,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW MAX, Plaintiff,
v.
MAYTAG CORPORATION, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

)

)

JUDGE RONALD GUZMAN

COMPLAINT

MAG/STRATE JUDGE NOLAN

Plaintiff Matthew Max complains against defendant Maytag Corporation as follows:

Jurl'sdl'ctl'on and Venue

I!U!~)LI~nIi'\'"'l">.. ::

. ",
.J

JUL 1 r; 2004

I. This is an age discrimination case brought pursuant to the provisions of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. The Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§626(c) and 626(d) and 28 U.S.C. §1337.

2.

Plaintiff Matthew Max filed a timely charge of age discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on or about May 18, 2001. Plaintiff has filed

this lawsuit more than sixty days after filing his charge of discrimination.

3. After the EEOC completed its investigation, the agency issued a determination on

or about August 21, 2002 that there is "reasonable cause" to believe that Maytag discriminated

against Max by demoting him and by not selecting him for a Regional Manager position in

violation of the ADEA. The EEOC further determined that there is "reasonable cause" to

believe that Maytag discriminated against a class of employees, age 50 and older, by demoting them in violation ofthe ADEA.
4. The parties unsuccessfully attempted to conciliate and to settle this matter. The parties' settlement negotiations reached a standstill in mid-December 2003.
5. Venue is proper in this District because all parties either reside or do business here.
Parties 6. Plaintiff Matthew Max is a resident of Wayne, Illinois. He is 62 years old. Plaintiff was hired by Maytag Corporation on January I, 1970. He remains employed at Maytag through the present. 7. Defendant Maytag Corporation is a for-profit corporation with headquarters in Newton, Iowa. Maytag has business locations in Chicago and throughout the United States. Maytag is an employer as the term "employer" is defined in the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §630(b).
Claim for Relief
8. Max began working for Maytag on or about January I, 1970. Max was initially employed as a trainee in Maytag's sales program at Newton Iowa. In or about March 1970, after this initial training period ended, Maytag assigned Max to serve as a District Manager in a sales district in Kalamazoo Michigan.
9 Between 1970 and 1989, Maytag promoted and assigned Max to a series oflarger sales districts. During this time, Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully
-2-

-
meets" requirements/expectations. 10. In or about November 1989, Maytag promoted Max to the position of Regional
Manager for the Cleveland Region. At the time of Max's promotion, the Cleveland Region was not meeting its sales quota. Under Max's leadership, the Cleveland Region exceeded its sales quota for four consecutive years (1991-1994). During the time that Max served as Regional Manager in Cleveland, Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations.
11. In or about October 1994, Maytag promoted Max to the position of Regional Manager for the Chicago Region. Under Max's leadership, Chicago Region sales increased and the Region exceeded its sales quota in 1997, 1998, and the first quarter of 1999. Prior to 1997, the Chicago Region had not attained its sales quota for twelve years.
12. Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations for years 1994 through 1998.
13. Maytag uses an evaluative tool known as a 3600 Review to help assess the performance of its executives. When undergoing a 3600 Review, Maytag executives are rated on a 1-5 scale (with 5 being the highest) on 15 core competency areas by 5 direct reports,S peers, and by their direct supervisor. Maytag expected for its managers to work to improve their effectiveness in any area in which they received a rating under "3".
14. Maytag performed a "360° Review" on Max that was completed on or about March 31, 1998. In this review, Max received an average rating of greater than "3" on each of the 15 core competency areas on which he was assessed.
15. Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets"
-3-

requirements/expectations in January 1999 and it raised his salary from $106,800 to $113,500. 16. As of January 1999, Maytag's Appliance Sales Division was organized into
twenty-two Regions. Each Region had a Regional Manager and varying numbers of District Managers, who are responsible for directly calling on Maytag's retail and wholesale customers.
17. In April 1999, Maytag reorganized its Appliance Sales Division by reducing the number of Regions to nine (from twenty-two) and by creating a new Zone Operations Manager position between the position of Regional Manager Field Operations and District Manager. Maytag's Apri11999 reorganization is hereinafter referenced as the "1999 reorganization".
18. Maytag interviewed Max but did not select him for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations in the new organizational structure. Instead, Maytag assigned Max with no change in compensation - to the Zone Operations Manager position for the Chicago Zone.
19. Of the nine persons that Maytag selected for the Regional Manager Field Operations position, seven (aged 33, 35, 44, 44, 45, 45, and 46) were at least eleven years younger than Max, who was 57 at the time, and another person was (at age 49) eight years younger than Max.
20. Prior to the April 1999 reorganization, at least eight ofMaytag's twenty-two Regional Managers (including Max) were over 50 years-old. Despite this, Maytag selected only one person over 50 years old (namely, Bob Carr) for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations in the post-April 1999 Appliance Sales organization.
21. Bob Carr was a close business and social friend of one of the Maytag executives (Leo Lavota) who served on the panel that selected the persons to fill the position of Regional
-4-

Manager Filed Operations. 22. Prior to the April 1999 reorganization, the Regions for which Carr was in charge
as Regional Manager (namely, the Houston Region and then the Dallas Region) did not make their sales quotas. By contrast, the Chicago Region for which Max served as Regional Manager exceeded its sales quota in 1997, 1998, and the first quarter of 1999.
23. Max was not selected by Maytag for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations because of his age.
24. Maytag selected a 33 year-old named Greg Hewitt (date of birth: 4/24/65) to serve as the Regional Manager Field Operations for the Chicago Region in the post-April 1999 organization. Hewitt had never held the position of Regional Manager prior to this promotion. The Chicago Region included the Chicago Zone (for which Max was responsible) and the Minneapolis Zone (for which fifty-two year-old Roger Evenson was responsible).
25. Hewitt selected the even younger Greg Heyer (date of birth: 11125/66) for the position of human resources organizational effectiveness consultant for the Chicago Region.
26. Max and Evenson began reporting to Hewitt in or about April 1999. 27. In the first quarter of 1999, the Chicago Zone (for which Max was responsible) had sales over 100% of its sales quota. 28. Despite this, Hewitt (with Heyer's input) placed Max on a performance improvement plan ("PIP") in June 1999. 29. Max was placed on a PIP by Maytag because of his age. 30. Following the 1999 reorganization, both Hewitt and Heyer made a series of comments during the remainder of 1999 which reflected their stereotypic notions about the
-5-

abilities of older, long-service employees and which evidenced their bias against such older
workers. Examples ofthese derogatory comments include:
a. Hewitt directly referred to Dave Vovos (date of birth: 1106/39) and Jerry Klister (date of birth: 1117/40), two of the oldest District Managers in the Chicago Region) as "wringer washer merchandisers;"
b. Hewitt repeatedly expressed his concern that the older members of the sales team in the Chicago Region were not adept at becoming computer literate. In particular, Hewitt stated that Jerry Klister, then almost 60, would have a "problem" handling the new sales procedures - - which were computer-focused - on account of his age. Hewitt also expressed his concern about Klister's computer skills. Hewitt did not make such comments about younger members of the sales team;
c. Heyer referred to Klister as a "dinosaur with a computer";
d. Hewitt told Evenson (who was then in his early 50s) that you "old guys" have to change your old ways during a discussion between them regarding business strategy;
e. when discussing whether to retain the 52 year-old Keith Thorsen (date of birth: 817146) or the 24 year-old Heather Eccles (date of birth: 6/12174), Hewitt stated that he wanted someone younger who had more of a future and expressed a preference for Eccles;
f. at a retirement party for senior Maytag employee, Heyer listened to stories that other employees were telling regarding the retiree and her career and stated sarcastically the he wasn't even born yet when those stories took place;
g. Hewitt stated that he could beat Jerry Pribanic (who was approximately 50 years old) in handball because "he's an old guy"; and
h. Hewitt stated that it was good that a certain older dealer was retiring because a younger dealer would be better for business.
31. Hewitt indicated to Max that placing Max on the PIP was part of a company-wide
initiative because the company had gotten off to a more difficult start with the new regions.
Hewitt also indicated to Max that he had also placed his other Zone Manager for Operations
-6-

(fifty-two year-old Roger Evenson) on a PIP. 32. On information and belief, Maytag did not have a company-wide initiative to
place its Zone Managers for Operations on performance improvement plans. 33. Throughout the remainder of 1999, Hewitt told Max on numerous occasions that
the Chicago Region was outperforming the other regions in terms of sales. 34. Hewitt ended Max's PIP effective December 1999. 35. On or about January 1, 2000, Maytag announced the final standings for the store
cruise contest. The Chicago Region ranked third amongst the nine regions in sales. 36. In early 2000, Maytag awarded Max a $22,042 bonus pursuant to its incentive
compensation plan based on his sales performance in 1999. Max attained 100% of his individual performance goal while the company as a whole did not deliver its 1999 objectives and attained only 80.4% of its financial and strategic goals.
37. Maytag attributed its subpar financial performance in 1999 to a significant increase in warranty expense, to operating inefficiencies in its plants and across its entire business, and to market share decline
38. Despite the fact that Max's performance in 1999 was good enough to earn a 25% bonus in a year in which the company as a whole did not achieve its objectives, Hewitt issued Max a performance review for 1999 which rated Max as "partially meeting" requirements/expectations. This was the first such rating that Max had received in his twentynine years with the company.
39. Heyer also provided input into Max's 1999 performance review. 40. Max received a lower raise following his 1999 evaluation than he would have
-7-

received had he been evaluated by Maytag as "fully meeting" expectations/requirements. 41 In assessing the performance of an individual within its Appliance Sales Division,
Maytag has traditionally considered to be important a number of measures pertaining to that individual's sales performance. Maytag, for example, has compared the sales performance of that individual to the sales performance of hislher peers, either as against other individuals or a group average. Maytag has also compared the actual sales performance of that individual to hislher sales quota for the year
42. Hewitt's assessment of Max's 1999 performance as "partially meeting" expectations is irreconcilably inconsistent with the methods by which Maytag has traditionally measured performance.
43. Max received his 1999 performance review from Maytag because of his age. 44. In early 2000, the District Manager responsible for the Madison District (Ron Jensen) became ill and was unable to effectively cover his territory. Max, with Hewitt's approval, voluntarily covered Jensen's District between February and August 2000 while at the same time maintaining his responsibilities as the Zone Manager of Operations for the Chicago Zone as a whole. 45. Max covered Jensen's territory so effectively that Jensen earned a bonus based upon sales that were made in his District during the time that he was off work on medical leave. 46. In mid-2000, Maytag decided to reorganize its Appliance Sales Division. In the new structure, the Division would move from having nine regional offices to having four customer support centers. Each customer support center would have two Regional Managers, one for national accounts and one for independent dealers. Maytag eliminated the position of
-8-

Zone Manager ofField Operations in this restructuring. This reorganization by Maytag (hereinafter referenced as the "2000 reorganization") became effective on or about July 31, 2000.
47. On or about July 20, 2000, prior to the effective date ofthe 2000 reorganization, Max sent an e-mail to Hewitt and to Greg Heyer in which he indicated his interest in being considered for any regional management positions in the upcoming reorganization. Later that same day, Hewitt responded to Max's e-mail and indicated that "[w]e will be in touch with you hopefully next week."
48. Maytag soon got back "in touch" with Max and demoted him from Zone Manager ofField Operations to District Manager effective August 1, 2000. As part of this demotion, Maytag stripped Max of his supervisory responsibilities and slashed his salary by 25% (from $114,600 to $86,000).
49. Max and Evenson, both of whom reported directly to Hewitt, were the only Zone Managers of Field Operations to have their salary reduced after the 2000 reorganization.
50. Maytag's decision to demote Max further deprived him of the opportunity to earn year-end annual bonuses and stock options for years 2001 and beyond.
51. Max was demoted by Maytag and not selected for a Regional Manager position because of his age.
52. Notwithstanding the fact that it demoted him and reduced his salary, Maytag rated Max's performance for year 2000 as "fully meets" requirements/expectations.
53. In early 2001, Maytag was planning for yet another reorganization of the Appliance Sales Division. Under this reorganization (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 reorganization"), which became effective in or about Mayor June 2001, the Appliance Sales
-9-

,
Division was restored to having approximately twenty to twenty-one Regions. Each Region had a Regional Manager and varying numbers of District Managers.
54. On or about January 15,2001, Max submitted a letter to Hewitt and other Maytag executives to apply for one of the new Regional Manager positions. In this letter, Max summarized his qualifications and indicated his ability to relocate if were necessary in order for him to receive a promotion.
55. Despite its need for additional Regional Managers and Max's stellar qualifications and expression of interest, Maytag refused to even interview him for one of the newly created Regional Manager positions.
56. In or about April 12, 2001, Max requested a written response as to why he was not even given an opportunity to interview for a Regional Manger position.
57. Maytag never provided Max with any explanation, let alone a written one, as for why Maytag did not interview him for the Regional Manager position.
58. Maytag filled the new Regional Manager positions created as a consequence of the 2001 reorganization with individuals who were younger (and in most instances substantially younger) and far less experienced than Max.
59. Max was refused an interview and not selected by Maytag for the position of Regional Manager because of his age.
60. On account of Maytag's failure to promote him (and even to interview him for a promotion), Max has remained in the District ManagerlNational Accounts position since the 2001 reorganization took place. The District ManagerlNational Accounts position is typically staffed by newly hired sales employees.
-10-

:
61. Max has continued to diligently and effectively perform his duties for Maytag. In 2001,2002, and in 2003, Maytag rated Max's performance as "fully meeting" expectations/requirements.
62. By taking the age-based adverse actions specified in this complaint, Maytag acted in willful violation of the ADEA.
63. As a result of Maytag's age-based adverse actions, Max has lost substantial salary and employment-related benefits
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Matthew Max prays that this Court: (a) award plaintiff damages in the amount of all salary, bonuses, stock options, and
other benefits lost; (b) award plaintiff an equal amount as liquidated damages; (c) order plaintiff reinstated to the position of Regional Manger with full restoration
of all job-related benefits; (d) award plaintiff all costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee; (e) award plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and (f) award such other relief as the Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey I. Cummings Marni Willenson MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170

mings, One oft Attorneys for Plaintiff
-11-

Civil Cover Sheet

Page 1 of2

*1-- Fll.,'c,l')<J)/', ~OURNTITHEEDRSNTADTIESSTDRIICSTTROICF TILCLOINUORITS
GO :S I1J '1 \ In\ ~o Civil Cover Sheet
ThiSJ'J!)OJ\j~~~·j~~i J;,Qfu;M~ generally to the manual JS·44 approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in
September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District oflllinois.

Plaintiff(s): Matthew Max

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty:

Jeffrey I. Cummings Miner, Barnhill & Galland 14 West Erie Street, Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170

Defendant(s):Maytag Corporation County of Residence: Defendant's Atty:
G4C 461''7

II. Basis of Jurisdiction:

3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal

J,. U"U··~,l""~ji"~""V\VJB\,.J";\Lh u U·Uli"V.i,J~,J.

Parties (Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:- NIA Defendant:- NIA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN

IV. Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

This is an age discrimination case brought pursuant to the

provisions of the Age Discriminaton in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.

Sec. 621 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.c.

Secs. 626(c) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1337

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action: No

Dollar Demand: Compensatory damages, fees and costs

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Signature: Date:
If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser and change it.

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.govIPUBLIC/Forms/autojs44.cfm

7/14/2004

/\

(\

.UNITK ."TATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MATTHEW MAX

V. MAYTAG CORPORATION

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS A TTORNEY(S) FOR: Plaintiff MATTHEW MAX

SIGNATURE

...
(B)
SIGNATURE

NAME

FIRM

Miner, Barnhill & Galland

STREET ADDRESS 14 West Erie Street CITY/STATE/ZIP Chicago, IL 60610
I TELEPHONE NUMBER 312-751-1170 FAXNUMBER312-751_0438

E-MAILADDREssjcurnmings@lawmbg.com

6195523 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATTORNEY?

• YES

NO o

• YES

NO o

SIGNATURE

(C)

NAME

Marni Willenson

FIRM

Miner, Barnhill & Galland

STREET ADDRESS 14 West Erie Street

""Vhl

_UU1·

CITYISTATEIZIP Chicago, IL 60610
I TELEPHONE NUMBER (312) 751-1170 FAXNUMBER312_751_0438

E-MAILADDRESSmwillenson@lawmbg.com

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

6238365

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATTORNEY?
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

• YES

NO o

• YES

NO o

YES o NO 0

(D)
SIGNATURE

NAME FIRM

NAME FIRM

STREET ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER E·MAIL ADDRESS

I FAX NUMBER

STREET ADDRESS CITY/STATEIZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER E·MAIL ADDRESS

I FAX NUMBER

IDENT]FICAnON NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATIORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES o NO o

o o YES

NO

YES o NO o

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES

TRIAL ATIORNEY7

YES

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

o NO 0
o NO 0 -I 1
o

 
 Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of IlJinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Ronald A. Guzman

Sitting Judge tfOther than Asslgne~ Judge

CASE NUMBER

04 C 4617

DATE

9/22/2004

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

MATTHEW MAX vs. MAYTAG CORPORATION
(In the followmg box (a) indicate the party fihng the motion, e.g" plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(I) o

Filed motion oft use listing in "Motion" box above.]

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due _ _.

(3) o

Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) o

Ruling/Hearing on ___ set for _ _ at ___.

(5)

•

Status hearing and continued to 10/22/2004 at 9:30 A.M..

(6) o

Pretrial conference[heldlcontinued to] [set for/re-set for) on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(7) o

Trial[set forire-set for] on _ _ at _ _.

(8) o

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] heldlcontinued to ___ at ___.

(9) o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41(a)(I) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry) Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is stricken without prejudice.

Court adopts parties proposed discovery schedule. All discovery completed by 5/31/05. Dispositive

motions to be filed on or before 6/30/05.

11) 0

[For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute ordeL)

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff. Notified counsel by telephone.

EP 23 2a~~

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judgelmagistratejudge.

courtroom

CG

deputy's

initials

JlIIliling depuly initials

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FilED

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

NOV - 2 2004 !' 0

MATTHEW MAX and

MICIiAEL W. DOBBINS

)

CLERk. U••• DISTRICT QOUR't

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

) )

c!-'~l~-<~-;-da-;~-i::J Case

)

)

No.04C463Y

)

)

Judge Guzman

MAYTAG CORPORATION,

)

)

Magistrate Judge Nolan

)

Defendant.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Todd D. Steeson, Esq. Holland & Knight 131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603

.' . "."

,.j
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 2,2004, the undersigned filed with the f}IJJr::jIJ(JCD--- d
Clerk ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT, a copy of which is attached hereto.

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C. 14 West Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 751-1170
Ethan M. Cohen EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568

ttorneys
/&

F , L E D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

a FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS N

EASTERN DIVISION

' 0 V - 2 2004 ('

MATTHEW MAX, and

)

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MAYTAG CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

GUMMIO. 1H1A.1E.LDlwa'.lD'~OIBQlBQINtSlYlit
No. 04 C 4617
AtnCNOE!J - ~
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND Judge Ronald A. Guzman
"."

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Matthew Max ("Max") and a class of similarly situated sales managers who had reached the age of 50 prior to April 1, 1999. As stated more fully below, Max and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") allege, among other things, that in reorganizations.in 1999, 2001 and 2001 Maytag Corporation (''Maytag" or "Defendant") discriminated against Max on the basis of his age. EEOC further alleges that Maytag discriminated against a group of Regional Sales Managers over the age of 50 by demoting them due to their age. EEOC also alleges that Maytag discriminated against this group of managers by failing to reinstate them to Regional Sales Manager positions as they became available in 2000 and 2001.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ohhis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

Ip

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b)(c) and (d) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(c) and 217. Jurisdiction is also invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1337.
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Max is a current employee of Maytag who fIled a charge of age discrimination with the EEOC on or about May 18, 200l. 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofthe ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 ofReorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, a Deleware corporation, has been continuously doing business in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, and has continuously had at least fIfteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant was, and is, an employer as the term 'employer' is defIned in the ADEA, 29 U.s.c. §630(b).
CONCILIATION 6. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the EEOC's representatives attempted to eliminate the muawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b). The EEOC's efforts at conciliation were unsuccessful.
2

COUNT I MAX STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. Max began working for Maytag on or about January 1, 1970. Max was initially employed as a trainee in Maytag's sales program at Newton Iowa. In or about March 1970, after this initial training period ended, Maytag assigned Max to serve as a District Manager in a sales district in Kalamazoo Michigan. 8. Between 1970 and 1989, Maytag promoted and assigned Max to a series of larger sales districts. During this time, Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations. 9. In or about November 1989, Maytag promoted Max to the position of Regional Manager for the Cleveland Region. At the time of Max' s promotion, the Cleveland Region was not meeting its sales quota. Under Max's leadership, the Cleveland Region exceeded its sales quota for four consecutive years (1991-1994). During the time that Max served as Regional Manager in Cleveland, Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations. 10. In or about October 1994, Maytag promoted Max to the position of Regional Manager for the Chicago Region. Under Max's leadership, Chicago Region sales increased and the Region exceeded its sales quota in 1997, 1998, and the first quarter of 1999. Prior to 1997, the Chicago Region had not attained its sales quota for twelve years. 11. Maytag rated Max's perfonnance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations for years 1994 through 1998. 12. Maytag uses an evaluative tool known as a 3600 Review to help assess the
3

performance of its executives. When undergoing a 3600 Review, Maytag executives are rated on a 1-5 scale (with 5 being the highest) on 15 core competency areas by 5 direct reports, 5 peers, and by their direct supervisor. Maytag expected for its managers to work to improve their effectiveness in any area in which they received a rating under "3".
13. Maytag performed a "3600 Review" on Max that was completed on or about March 31, 1998. In this review, Max received an average rating of greater than "3" on each of the 15 core competency areas on which he was assessed.
14. Maytag rated Max's performance on an annual basis as "fully meets" requirements/expectations in January 1999 and it raised his salary from $106,800 to $113,500.
15. As of January 1999, Maytag's Appliance Sales Division was organized into twenty-two Regions. Each Region had a Regional Manager and varying numbers of District Managers, who are responsible for directly calling on Maytag's retail and wholesale customers.
16. In April 1999, Maytag reorganized its Appliance Sales Division by reducing the number of Regions to nine (from twenty-two) and by creating a new Zone Operations Manager position between the position of Regional Manager Field Operations and District Manager. Maytag's April 1999 reorganization is hereinafter referenced as the "1999 reorganization".
17. Maytag interviewed Max but did not select him for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations in the new organizational structure. Instead, Maytag assigned Max - with no change in compensation - to the Zone Operations Manager position for the Chicago Zone.
18. Of the nine persons that Maytag selected for the Regional Manager Field Operations position, seven (aged 33,35,44,44,45,45, and 46) were at least eleven years younger than Max, who was 57 at the time, and another person was (at age 49) eight years younger than Max.
4

19. Prior to the April 1999 reorganization, at least eight of Maytag's twenty-two Regional Managers (including Max) were over 50 years-old. Despite this, Maytag selected only one person over 50 years old (namely, Bob Carr) for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations in the post-April 1999 Appliance Sales organization.
20. Bob Carr was a close business and social friend of one of the Maytag executives (Leo Lavota) who served on the panel that selected the persons to fill the position of Regional Manager Filed Operations.
21. Prior to the April 1999 reorganization, the Regions for which Carr was in charge as Regional Manager (namely, the Houston Region and then the Dallas Region) did not make their sales quotas. By contrast, the Chicago Region for which Max served as Regional Manager exceeded its sales quota in 1997, 1998, and the fIrst quarter of 1999.
22. Max was not selected by Maytag for the position of Regional Manager Field Operations because of his age.
23. Maytag selected a 33 year-old named Greg Hewitt (date of birth: 4124/65) to serve as the Regional Manager Field Operations for the Chicago Region in the post-April 1999 organization. Hewitt had never held the position of Regional Manager prior to this promotion. The Chicago Region included the Chicago Zone (for which Max was responsible) and the MiImeapolis Zone (for which fIfty-two year-old Roger Evenson was responsible).
24. Hewitt selected the even younger Greg Heyer (date of birth: 11125/66) for the position of human resources organizational effectiveness consultant for the Chicago Region.
25. Max and Evenson began reporting to Hewitt in or about April 1999. 26. In the fIrst quarter of 1999, the Chicago Zone (for which Max was responsible)
5

had sales over 100% of its sales quota.

27. Despite this, Hewitt (with Heyer's input) placed Max on a perfonnance

improvement plan (,'PIP") in June 1999.

28. Max was placed on a PIP by Maytag because of his age.

29. Following the 1999 reorganization, both Hewitt and Heyer made a series of

comments during the remainder of 1999 which reflected their stereotypic notions about the abilities

of older, long-service employees and which evidenced their bias against such older workers.

Examples of these derogatory comments include:

a. Hewitt directly referred to Dave Vovos (date ofbirth: 1/06/39) and Jerry Klister (date of birth: 1117/40), two of the oldest District Managers in the Chicago Region) as "wringer washer merchandisers;"

b. Hewitt repeatedly expressed his concern that the older members of the sales team in the Chicago Region were not adept at becoming computer literate. In particular, Hewitt stated that Jerry Klister, then ahnost 60, would have a "problem" handling the new sales procedures - - which were computer-focused - - on account of his age. Hewitt also expressed his concern about Klister's computer skills. Hewitt did not make such comments about younger members of the sales team;

c. Heyer referred to Klister as a "dinosaur with a computer";

d. Hewitt told Evenson (who was then in his early 50s) that you "old guys" have to change your old ways during a discussion between them regarding business strategy;

e. when discussing whether to retain the 52 year-old Keith Thorsen (date of birth: 8/7/46) or the 24 year-old Heather Eccles (date of birth: 6112/74), Hewitt stated that he wanted someone younger who had more of a future and expressed a preference for Eccles;

f.

at a retirement party for senior May tag employee, Heyer listened to stories that other

employees were telling regarding the retiree and her career and stated sarcastically

the he wasn't even born yet when those stories took place;

g. Hewitt stated that he could beat Jerry Pribanic (who was approximately 50 years old) in handball because "he's an old guy"; and

6

h. Hewitt stated that it was good that a certain older dealer was retiring because a younger dealer would be better for business.
30. Hewitt indicated to Max that placing Max on the PIP was part of a company-wide initiative because the company had gotten off to a more difficult start with the new regions. Hewitt also indicated to Max that he had also placed his other Zone Manager for Operations (fifty-two yearold Roger Evenson) on a PIP.
31. On information and belief, Maytag did not have a company-wide initiative to place its Zone Managers for Operations on performance improvement plans.
32. Throughout the remainder of 1999, Hewitt told Max on numerous occasions that the Chicago Region was outperforming the other regions in terms of sales.
33. Hewitt ended Max's PIP effective December 1999. 34. On or about January 1, 2000, Maytag announced the final standings for the store cruise contest. The Chicago Region ranked third amongst the nine regions in sales. 35. In early 2000, Maytag awarded Max a $22,042 bonus pursuant to its incentive compensation plan based on his sales performance in 1999. Max attained 100% of his individual perfonnance goal while the company as a whole did not deliver its 1999 objectives and attained only 80.4% of its financial and strategic goals. 36. Maytag attributed its subpar fmancial performance in 1999 to a significant increase in warranty expense, to operating inefficiencies in its plants and across its entire business, and to market share decline 37. Despite the fact that Max's performance in 1999 was good enough to eam a 25% bonus in a year in which the company as a whole did not achieve its objectives, Hewitt issued Max
7

a performance review for 1999 which rated Max as "partially meeting" requirements/expectations. This was the fIrst such rating that Max had received in his twenty-nine years with the company.
38. Heyer also provided input into Max's 1999 performance review. 39. Max received a lower raise following his 1999 evaluation than he would have received had he been evaluated by Maytag as "fully meeting" expectations/requirements. 40. In assessing the performance of an individual within its Appliance Sales Division, Maytag has traditionally considered to be important a number of measures pertaining to that individual's sales performance. Maytag, for example, has compared the sales performance of that individual to the sales performance of hislher peers, either as against other individuals or a group average. Maytag has also compared the actual sales performance of that individual to hislher sales quota for the year 41. Hewitt's assessment of Max's 1999 performance as "partially meeting" expectations is irreconcilably inconsistent with the methods by which Maytag has traditionally measured performance. 42. Max received his 1999 performance review from Maytag because of his age. 43. In early 2000, the District Manager responsible for the Madison District (Ron Jensen) became ill and was unable to effectively cover his territory. Max, with Hewitt's approval, voluntarily covered Jensen's District between February and August 2000 while at the same time maintaining his responsibilities as the Zone Manager of Operations for the Chicago Zone as a whole. 44. Max covered Jensen's territory so effectively that Jensen earned a bonus based upon sales that were made in his District during the time that he was off work on medical leave. 45. In mid-2000, Maytag decided to reorganize its Appliance Sales Division. In the
8

new structure, the Division would move from having nine regional offices to having four customer support centers. Each customer support center would have two Regional Managers, one for national accounts and one for independent dealers. Maytag eliminated the position of Zone Manager ofField Operations in this restructuring. This reorganization by Maytag (hereinafter referenced as the "2000 reorganization") became effective on or about July 31, 2000.
46. On or about July 20, 2000, prior to the effective date of the 2000 reorganization, Max sent an e-mail to Hewitt and to Greg Heyer in which he indicated his interest in being considered for any regional management positions in the upcoming reorganization. Later that same day, Hewitt responded to Max's e-mail and indicated that "[w]e will be in touch with you hopefully next week."
47. Maytag soon got back "in touch" with Max and demoted him from Zone Manager ofField Operations to District Manager effective August 1,2000. As part of this demotion, Maytag stripped Max of his supervisory responsibilities and slashed his salary by 25% (from $114,600 to $86,000).
48. Max and Evenson, both of whom reported directly to Hewitt, were the only Zone Managers of Field Operations to have their salary reduced after the 2000 reorganization
49. Maytag's decision to demote Max further deprived him of the opportunity to earn year-end mmual bonuses and stock options for years 2001 and beyond.
50. Max was demoted by Maytag and not selected for a Regional Manager position because of his age.
51. Notwithstanding the fact that it demoted him and reduced his salary, Maytag rated Max's performance for year 2000 as ''fully meets" requirements/expectations.
9

52. In early 2001, Maytag was plaruling for yet another reorganization of the Appliance Sales Division. Under this reorganization (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 reorganization"), which became effective in or about Mayor June 2001, the Appliance Sales Division was restored to having approximately twenty to twenty-one Regions. Each Region had a Regional Manager and varying numbers of District Managers.
53. On or about January 15,2001, Max submitted a letter to Hewitt and other Maytag executives to apply for one of the new Regional Manager positions. In this letter, Max sununarized his qualifications and indicated his ability to relocate if were necessary in order for him to receive a promotion.
54. Despite its need for additional Regional Managers and Max's stellar qualifications and expression of interest, Maytag refused to even interview him for one of the newly created Regional Manager positions.
55. In or about April 12, 2001, Max requested a written response as to why he was not even given an opportunity to interview for a Regional Manger position.
56. Maytag never provided Max with any explanation, let alone a written one, as for why Maytag did not interview him for the Regional Manager position.
57. Maytag filled the new Regional Manager positions created as a consequence of the 2001 reorganization with individuals who were younger (and in most instances substantially younger) and far less experienced than Max.
58. Max was refused an interview and not selected by Maytag for the position of Regional Manager because of his age.
59. On account of Maytag's failure to promote him (and even to interview him for a
10

promotion), Max has remained in the District ManagerlNational AccoWlts position since the 2001 reorganization took place. The District ManagerlNational AccoWlts position is typically staffed by newly hired sales employees.
60. Max has continued to diligently and effectively perform his duties for Maytag. In 2001, 2002, and in 2003, Maytag rated Max's performance as "fully meeting" expectations/requirements.
61. By taking the age-based adverse actions specified in this complaint, Maytag acted in willful violation of the ADEA.
62. As a result of Maytag's age-based adverse actions, Max has lost substantial salary and employment-related benefits
COUNT II EEOC STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 63. Since at least April 1, 1999 the Defendant Employer, has engaged in unlawful employment practices nationwide, in violation of Section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 623(a). These practices included: (a) Demoting Max from Regional Sales Manager to Zone Manager; (b) Demoting a class of employees over the age of 50 from Regional Sales Manager to Zone Manager, (c) Failing to reinstate Max to Regional Sales Manager; (d) Failing to reinstate a class of employees over the age of 50 to Regional Sales Manager; (e) Demoting Max to the position of District Manager; (f) Demoting a class of employees over the age of 50 to the position of District
11

·

Manager.

64. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 6 above has been to deprive

Max and a class of employees over the age of 50 of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

adversely affect their status as employees, because of their age.

65. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 63 and 64 above

were and are willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Max and the EEOC respectfully request that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors,

assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in age based decision

making in demotions and promotions and any other employment practice which discriminates on the

basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older.

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs

which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which

eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole all individuals adversely affected by the

unlawful practices described above, by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to reinstatement as Regional Sales

Managers of Matthew Max and a class of similarly situated employees over the age of 50, or in the

altemative front pay, as well as, back pay, prejudgement interest, the value of lost benefits, including

but not limited to bonuses and stock options, and liquidated damages.

D. Grant such further relief as the Court deelllS necessary and proper in the public

12

interest. E. Award Max all his costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee. F. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Max and the EEOC request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint. Respectfully submitted,
For Matthew Max: Jeffrey I ummings Jeffrey I. Cummings Marui Willenson MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170
13

For the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Eric Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel rtunity Commission
Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7568
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, certifies that on November 2, 2004, a copy of the foregoing CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT was served on the above attorneys by FAX and U.S. mail.
-2-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

I\C

MATTHEW MAX, and

)

)

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MAYTAG CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. 04 C 4617 Magistrate .Judge Nan R. Nolan

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION
I. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed this action alleging that since approximately April 30, 1999 Defendant, Maytag Corporation ("Defendant" or "Maytag"), violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.c. 621 el seq., by discriminating against Plaintiff Matthew Max ("Max") on the basis of age, and against a class of similarly situated employees over the age of 50 ("the class"). Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendant violated the ADEA by demoting Max and the members of the class from Regional Sales Manager to Zone Operations Manager on or about April 30, 1999. EEOC further alleges that Maytag failed to reinstate Max and other class members in future reorganizations and as positions became available, again due to their age. Max has also filed suit against Maytag alleging that he was demoted and disciplined and not reinstated to his former position due to his age. Maytag denies all of these claims.
2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged In

comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally

resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally

resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaints filed by the EEOC and Max

in this action. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed as an admission by any party

of liability or non-liability with respect to any of the claims or defenses of the suit.

FINDINGS

3.

l'laving carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on

the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:

a.

This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the

parties.

b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just.

The rights of the parties, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.

c.

This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

ADEA and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree

will further the objectives of the ADEA and will be in the best interests of the parties and the

public.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

NON-DISCRIMINATION

4.

Maytag, its officers, agents (including management personnel), successors, and

assigns are enjoined from discriminating on the basis of age.

5.

Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree Defendant shall provide

training to all of its management and supervisory employees in its sales division regarding the

requirements of the ADEA. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer

2

prior to the training session. Defendant shall submit the name, address, telephone number,

resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer to the EEOC at least thirty (30) days prior

to the proposed dates of the training. The EEOC shall have ten (10) calendar days from the date

of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. If the

parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance

under Paragraph 14 of this Decree (below). Defendant shall provide a minimum of two (2) hours

of ADEA training to all management and supervisory employees in its sales division once per

year for the duration of this decree.

6.

Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this decree, Maytag's Vice President for

Human Relations shall meet with the District Director of the Chicago District Office of the

EEOC, at the Chicago District Office of the EEOC at a time to be mutually agreed upon to

discuss Maytag's compliance with the equal employment opportunity laws ofthc United States.

NON-RET ALIA TION

7. Maytag, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting

in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such

person has opposed any practice made unlawful under the ADEA, filed a Charge of

Discrimination under the ADEA, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation,

proceeding, or hearing under the ADEA, or asserted any rights under this Decree.

MONETARY RELIEF

8. a) Maytag shall pay the gross sum of three hundred thirty four thousand five

hundred dollars ($334,500), to resolve the claims of Max and the class members, inclusive of

attorneys' fees and costs. This sum shall be distributed in the amounts indicated in the Release

Agreements provided to Maytag by Max and the EEOC, and equaling in the aggregate three

hundred thirty four thousand five hundred dollars ($334,500).

3

b) Payment to Max shall be in a manner and on terms separately agreed to by Defendant and Max and by the firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland ("Miner") on behalf of Max. EEOC has had no role in negotiating, is not a party to, and has not approved the terms of the release agreement entered into by Max who has been counseled by Miner with respect thereto.
c) Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall mail to each EEOC claimant a letter informing them of the settlement (Exhibit B, attached) and a blank release (Exhibit C, attached).
d) Within ten (10) business days after receipt by Maytag of a Release Agreement in the format of Exhibit C from an EEOC claimant, Maytag shall issue and mail by certified mail to each such claimant, a check, in the amount indicated on the releases, payable to the order of such claimant to the addresses indicated on the releases, as settlement of this case by the EEOC, with a copy to the EEOC.
POSTING OF NOTICE 9. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, Maytag shall post samesized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree on all non-public bulletin boards usually used by Maytag for communicating with employees at its headquarters in Newton, Iowa, (and shall mail a copy to the home address of each sales employee with a title of District Manager and those more senior than Sales Manager). The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Maytag shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Maytag shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Maytag shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter Maytag's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours without prior notice.
4

RECORD KEEPING

10. For a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree, Maytag shall

maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records of each

termination and demotion within its sales workforce with the job title of District Manager and all

titles senior to District Manager. Such report shall indicate the date the termination or demotion

was made, the name and age of the decision maker(s), and the name, address, telephone number

and age of the employee terminated or demoted.

I I. Maytag shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10, above,

available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after the EEOC so requests.

In addition, Maytag shall make available for interview all persons within its employ whom the

EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree and shall

permit a representative of the EEOC to enter Maytag's premises for such purposes on five (5)

business days advance notice by the EEOC.

12. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation

Maytag may otherwise have to maintain records under the ADEA or any other law or regulation.

REPORTING

13. Maytag shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for

a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6)

months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-three (23) months after

entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:

a.

A summary of the information recorded by Maytag pursuant to Paragraph

10; and,

b.

A certification by Maytag that the Notice required to be posted in

Paragraph 9, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.

S

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 14. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATiON OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 15. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) years period, any disputes under Paragraph 14, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 16. Except as otherwise stated in paragraph 8 above, the parties shall bear their own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 17. The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors, and assigns of Maytag. Maytag, and any successor of Maytag, will provide a copy of this Decree to any organization which proposes to acquire or merge with Maytag, or any successor of Maytag, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph shall not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court of contempt for a violation of this Decree.
6

18. When this Decree requires the submission by Maytag of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Maytag Settlement, c/o Ethan M. M. Cohen, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661 .
7

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

y)O!+Rl;Wy,l ION:
organ, Lewis & Bockius LLP 77 W. Wacker Dr., 5th Floor Chicago, IL 6060 I
For MATTHEW MAX
Jeffrey Cu Miner Barnhill & Galland 14 W. Erie SI.
.. .Chllcago, IL 60610

Trial Attorney DATE:

ENTER:
7L CYL f2-. ' //1 (;~CFY'--
The Honorable Nan R. Nolan United States Magistrate Judge
8

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL MAYTAG CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Mavtag Corporation, No. 04 C 4617 (N.D. 111.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Maytag Corporation {"Maytag").
In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Maytag demoted a group of employees due to their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("the ADEA"). Maytag has denied these claims.
To resolve the case, Maytag and the EEOC have entered in to a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that:
I) Maytag provide relief to a class of employees; 2) Maytag will not discriminate on the basis of age; 3) Maytag will not retaliate against any person because hc or she opposed any
practice made unlawful by the ADEA, filed an ADEA charge of discrimination, participated in any ADEA proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; 4) Maytag will train all management and supervisory employees among its sales staff regarding their duties and obligations under the ADEA.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English. If you believe you have been discriminated against you may contact the EEOC.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Maytag Settlement, EEOC 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.

Date

Hon. Nan R. Nolan United States Magistrate Judge

9

LETTERHEAD EXHIBIT B

~~~~~~~~, 2005
XXXXXXXX XXXX St. XXXXX, XX XXXXX

Re: EEOC v. Maytag. Corp., No. 04 C 4617 (N.D. 111.)

Dear Mx. XXXXXX:

A Consent Decree resolving the above-referenced lawsuit was signed by the parties and

entered by the Court on

,200X. Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree,

enclosed you will find a copy of a Release to be signed by you.

In order to obtain any monetary relief under the Consent Decree in this case, you must sign the Release and return it to me. Please mail the signed Release to me as soon as possible at the following address:

Ethan M. M. Cohen Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, lJIinois 60661

I have enclosed a pre-addressed envelope for your convenience. You may, of course, wish to make and keep a copy of the signed Release for your own records.

If you have any questions about the Release or cannot sign and return the enclosed documents within fourteen days, please contact me at (312) 353-7568.

Sincerely,

Encls.

Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorney

10

EXHIBITC This is a legal document and you are advised to consult with an attorney before signing.
RELEASE AGREEMENT 1, XUXXXX, for and in consideration of the sum of$xx,OOO.OO, payable to me pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Maytag, Corp., No. 04 C 4617 (N .D. 111.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise, acquit, and discharge Maytag, Corp. ("Maytag"), and all past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees, and representatives of Maytag, as well as all successors and assignees of Maytag, from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind which 1 now have or ever have had under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Maytag Corp., No. 04 C 64617.

Date

xxxxxxxx

Street Address

City, State, Zip Code

II

 
 Max v. Maytag Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 1563109 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
Matthew MAX and United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiffs, v.
MAYTAG CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 04 C 4617. | May 12, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Marni J. Willenson, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Ethan M.M. Cohen, Gregory M. Gochanour, John C. Hendrickson, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Mark L. Shapiro, Jolynn C. Caroline, Merideth C. Nagel, Todd David Steenson, Holland & Knight LLC, Charis A. Runnels, James Edwin Bayles, Jr., Nina G. Stillman, Morgan Lewis Bockius, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GUZMAN, J.
*1 Matthew Max and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) have sued Maytag Corp. for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). Before this Court is Maytag’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1)1 and 12(b)(6). For the reasons provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies the motion.
FACTS
Max began working for Maytag on or about January 1, 1970. (Consol.Am.Compl.¶ 7.) In March 1970, Maytag assigned Max to serve as District Manager in a sales district in Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Id. ¶ 7.) Between 1970 and 1989, Max was awarded larger sales districts and annually rated as fully meeting requirements and expectations. (Id. ¶ 8.) In November 1989, Max was promoted to Regional Manager for the Cleveland Region. (Id. ¶ 9.) In October 1994, Max was again promoted, this time to Regional Manager for the Chicago Region. (Id. ¶ 10.) From 1970 through January 1999, Max received annual ratings of fully meeting requirements. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 14.)
In April 1999, Maytag began a reorganization, reducing the number of regions from twenty-two to nine. (Id. ¶ 16.) Also, as part of this reorganization, the position of Zone Manager was created to serve between Regional Manager and District Manager. (Id.) Max interviewed, but was not selected, for the Regional Manager position. (Id. ¶ 17.) Max was assigned as Zone Manager. (Id.)
Of the people selected as Regional Managers, one was aged 33, another 35, two others 44, two others 45, one 46, one 49, and one over 50. (Id. ¶ 18.) Max was 57 at the time of the reorganization. (Id.)
Under the 1999 reorganization, Greg Hewitt, aged 33, was given the position of Regional Manager for Chicago. (Id. ¶ 23.) Max along with Roger Evenson, aged 52, served as Zone Managers under Hewitt. (Id.) Even though Max’s region achieved its sales quota, Hewitt and Heyer placed Max on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) in June 1999. (Id. ¶ 27.)
1

Max v. Maytag Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Hewitt informed Max that the reason for his being put on a PIP was due to a company-wide initiative. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs allege that there was no company-wide initiative. (Id. ¶ 31.) Hewitt ended Max’s PIP in December 1999. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs further allege that Hewitt and Heyer made a series of discriminating comments regarding age in 1999. (Id. ¶ 29.)
In 1999, Max earned a 25% bonus, passing his individual goal and achieving sales growth at a higher rate than the company rate. (Id . ¶ 37.) In a performance review for that same year, Max was rated as partially meeting requirements and expectations. (Id.)
In mid-2000, there was another reorganization in which the nine regions were divided into four customer support centers. (Id. ¶ 45.) The position of Zone Manager was eliminated. (Id.) Each customer center had two Regional Managers. (Id.) Max was not interviewed for either of the Regional Manager positions and was switched to District Manager with a 25% reduction in salary. (Id. ¶ 47.) Max and Evenson were the only Zone Managers to receive a reduction in salary. In 2000, Max received a rating of fully meeting requirements and expectations. (Id. ¶ 48.)
*2 In early 2001, Maytag went through yet another reorganization, and this time it went back to having twenty to twenty-one regions, with each region having a Regional Manager. (Id. ¶ 52.) Max applied, but was not interviewed, for any of the Regional Manager positions. (Id. ¶¶ 53-54.) The majority of new Regional Managers were substantially younger than Max. (Id. ¶ 57.) Max remained in the District Manager position, and he was rated as fully meeting requirements in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (Id. ¶ 60.)
On May 18, 2001, Max filed a charge of age discrimination with the EEOC. Max’s charge stated: I was hired by the above Respondent on January 1, 1970, as District Manager. In 1989, I was promoted to Regional Manager. In April 1999, I was demoted to Zone Manager, without change in pay, due to restructuring. In June 2000, it was announced that the Zone Manager position would be eliminated. On July 21, 2000, I inquired about a Regional Manager Field Operations position, if any were available; or a Maytag Home Appliance Center District Manager position. On or about August 1, 2000, I was demoted to District Manager over retail accounts with a substantial reduction in salary. On January 15, 2001, I applied for a regional Manager Position. I was not given an interview, consequently, I was not selected for any of the available positions. I believe I was discriminated against because of my age, 59 (date of birth: September 7, 1941), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.
(Mot. Dismiss, Ex. A, EEOC Charge at 2.)
Plaintiffs allege Maytag discriminated against Max and a class of employees over the age of fifty by: (1) demoting them from Regional Sales Managers to Zone Managers; (2) failing to reinstate them to Regional Sales Managers; and (3) demoting them to District Manager. (Consol.Am.Compl.¶ 63.) Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting Maytag from participating in age-based discrimination regarding promotions, demotions, policies, practices and programs. (Id. ¶ 65.) Further, Max and putative class members seek front pay, back pay, prejudgment interest, lost benefits, liquidated damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. (Id.)
DISCUSSION
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Stachon v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 229 F.3d 673, 675 (7th Cir.2000). Dismissal should be granted only if it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). First, Maytag argues that the EEOC’s claims for individual relief on behalf of individuals other than Max must be dismissed because they never filed charges of discrimination. The Court disagrees.
“Congress did not intend to require that every individual who files a suit under ADEA also must have filed an individual charge.” Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir.1988). Individuals who have not filed timely EEOC charges may piggyback onto another individual’s timely filed charge where the timely filed charge “alleged class-wide discrimination or ... claimed to represent a class of employees.” EEOC v. N. Gibson Sch. Corp., 266 F.3d 607, 620
2

Max v. Maytag Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
n. 9 (7th Cir.2001). However, the charge need not include an “explicit mention that a representative action is contemplated.” Anderson, 852 F.2d at 1017. The question is whether any allegation in a timely filed charge serves to “inform and give notice to the employer that the consequences of an individual plaintiff’s charge may ‘transcend[ ] an insolated [sic] individual claim.” ’ Kloos v. Carter-Day Co., 799 F.2d 397, 400-02 (8th Cir.1986) (quoting Bean v. Crocker Nat’l Bank, 600 F.2d 754, 759-60 (9th Cir.1979)) (quotations omitted); see Andersen, 852 F.2d at 1017 (citing Kloos with approval).
*3 Based on the particular facts before the Court, Max’s EEOC charge sufficiently informed and gave notice to Maytag that he alleged age discrimination that went beyond his individual claim. Max clearly alleged in his charge that Maytag underwent restructuring that effected the Regional Manager, Zone Manager and District Manager positions. Further, he alleged that the Zone Manager position was eliminated. Maytag cannot reasonably argue that it was unaware that employees other than Max had held the position of Zone Manager at the time of its elimination. That Max’s charge triggered the EEOC’s request of information from Maytag regarding the pertinent data, including age, of all Regional Managers, Zone Operations Managers, and District Managers shows a possible set of facts upon which Max may state a claim. For if Max’s charge was sufficient to inform the EEOC of class-wide age discrimination, it surely was sufficient to inform and give notice to Maytag that he alleged class-wide discrimination.
Second, Maytag argues that the Court must dismiss claims that arose prior to July 23, 2000 because Max failed to file a timely charge as to such events. In Illinois, as a general rule “an ADEA plaintiff must file an EEOC charge ‘within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.” ’ Hamilton v. Komatsu Dresser Indus., Inc., 964 F.2d 600, 603 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2)). But see Anderson, 852 F.2d at 1016 (explaining piggybacking exception). “The continuing violation doctrine allows a plaintiff to get relief for a time-barred act by linking it with an act that is within the limitations period.” Selan v. Kiley, 969 F.2d 560, 564 (7th Cir.1992). A plaintiff may establish a continuing violation by showing that: (1) “the employer’s decision-making process occurred over time;” (2) “the employer has in place an express, openly espoused policy that is alleged to be discriminatory;” or (3) “an employer covertly follows a practice of discrimination over a period of time.” Flemming v. United Parcel Serv., No. 03 C 9391, 2004 WL 2314962, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Oct.12, 2004); see Tinner v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 308 F.3d 697, 707 (7th Cir.2002).
Contrary to Maytag’s assertions, plaintiffs have not pleaded themselves out of court with regard to claims based on events that occurred prior to July 23, 2000. Plaintiffs do not plead at what time Max knew Maytag discriminated against him based on age. Reading all facts alleged in the complaint in plaintiffs’ favor, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, plaintiffs allege that Maytag covertly followed a practice of discrimination over a period of time and even actively took steps to prevent plaintiffs’ from obtaining information bearing on the existence of their claims. Thus, based on these allegations, discovery may reveal that Max and those similarly situated would not reasonably have been aware of the fact until much later that Maytag covertly utilized the restructuring process over time to discriminate based on age. Therefore, the Court denies Maytag’s motion to dismiss based on this ground.
*4 Third, Maytag argues that the EEOC’s claims on behalf of individuals other than Max must be dismissed with prejudice because the EEOC failed to fulfill its statutory obligation of conciliation before filing a lawsuit. As discussed above, the failure to conciliate is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Flowers, 431 F.2d at 207. Thus, Maytag’s motion is more appropriately brought under Rule 12(b)(6) motion. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “documents that are neither included in the plaintiff’s complaint nor central to the claim should not be considered.” Albany Bank & Trust Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 310 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir.2002); see Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir.1993). Thus in ruling on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court considers Max’s EEOC charge, but not Kim Miller’s affidavit, the Letter of August 10, 2001 from Percile Bryant to Miller, the Letter of September 17, 2002 from John Rowe to Miller, Angela Williams’ affidavit, the EEOC’s Determination of August 21, 2002, the EEOC’s press release of July 15, 2003, or Bryant’s declaration. See E.E.O.C. v. Harvey L. Walner & Assocs., No. 95 C 1355, 1995 WL 470233, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Aug.7, 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 963, 972 (7th Cir.1996) (stating evidence of failure of conciliation are outside of pleadings and not central to EEOC’s discrimination claims).
Moreover, plaintiffs allege that there was an attempt at conciliation, and it was rejected. (Consol.Am.Compl.¶ 6.) For the purposes of this motion, this Court must accept this factual allegation as true. In addition, as discussed above, Maytag had notice that the consequences of Max’s EEOC charge transcended his individual claim. Discovery may establish that the EEOC did not in fact fulfill its obligation to conciliate. However, given the liberal notice pleading standard, it would be inappropriate for the Court to hold that the EEOC failed to conciliate at this early stage of the litigation. Thus, Maytag’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s claims on behalf of individuals other than Max, for failure to conciliate, is denied.
3

Max v. Maytag Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005) CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies Maytag’s motion to dismiss in its entirety [doc. no. 17-1]. SO ORDERED

Footnotes

1

Maytag is mistaken in its belief that the requirements of a timely filed charge and the EEOC’s conciliation effort prior to filing suit

are jurisdictional prerequisites. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 395 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234

(1982) (stating “the ‘charge’ requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining an action under the ADEA”); Flowers v.

Local No. 6. Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., 431 F.2d 205, 207 (7th Cir.1970) (stating “conciliation efforts by the EEOC are not

jurisdictional prerequisites to a judicial action”). Thus, the Court limits its discussion to Maytag’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

4

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DOCKETED
JUL 1 6 2004

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
MAYTAG CORPORATION, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

\fAOrsru~ nrrv-

) JURY DEMAND uuua BOB.RICJC

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION ThisisanactionundertheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActtocorrectw1lawfulernployment practices on the basis ofage and to provide appropriate reliefto Matthew Max and a class ofsimilarly situated sales managers who had reached the age of50 prior to April!, 1999. The Commission alleges that in an April1999 reorganizationMaytag Corporation ("Maytag'' or ''Defendant'') discriminated against a group of Regional Sales Managers over the age of 50 by demoting them due to their age. The Commission further alleges that Maytag discriminated against this gmup ofmanagers byfailing to reinstate them to Regional Sales Manager positions as they became available in 2000 and 2001.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. JurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedpursuantto28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331,1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) ofthe Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the "ADEA''), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act ofl938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29

\- I

Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2

U.S.C.§§ 216(c) and 217.

PARTIES

2. Plaintifi;theEqua!EmploymentOpportunityCommission(the"Commission'1,istheagency ofthe United States ofAmericacharged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofthe

ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this actionby Section 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §626(b),

as amended bySection2 ofReorganizationPlanNo. 1 ofl978, 92 Stat. 3781, and byPublic Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.
3. At all relevant times, Defendant, aDeleware corporation, has been continuouslydoing business in the CityofChicago, State oflllinois, and has continuouslyhad at least fifteen (15) employees.

4. At all relevant times, Defendant has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g), and (h) ofTitle vn, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g),

and (h).

CONCILIATION

5. Priorto institution ofthis lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate

the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA

through infonnal methods ofconciliation, conference and persuasionwithin the meaning ofSection 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S. C. § 626(b).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. SinceatleastAprill,l999theDefendantEmployer, has engaged in unlawful employment practices nationwide, in violation ofSection 4(a) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). These practices

included:

2

·-

Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3

(a) Demoting Matthew Max from Regional Sales Manager to Zone Manager; (b) Demoting a class ofemployees overthe age of50 from Regional SalesManager
to Zone Manager; (c) Failing to promote Matthew Max to Regional Sales Manager; (d) Failing to promote a class ofemployees over the age of50 to Regional Sales
Manager; (e) Demoting Matthew Max to the position of District Manager; (f) Demoting a class ofemployees over the age of 50 to the position of District
Manager. 7. The effect of the practices complained ofin paragraph 6 above has been to deprive Matthew Max and a class of employees over the age of 50 ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their age. 8. The unlawful employment practices complainedofinparagraphs 6 and 7 above were and are willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.§ 626(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. GrantapermanentinjunctionenjoiningDefendantEmployer,itsofficers,successors,assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in age based decision making in demotions and promotions and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis ofage against individuals 40 years of age and older. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs
3

Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4 which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years ofage and older, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. OrderDefendantEmployertomakewholeallindividualsadverselyaffectedbytheunlawful practices described above, by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful practices, including but not limited to reinstatement as Regional Sales Managers of Matthew Max and a class ofsimilarlysituated employees over the age of50, orin the alternative front pay, as well as, back pay, prejudgement interest, the value oflost benefits and liquidated damages.
D. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. E. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
4

Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by tbe Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Eric Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, illinois 60661 (312) 353-7568
5

Civil Cover CShaesee:t 1:04-cv-04632 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 6 of 7 PageIDP#a:g6e 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Cover Sheet

DOCKETED
JUL 16 2004

This automated JS44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. The Information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use l1l!!)' In the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ("EEOC")

County of Residence:

Plaintiff's Ally:

Ethan M. M. Cohen
EEOC 500 W. Madison, #2800, Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-7568

Defendant(s):MAYTAG CORPORATION

County of Residence: Cook

Defendant's Ally:

Angela Williams
May1ag Corporation 403 W. 4th St., P.O. Box 3g, N11~n, IAHAR:-0039
JUUGE T

Ill. Citizenship of Principal Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

IV. Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

4632
VAOfSTRATE 1UDOii BOBRlC&

V. Nature of Suit:

@ployment

VI.Cause of Action:

· Section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). EEOC alleges that Maytag

Corporation discriminated against a class of Regional Sales Managers

over the age of 50 by demoting them and failing to promote or reinstate

them.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

If any of this information is incorrect. please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your brow~and Cha~ it. - ,
Once correct, print this tonn. sign and date it and submit it with your new clvll actlon. Note: You may need to adj~tlle fClllt slz;::

In your browser display to make the form print properly.

Revised: OB/28/00::U::;:; < fTJ

(=;:;::!
-;::::::::

IJ"J

,Cl I

("")
c0 :
;;-;;

-:-:>,J

Cl
A

-<

c-.3"

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forms/autojs44.cfm

7/14/2004

\ -~

Case: 1:04-cv~-0T46E32DDoScTumAeTnEt #S: 1DFISileTdR: 0IC7/T15C/04~PaTge 7 of 7 PageID #:7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
In the Matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC'') v. Maytag Corporation
JUDGE HART

l}632

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

Plaintiff, EEOC

\fAOISTRATE JlJQr-£ 90ii:!Y€i[

.

sT [a<T ADD"1 s 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800
crr\T•uT Chicago, 1L 60661
TELEPH~NUMBBR (312) 353-8551

rnBNTIFICAnoNNUMBEil(sBBmM•oNREVERSB) A.R.D.C. No. 1187583

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES X D

TRIAL AITORNEY?

YES X D

en4 _, / j

/ /<B~
~j./__,., ~

f. ,.40' /J'GoJtphour

YIRMJ EOC

' I

>f=ADow;s 500 ~- :r/adison, Suite 2800

crrv/STATBIZIP Chicago, IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER (312) 886-9124

-"A.

SIGNATURE~

NAME Ethan M-.' M. Cohen

YIRMEEOC

sTREET ADDRESs 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

crrvJSTATEIZIP Chicago, IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER (312) 353-7568

IDBNTIFICAnoNNUMBER(SBBITEM40N REVBRSB) A.R.D.C. No. 06206781

MEMBBR OF TRIAL BAR?

D VBS

NO

D

TRIAL ATIORNEY'1

D VBS

NO

D

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES D NO D

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

CLOSED, NOLAN
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-04617

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp Assigned to: Honorable Nan R. Nolan Demand: $0 related Case: 1:04-cv-04632 Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age) Plaintiff Matthew Max
Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 07/14/2004 Date Terminated: 12/02/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jeffrey Irvine Cummings Miner Barnhill & Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170 Email: jcummings@lawmbg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni J. Willenson Miner Barnhill & Galland 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 751-1170
represented by Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

V. Defendant Maytag Corporation

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Shapiro Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600 TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charis A. Runnels Morgan Lewis Bockius 77 W. Wacker Drive 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312)324-1000 Email: crunnels@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E. Bayles, Jr. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 77 West Wacker Drive 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 324-1000 Fax: (312) 324-1001 Email: jbayles@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jolynn C Caroline Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

Movant
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

TERMINATED: 02/17/2005
Merideth C Nagel Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600 TERMINATED: 02/17/2005
Nina G. Stillman Morgan Lewis Bockius 77 W. Wacker Drive 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312)324-1000 Email: nstillman@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd David Steenson Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600 Email: todd.steenson@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 02/17/2005
represented by Ethan M.M. Cohen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/14/2004
07/14/2004 07/16/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings and Marni J. Willenson as attorney(s) for plaintiff (1 original and 1 copy of summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (rmm) (Entered: 07/15/2004)

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 7/14/04 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 107 8796. (rmm) (Entered: 07/15/2004)

SCHEDULE set on 7/16/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set to 9:30 9/15/04 . The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial appearance and status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (cjg) (Entered: 07/16/2004)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

09/09/2004 09/09/2004 09/10/2004 09/13/2004
09/14/2004 09/20/2004 09/20/2004 09/22/2004
09/27/2004
10/15/2004 10/19/2004

2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Mark L. Shapiro, Todd David Steenson, Merideth C Nagel, Jolynn C Caroline; Notice (cdy) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
4 AGREED MOTION by defendant for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint ; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
3 JOINT INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by plaintiff and defendant; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 9/13/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Defendant's agreed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint [4-1] is granted to and including 9/20/04. Status hearing is reset from 9/15/04 to 9/22/04 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's own motion. Telephoned notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/14/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing reset to 9:30 9/22/04 . Telephoned notice (cjg) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
6 RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION by Maytag Corporation's to dismiss ; Notice. (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
7 MEMORANDUM in support by Maytag Corporation in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss [6-1] (Attachments). (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing and to 10/22/04 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is stricken with prejudice [6-1]. Court adopts parties proposed discovery schedule. All Discovery completed by 5/31/05. Dispositve motions to be filed on or before 6/30/05. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
9 MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Minute order dated 9/22/04 is corrected as follows: Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is stricken without prejudice [6-1]. The remainder of the order stands. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
10 MOTION by movant EEOC for reassignment and consolidation case no. 04 C 4632 pending before Judge Hart with case no. 04 C 4617 (Attachment); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
11 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : The Court grants EEOC's motion for reassignment of 04 C 4632 [10-1] and for consolidation with 04 C 4617 because the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law, both cases are pending before this Court, my handling of both cases will substantially save judicial time and effort, reassignment will not delay progress in 04 C 4617, and the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding. 04 C 4632 is consolidated with 04 C 4617 for all purposes, 04 C 4632 is terminated, and all future filing shall be made in 04 C 4617 for all purposes, 04 C 4632 is terminated, and all future filings shall be made in in 04 C 4617. [10-2] Max and EEOC shall file a consolidated complaint in ten (10)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

10/20/2004 10/25/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 11/02/2004 11/03/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004
12/06/2004 01/21/2005 01/21/2005 01/25/2005

days. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/20/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing reset to 9:30 11/3/04 on Court's own motion. Consolidated complaint to be filed on or before 11/2/04. Mailed notice (cjg) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
13 MOTION by defendant Maytag Corp for reconsideration of order granting motion for consolidation (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
12 RESPONSE by EEOC to defendant's motion for reconsideration of order granting and conolidation (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 10/28/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Maytag Corporation's motion for reconsideration of order granting motion for consolidation is denied as stated in open court [13-1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
16 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiffs; jury demand; adding plaintiff US EEOC; Notice (ar) Modified on 11/05/2004 (Entered: 11/05/2004)
15 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held and continued to 3/2/05 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant not in court. Defendant to respond to amended complaint on or before 11/18/04. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
17 RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) MOTION by Maytag Corp to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
18 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Response to defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs [17-1] is to be filed on or before 12/6/04. Reply is to be filed on or before 12/20/04. Ruling to be by mail. Telephoned notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
19 RESPONSE by EEOC and plaintiff Matthew Max to defendant's motion to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs [17-1] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
20 AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss (rmm, ) Modified on 1/25/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 01/25/2005)
21 NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of MOTION to file for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss 20 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 1/25/2005 at 09:30 AM. (rmm, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
22 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

01/25/2005
01/28/2005 01/31/2005 02/08/2005 02/14/2005 02/14/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005
03/01/2005 03/28/2005 03/28/2005

(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support)(gma, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
23 NOTICE of Motion by Mark L. Shapiro for presentment of UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss 22 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 1/27/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
25 REPLY memorandum by Defendant Maytag Corporation in support of its Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (rbf, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motions terminated: MOTIONS by Defendant Maytag Corporation to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss are granted.22, 20 Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
26 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation to withdraw and to substitute counsel for Maytag Corporation (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
27 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation to withdraw and to substitute counsel. (amb, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
28 NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of unopposed motion to withdraw and to substitute counsel 27 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/17/2005 at 09:30 AM. (amb, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
29 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Maytag Corporation by James Edwin Bayles, Jr, Charis A. Runnels, Nina G. Stillman (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Defendant's unopposed Motions to withdraw26 and to substitute counsel27 are granted. Mark L. Shapiro; Todd David Steenson; Jolynn C Caroline and Merideth C Nagel of Holland and Knight are granted leave to withdraw their appearances. Nina G. Stillman, James E. Bayles, Jr., and Charis A. Runnels of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP are granted leave to file their appearances. Telephoned notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
31 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 3/2/05 is stricken, motion to dismiss pending. Telephoned notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
32 AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of revised pre-trial schedule (rbf, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
33 NOTICE of Motion by Charis A. Runnels for presentment of agreed motion for entry of revised pre-trial schedule 32 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 3/31/2005 at 09:30 AM. (rbf, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

03/31/2005
03/31/2005
05/12/2005 05/12/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005 07/05/2005 07/07/2005

34 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion hearing held. MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of revised pre-trial schedule32 is granted. Parties are advised that no further extensions will be allowed. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
35 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : The agreed motion to extend the pretrial schedule is granted. All fact discovery shall be completed by 8/15/05. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP(26)(a)(2) by 9/15/05. Defendant shall comply with FRCP(26)(a)(2) by 10/17/05. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any rebuttal experts by 11/7/05. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/30/2005. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 1/30/2006. The parties are advised that no further extensions will be allowed. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
36 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court denies Maytag's Motion to dismiss in its entirety 17. Status hearing set for 8/17/2005 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
37 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on 5/12/2005:(rmm, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
38 ANSWER to amended consolidated complaint by Maytag Corporation (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
39 AMENDED Answer by Defendant Maytag Corporation to amended consolidated complaint16 (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
40 AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of protective order (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
41 NOTICE of Motion by Charis A. Runnels for presentment of AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of protective order 40 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
42 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Plaintiffs to adjust the pre-trial discovery schedule(gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
43 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Irvine Cummings for presentment of UNOPPOSED MOTION by Plaintiffs to adjust the pre-trial discovery schedule 42 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
44 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion hearing held on 7/7/2005. Plaintiffs' motion to adjust the pretrial discovery schedule 42 is granted. All fact discovery shall be completed by 9/15/05. Plaintiffs' expert report is due by 9/30/05. Defendant's expert report is due by 10/24/05. Plaintiffs' rebuttal reports, if any, are due by 11/7/05. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/30/2005. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 1/30/2006. Status hearing is reset for

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

07/08/2005
07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/13/2005
07/21/2005 07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/26/2005
07/27/2005
08/05/2005

10/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
45 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement Conference set for 7/13/2005 at 09:30 AM. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with the enclosed standing order before conducting a settlement conference. For further details see enclosed standing order. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
48 EXECUTIVE COMMITTE ORDER: case referred to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
Judge Nan R. Nolan added. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
47 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 7/13/2005. A status hearing is set for 7/21/05 at 10:30 AM. if necessary. If the parties settle the case prior to the status, they are to contact Judge Nolan's chambers, and the status hearing will be stricken. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
49 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 7/21/2005 at which the court set a settlement Conference for 7/25/2005 at 09:00 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
51 CONSENT by Maytag Corporation to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) Modified on 7/29/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 07/29/2005)
52 CONSENT by Matthew Max to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) Modified on 7/29/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 07/29/2005)
53 CONSENT by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
50 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 7/26/2005 at which the parties reached a settlement agreement. Parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Status hearing set for 9/7/2005 at 09:00 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
54 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Judge Nan R. Nolan for all further proceedings. Parties have consented to have the designated magistrate conduct any and all proceedings including entry of a final judgment in accordance with Local Rule 73.1(b). Signed by Executive Committee on 7/27/2005. (rmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
55 MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement (gma, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

08/05/2005 08/08/2005 08/10/2005
09/07/2005
10/28/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005

56 NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement 55 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 8/10/2005 at 09:00 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
58 AMENDED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the 07/25/05 settlemnt agreement. (lcw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
57 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated in open court, defendant's motion for enforcement of the 7/25/05 settlement agreement 55 is withdrawn with leave to refile. A continued settlement conference is set for 9/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice (hmb, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
59 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 9/7/2005 at which the parties were able to reach a settlement agreement. Parties are to file papers with the court by 3/31/06. Until that time the case will remain open. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
60 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 4/7/2006 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
63 LETTER to Magistrate Judge Nolan from plaintiff's counsel Ethan M. M. Cohen dated 12/01/2005. (hp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Enter Consent Decree. Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
62 CONSENT DECREE re 61 Signed by Judge Nan R. Nolan on 12/2/2005:Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

05/15/2007 11:57:27

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

5

Cost:

eeoc 1:04-cv-04617 0.40

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?815419279176009-L_353_0-1

5/15/2007

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - December 2005

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. Maytag Corp. No. 04 C 4617 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2005)
The Chicago District Office alleged in this ADEA action that defendant, a manufacturer of household appliances based in Newton, Iowa, demoted charging party and similarly-situated regional sales managers (RSMs) over age 50 during a 1999 national restructuring/reorganization and denied them reinstatement, based on age during a further reorganization in 2001. In the original 1999 reorganization, Maytag reduced the number of RSMs nationwide, downgrading a disproportionate number of individuals in the protected age group into zone operations manager (ZOM) positions. In 2000, defendant eliminated the ZOM positions and again downgraded some of the same individuals. Charging party, who had been a successful RSM, was demoted to ZOM in 1999, and then to District Manager in 2000. Defendant had hired him as a District Manager 30 years earlier. In a further reorganization in 2001, defendant created new RSM positions and promoted disproportionately few employees over age 50 into the new positions. Defendant did not interview charging party for any of the newly-created RSM positions. As a result of the reorganizations, the percentage of individuals above age 50 in Maytag's RSM ranks nationally plummeted from 41% (9 out of 22) in 1999 to 12% (2 out of 17) in 2001.
The 2-year consent decree provides charging party and two other claimants with $334,000 in monetary relief. Maytag is enjoined from discriminating based on age and is prohibited from engaging in retaliation under the ADEA. Defendant is required to train all of the managers and supervisors in its sales division annually regarding the ADEA's requirements. Defendant's VP for HR must meet with the District Director, Chicago District Office, within 90 days of the entry of the decree to discuss Maytag's compliance with U.S. EEO laws.

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement12-05.html

5/15/2007