs &w/o prej. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 11/11/03 (CASE CLOSED) (dno) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
107 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/10/03 ) A settlement conf was held this date. Negotiations were successful &settlement was reached. by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dno) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
109 Motion by plaintiff Melanie Kramer, plaintiff Sylvia Alfortish and ORDER dismissing all dfts w/prej by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 1/6/03 (lg) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
108 MOTION by movant − − Chehardy Sherman for leave to file mtn to reopen case &cmp for intervention referred to Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby to be heard before Mag Judge Roby at 11:00 1/28/04 (proposed original attached) (lg) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
110 Memo in opposition by plas Melanie Kramer &Sylvia Alfortish to motion for leave to file mtn to reopen case &cmp for intervention [108−1] filed by movant − − Chehardy Sherman (dno) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
111 MINUTE ENTRY ( 01/22/04 ) setting mov Chehardy, Sherman's motion for leave to file mtn to reopen case &cmp for intervention [108−1] at 11:00 1/28/04 WITH ORAL ARGUMENT by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (crc) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
112 MINUTE ENTRY (1/27/04) Movant Chehard Sherman's mtn for leave to file mtn to reopen case &cmp for intervention [108−1] is TRANSFERRED to Judge Fallon &the matter shall be heard w/oral argument on 2/18/04 at 9:00am. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon (dno) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
113 ORDER &REASONS that movant Chehardy Sherman's mtn for leave to file mtn to reopen case &cmp for intervention [108−1] is DENIED. by Judge Eldon E. Fallon Date Signed: 2/11/04 (dno) (Entered: 02/12/2004)