•

• F I LED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUN 211995 -"

EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH J.MUftPHY; Clerk

COLUMBUS. OHIO

united states of America, Plaintiff, vs.
The Steubenville city Board of Education,
Defendant.

Case No. C2-95-506 JUDGE GRAHAM

ORDER TO AMEND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Amend Order For Entry of Consent Decree. Having considered the Joint Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order for Entry of Consent Decree entered by this Court on June 1, 1995, is hereby AMENDED by replacing paragraph numbered three (3) thereof with the following: "3. Any person or organization seeking to challenge any provision of the Decree shall serve upon the Court and the parties a statement of objections postmarked within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the notice of fairness hearing described above."

DATE: June 20, 1995

GRAHAM tates District Judge

F I LED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUN 211995 '"

EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH J.MUitPHY, Clerk

COLUMBUS. OHIO

united states of America, Plaintiff, vs.
The Steubenville City Board of Education,
Defendant.

Case No. C2-95-506 JUDGE GRAHAM

ORDER TO AMEND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Amend Order For Entry of Consent Decree.
Having considered the Joint Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order for Entry of Consent Decree entered by this Court on June 1, 1995, is hereby AMENDED by replacing paragraph numbered three (3) thereof with the following: "3 • Any person or organization seeking to challenge any provision of the Decree shall serve upon the Court and the parties a statement of objections postmarked within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the notice of fairness hearing described above."

DATE: June 20, 1995

GRAHAM tates District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

F, L ~"
JUN 2119~5 KENNETH J. MUR~HY. Clem
CO!..t!!.i~US. OHrc, '.

Plaintiff,
v.
THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Civil Action C-2-95-506 Judge Graham Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant.

JOINT MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DE9REE Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant the Steubenville City Board of Education respectfully move this Court to enter the following proposed Order to Amend the Order for Entry of Consent Decree, which the Court entered on June I, 1995. The Order foy Entry of Consent Decree provides, "Any person or organization seeking to challenge any provision of the Decree shall serve upon the Court and the parties a statement of objections within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order." Order at 2, ~ 3. The proposed Notice of Fairness Hearing, Exhibit 2 to the Order, instructs noticees, "Your objection must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of this notice." Id. Exh. 2, at 2. In order to resolve this inconsistency, the parties move this Court to enter the following Order to Amend to the original Order. The proposed Order would resolve the inconsistency described above, and avoid any possible prejudice thereby caused to any potential objectors, by adopting the timetable for submit-

' .. . -.#

ting written objections provided for by the Notice. The parties

believe that such adoption would require objections to be filed,

by approximately mid-July, sufficiently in advance of the fair-

ness hearing, which the Court scheduled for August 3, 1995.

Counsel for Defendant has telephonically authorized counsel

for the United States to execute this Joint Motion on behalf of

counsel for Defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

Drew H~mpbell Bricker & Eckler 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291

For the Plaintiff:
,L2~;e~~
William B. Fbnton David Y. Chen U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 307-5769

* * *
Having considered the foregoing Joint Motion,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order for Entry of Consent

Decree entered by this Court on June I, 1995, is hereby AMENDED

by replacing paragraph numbered three (3) thereof with the

following:

"3. Any person or organization seeking to challenge any

provision of the Decree shall serve upon the Court and the

parties a statement of objections postmarked within thirty (30)

days of the issuance of the notice of fairness hearing described above. II

The Honorable James L. Graham United States District Judge

-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the below-listed document Joint Motion and [Proposed] Order to Amend Order for Entry of Consent Decree has been served in the indicated manner upon the following counsel on June 13, 1995:
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Drew H. Campbell Bricker & Eckler 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291
David Y. Chen ,.>

Drew H Campbell, Esq. Bricker & Eckler - 2 100 S Third Street Columbus, OH 43215-4291
Re: 2:95-cv-00506

 
 .,." f)LED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfitot:",: Hll:lKi1U':~I-.I~';'

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

,\

EASTERN DIVISION

~~ ~;!.i~G ~..'".".' ,r'.';'.,~ 4; 0!

United states of America,
Plaintiff
v.
The Steubenville City Board of Education,
.
Defendant

Judge Graham Magistrate Judge Abel
.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for hearing,

report and recommendation on any objections to the proposed consent

decree. No objections were filed. Counsel for the parties

appeared for the August 3, 1995 fairness hearing. No objecting

parties appeared.

It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the proposed consent decree,

Exhibit 1 to the Court's June 1, 1995 Order, be approved by and

entered as an order of the Court.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within ten (10) days, file and serve on all parties a

motion for reconsideration by the Court, specifically designating

this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question,

as well as the basis for objection thereto.

28 U.S.C.

§636(b) (1) (B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right

to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to

/er

appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); united states v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

DBrreiwckHerC&amEpcbkellel~

Esq - 2·

100 S Third Street

Columbus, OH 43215-4291

Re: 2:95-cv-00506

 
 •

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

united states of America, Plaintiff

civil

Action

:.,'Ui"\ ! r·· '-. ! I

l ,~- ""-': 1-- -.

t).J. t··,·

:. . ,

,' CHIO (.:n; jT;~ :-:):
.: ..•. '...' 1,.;

,~;T.

·",',.:IHBUS

C-2-95-506

v.

Judge Graham

The Steubenville city Board of Education,

Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's unopposed August 3, 1995 Report and Recommendation. Upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Abel's August 3, 1995 Report and Recommendation. The proposed consent decree, Exhibit 1 to the Court's June 1, 1995 Order, is hereby APPROVED and ENTERED as an Order of the Court.

Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

.-"

. - -,

"! .._!

!

united states of America, Plaintiff
v.
The Steubenville City Board of Education,
Defendant

',",! '
Civil Action C-2-95-506
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's unopposed August 3, 1995 Report and Recommendation. Upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Abel's August 3, 1995 Report and Recommendation. The proposed consent decree, Exhibit 1 to the Court's June 1, 1995 Order, is hereby APPROVED and ENTERED as an Order of the Court.

Court

Drew R Campbell, Esq. Bricker & Eckler - 2 100 S Third Street Columbus, OR 43215-4291
Re: 2:95-cv-00506

EXHIBIT 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. C2-95-506

)

)

Judge GRAHAM

)

)

Magistrate Judge ABEL

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

This action was brought by the United States of America against the Steubenville City Board of Education to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et~. In its complaint, the United States alleges that the Defendant has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against men and women, deprive or tend to deprive men and women of employment opportunities, and adversely affect the status of men and women as employees because of their sex, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a). More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant has violated Title.VII by: (1) adopting and maintaining gender-segregated job classifications for janitorial pqsitions in the Steubenville City School District; (2) failing or refusing to hire and to employ females in the Custodian I position and failing or refusing to hire and to employ males in the Custodian II position; (3) paying women who perform

custodian duties lower wages than males who perform the same or substantially similar duties; and (4) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the effects of those policies and practices. The Complaint further alleges that the Defendant failed or refused to hire Mr. Robert G. Minnifield, a male, on the basis of his sex, for a Custodian II position.
The United States and the Defendant, desiring that this action be settled by appropriate Consent Decree and without the burden of protracted litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and hereby waive, for purposes of this Consent Decree only, service of the Complaint and hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, and further agree to the entry of this Decree as final and binding among themselves as to the issues raised in the Complaint filed in this case.
This Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall in no way constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case nor be construed as either an admission of liability by the Defendant or a finding of wrongdoing or violation of any applicable federal or state law by the Defendant.
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
-2-

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: A. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS AND RELIEF
1. The Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or" participation with it hereinafter shall not engage in any act or practice which has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any employee of or applicant or potential applicant for employment with the Steubenville City School District with respect to any janitorial position on the basis of sex.
2. The Defendant shall not retaliate against or in any respect adversely affect any person because that person has opposed allegedly discriminatory policies or practices or because of that person's participation in or cooperation with the initiation, investigation, litigation or administration of this case or this Consent Decree.
3. The basic objectives of this Consent Decree are to ensure that men and women are considered for and compensated in janitorial positions on a non-discriminatory basis and that the present effects of any past discrimination, as alleged in the Complaint, have been remedied.
4. The Defendant shall no longer maintain separate janitorial job classifications based on sex and will merge prospectively the current Custodian I and Custodian II positions into one janitorial position. All present Custodians I and, if she accepts the Defendant's offer of a merged janitorial position made pursuant to paragraph 10 below, Sharon Grant, shall comprise the incumbents
- 3-

of that merged position. Each incumbent in the merged position shall retain the seniority level and date of his or her present position. The Defendant shall recruit, consider, hire and compensate men and women for the merged janitorial position on the same basis.
5. The Plaintiff has independently verified that the Defendant has offered all incumbent employees in the Custodian II posi tion a Custodian I position and, wi th the exception of Ms. Sharon Grant, each incumbent Custodian II has declined the offer of such a position. Beginning in the first pay period of the 1995-96 fiscal year all incumbent Custodian II employees and, if she declines the Defendant'~ offer of a merged janitorial position to be made pursuant to paragraph 10 below, Sharon Grant shall retain their current positions and duties and shall receive no less than 87.5 percent of the salary of an employee in the merged janitorial position with equivalent seniority with the Defendant. Upon the termination of the employment with the Defendant of each incumbent employee in the Custodian II position, that Custodian II position will be eliminated and, if necessary, replaced with a merged janitorial position.
6. The Defendant may develop a valid examination for use in the selection of new candidates for the merged janitorial position. If pursuant to paragraph 10 below Ms. Sharon Grant accepts a merged janitorial position, the Defendant shall apply $8717 to the development and val idation of an examination for use in the selection of new candidates for the merged janitorial position. If
-4-
•
I

pursuant to paragraph 10 below Ms. Sharon Grant does not accept a merged janitorial position, the Defendant shall apply $10,386 to the development and validation of an examination for use in the selection of new candidates for the merged janitorial position.
7. If the Defendant develops a validated examination at a cost less than the sum dedicated pursuant to paragraph 6 above, the Defendant shall be able to devote any excess money to any use.
8. This Decree does not obligate the Defendant to hire unnecessary personnel or persons who are not qualified by valid qualification standards.
B. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF Without admitting trfe contentions of the United States as set
forth in its Complaint and in settlement of the claims of the United States with respect to those contentions, as well as the claim of each individual who is offered and accepts relief under this Decree, the Defendant agrees to do the following:
9. The Defendant agrees to offer to Mr. Robert G. Minnifield, the charging party in EEOC Charge No. 220881795, a monetary award of $40,955.17 within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decree. As a condition of obtaining the relief provided him by this Decree, Mr. Minnifield shall execute a release in the form set forth in Appendix A. Within sixty: (60) days of receipt of the release the Defendant will send Mr. Minnifield a check for the amount due to him. Mr. Minnifield has informed the United States that he no longer desires a position as Custodian II, and therefore
- 5-
I

the Defendant is not required under this Decree to offer Mr.. Minnifield any job opportunity relief.
10. The Defendant agrees to offer to Ms. Sharon Grant, a female presently employed as a Custodian II by the Defendant, a position with the Defendant in the merged janitorial position with her present seniority level and date as described in paragraph 4 above. The Defendant agrees to make such offer within seven (7) days from the date of final entry of this decree. Ms. Grant will have a trial period of employment in the merged janitorial position. This trial period shall last ten (10) days during which Ms. Grant is actively working in the merged janitorial position. This trial period shall begin no later than three (3) days after she accepts such employment for the trial period pursuant to this Decree. Within the ten (10) working day trial period, Ms. Grant will notify the Defendant whether she desires to remain in the merged janitorial position.
a. If Ms. Grant decides to remain in the merged janitorial position, the Defendant shall pay to Ms. Grant a monetary award of $11,324.42. The Defendant will send to Ms. Grant a check for the amount due her within seventy-five (75) days from Ms. Grant's notification to the Defendant of her decision.
b. If Ms. Grant decides not to remain in the merged janitorial position, the Defendant shall restore her to her previous position within two (2) days after Ms. Grant's decision and provide relief to her pursuant to above
-6-
f'

paragraph 5. As a condition of obtaining any relief to be offered by the Defendant under this Decree, Ms. Grant shall execute a release in the form set forth in Appendix A. 11. If Ms. Grant elects to accept the Defendant's offer of employment in a merged janitorial position, the Defendant shall contribute its full share to any pension plan Ms. Grant would have had if she had received the salary of a Custodian I from March 1, 1992 to August 1, 1994 rather than the salary of a Custodian II. The monetary award shall not be reduced by the Defendant's pension plan paymentsj however, any contribution Ms. Grant would have been required to make under the pension plan during this period sh~ll be paid into the pension plan from her monetary award. 12. All monetary awards shall be subject to withholding, as appropriate, for all federal, state and local income and federal social security taxes. The reason for and amounts of such withholding shall be indicated clearly in documentation accompa-nying each check. The Defendant shall separately pay the employer's share of any federal social security taxes due. 13. The Defendant agrees to notify Mr. Minnifield and Ms. Grant of the terms of this Consent Decree within seven (7) days of its entry by mailing to them, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the letter in the form set forth in "Appendix B (Mr. Minnifield) and Appendix C (Ms. ,Grant) and enclosing a copy of this Decree and a copy of the appropriate release attached as Appendix A. The letters identified as Appendices Band C will
-7-

advise Mr. Minnifield and Ms. Grant that in order to accept the relief offered he or she must return the Appendix A release to the Defendant within thirty (30) days of his or her receipt of the Appendix B or C letter.
C. RECORDKEEPING 14. The Defendant shall maintain for the duration of this
Decree all records (including machine-readable records) necessary to monitor the implementation of this Decree. Such records shall include all documents and records, including hiring authorizations, job specifications, employment applications, personnel files, interview notes, vacancy notices or announcements, newspaper adverti sement s, correspondence and memoranda, pertaining to the janitorial position.
15. The United States Department of Justice shall have the right to inspect and copy any and all of the above documents and records upon reasonable notice to the Defendant without further order of this Court. In addi tion, the Defendant shall make available such additional information or records relating to the subject matter of the Decree as the United States Department of Justice requests in writing. Further, with respect to the implementation of the Decree the parties may, without further order of the Court, use all discovery allowed under the Federal ·Rules of Civil Procedure.
/ / / / / /
-8-

D. REPORTING 16. Within sixty (60) days after the awarding of individual
relief under this Decree, the Defendant shall provide to the United States a report showing the disposition of all such individual relief.
17. For purposes of this Decree, a reporting period shall run from November 1 through October 31.
18. Within thirty (30) days after the close of each reporting period during the duration of this Decree, the Defendant shall provide to the United States a report for that reporting period showing the following:
a. The nurr~er of persons, by sex, employed by the Steubenville City Board of Education in the merged janitorial position as of the last day of the reporting period;
b. The number of persons, by sex, who applied for the janitorial position during the reporting ~eriod;
c. A list of all persons hired by the Steubenville City Board of Education in the merged janitorial position during the reporting period, showing each individual's name, sex, and date of hire, and;
d. A list of all written complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex related to employment with or made by employees of the Steubenville City Board of Education during the reporting period, together with a copy of each such complaint.
- 9-

E. COSTS 19. The parties shall bear their own costs in this action,
including any attorney's fees; provided, however, the parties retain the right to seek costs that may arise out of any future presentation of a matter to the Court for resolution in the future.
F. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 20. Whenever the parties are unable to agree on a specific
matter falling within the general provisions of the Decree that contemplates mutual agreement, any party may move the Court for a resolution.
21. For a period of at least three months after the entry of this Consent Decree, a copy of this Consent Decree shall be posted prominently on a bulletin board used for notices at the Personnel Office of the Steubenville City Board of Education, as well as on a bulletin board or the equivalent used by or available to j ani torial employees in each school in the Defendant's school system along with a notice that copies of the Decree are available for taking, without charge, from the main business office of the Steubenville City Board of Education.
G. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 22. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for
the purpose of entering any orders or judgments which may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein. After three (3) years this matter shall be dismissed unless the United States
- 10 -

moves, upon notice to the Defendant, for its continuation in order to carry out the purposes of the Decree.

H. EFFECTIVE DATE 23. This Consent Decree shall be effective as of the first
pay period following its entry by this Court.

ENTERED THIS

DAY OF

199

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: For the Defendant:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE For the Plaintiff:

Camp ell Bricker & Eckler 100 S. Third Street Columbus, OH 43215-4291 (614) 227-2300

Wil1ia1l1B.Fe11 on
David Y. Chen Attorneys Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 514-3898

- 11 -

APPENDIX A

RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS

State of ss
County of

Contingent upon payment to me by the Steubenville City Board

of Education of

Dollars and/or any other relief that is

being offered to me, pursuant to the provisions of the Consent

Decree entered by the Honorable [Judge's name], United States

District Judge, on [Date] in the case of United States v. The

Steubenvi11e City Board of Education, Civil No. [Case number]

(S.D. Ohio) i I [Full name of claimant], release and discharge The

Steubenville City Board of Education, and its current, former and

future officials, employers and agents, from all legal and

equitable claims, known or unknown, arising out of this action or

other legal, equitable or administrative claims or causes of

action arising out of any discrimination on the basis of sex with

respect to policies or practices of the Steubenville City Board

of Education relat~ng to its Custodian I and Custodian II posi-

tions in violation of any federal, state or local laws, statutes,

regulations or ordinances occurring before the execution of this

Release, including EEOC Charge No. 220881795.

I understand that the payment to be made to me and/or any

other relief that is being offered to me does not constitute an

admission by any of the parties released of the validity of any

claim raised by me, or on my behalf.

This Release constitutes the entire agreement between the

- 12 -

..

Defendant and myself, without exception or exclusion.

I acknowledge that a copy of the Consent Decree in this

action has been made available to me.

I HAVE READ THIS RELEASE AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS THEREOF

AND I EXECUTE THIS RELEASE OF MY OWN FREE ACT AND DEED.

Signed this

day of ________~------__ ' 199

[FULL NAME TYPED] Social Security Number Other Identification
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of ------------, 199
Notary Public My Commission expires:

- 13 -
J'

APPENDIX B
NOTICE LETTER
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Robert Minnifield 1439 Oregon Avenue Steubenville, Ohio 43952
Re: United States v. The Steubenville City Board of Education, Civil No. [Case no.] (S.D. Ohio)
Dear Mr. Minnifield:
A Consent Decree has been entered settling a complaint of employment discrimination filed by the United States against the Steubenville City Board of Education. Under the terms of the Consent Decree entered on [date], in the case of the United States v. The Steubenville City Board of Education, Civil No. [Case no.] (S. D. Ohio), you are being offered a monetary award of $40,955.17. This sum is subject to withholding for federal, state and local income taxes and your share of federal social security taxes as appropriate and will be paid to you by the Defendant within sixty (60) days of its receipt of your release. You may obtain the monetary award by completing and returning the enclosed Release to the following address:
[INSERT ADDRESS]
The Release may be returned by mail or in person. If you-return the Release in person, please bring your social security card or other identification with you. You will at that time be asked to sign the Release before a notary public. If you return your Release by mail, the Release must be signed and notarized before you mail it.
The monetary award is offered to you on the following condition: If you accept the monetary award, the Defendant will require you to release it from all employment discrimination claims based on sex you may presently have against it arising out of this action and EEOC Charge No. 220881795.
IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT THE RELEASE, AS DIRECTED IN THIS LETTER, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, YOU WILL FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS TO ANY MONETARY AWARD UNDER THIS DECREE, UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER.
- 14 -
-,'

A copy of the Consent Decree is enclosed." If you have any questions concerning the Consent Decree or your right to relief, you may call collect or write to the following attorney at the
u.s. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.:
David Y. Chen
u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section
P.o. Box 65968
Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 307-5769
Or you may call or write to the following attorney for the Steubenville City Board of Education:
[INSERT NA~E AND ADDRESS]
Sincerely,

Enclosure

[Defendant]

- 15 -
,,'

APPENDIX C
NOTICE LETTER
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Sharon Grant [Address] [City, State and Zip Code)
Re: United States v. The Steubenville City Board of Education, Civil No. [Case no.] (S.D. Ohio)
Dear Ms. Grant:
A Consent Decree has been entered settling a complaint of employment discrimination filed by the United States against the Steubenville City Board of Education (Board). Under the terms of the Consent Decree entered on [Date], in the case of the United States v. The Steubenville City Board of Education, Civil No. (Case no.) (S.D. Ohio), you are being offered a position in the merged janitorial position with your present seniority date and level in the Custodian II position. You will have a ten (10) day trial period in the merged janitorial position. You may decide at any time during the trial period either
(A) to remain in the merged janitorial position or (B) to return to your prior Custodian II position.
If you decide to remain in the merged janitorial position, you-will be offered a monetary award of $11,324.42. This sum is subject to withholding for federal, state and local taxes and your share of federal social security taxes as appropriate and will be paid to you by the Board within seventy-five (75) days after you notify of the Board of your decision. You may obtain the monetary award by completing and returning the enclosed Release to the following address:
[INSERT ADDRESS)
The Release may be returned by mail or in person. If you return the Release in person, please bring your social security card or other identification with you. You will at that time be asked to sign the Release before a notary public. If you return your Release by mail, the Release must be signed and notarized before you mail it.
The monetary award is offered to you on the following
- 16 -

condition: if you a"ccept it, the Board will require you to
release it from all employment discrimination claims based on sex
you may presently have against it arising out of this action and
EEOC Charge No. 220881795.
IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT THE RELEASE, AS DIRECTED IN THIS LETTER, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER," YOU WILL FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS TO ANY MONETARY AWARD UNDER THIS DECREE, UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER.
A copy of the Consent Decree is enclosed. If you have any
questions concerning the Consent Decree or your right to relief, you may call collect or write to the following attorney at the
u.s. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.:
David Y. Chen
u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 {202} 307-5769
Or you may call or ~rite to the following attorney for the Steubenville City Board of Education:
[INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS)
Sincerely,

Enclosure

[Defendant)

- 17 -

EXHIBIT 2 NOTICE OF A FAIRNESS HEARING

TO:

ALL INCUMBENT JANITORIAL EMPLOYEES OF THE STEUBENVILLE

CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

RE:

United States v. The Steubenville City Board of Educa-

tion, Civil No. [Case no.] (S.D. Ohio)

The United States has filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division against The Steubenville City Board of Education (Defendant) to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et~. (Title VII).
In its Complaint the United States alleges, among other things, that the Defendant violated Title VII by
1. adopting and maintaining gender-segregated job classifications for janitorial positions in the Steubenville City School District;
2. failing or refusing to hire and to employ females in the Custodian I position and failing or refusing to hire and employ males in the Custodian II position;
3. paying women who perform custodian duties lower wages than males who perform the same or substantially similar duties; and
4. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminat~ the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the effects of those policies and practices.
The United States also alleges that the Defendant failed or refused to hire Mr. Robert G. Minnifield, a male, on the basis of his sex, for a Custodian Class II position.
On [Date] the Court tentatively approved and entered the Consent Decree (Decree) which resolved all issues raised in the Complaint, including relief issues.
The Decree provides for the following relief:
1. The Defendant shall not discriminate against any employee; applicant or potential applicant for employment with the Steubenville City School District as a janitorial employee, and shall not retaliate against any individual because that individual has opposed discriminatory practices or because of that individual's participation in or cooperation with the initiation,

II'

investigation, or litigation of this lawsuit or administration of this Decree.
2. The Defendant (a) shall no longer maintain separate janitorial job classifications based on sex, (b) shall merge prospectively the current Custodian I and Custodian II positions into one position and (c) shall recruit, consider, hire and pay men and women for that merged position on the same basis.
3. The Defendant shall apply at least $8717 to the development and validation of an examination for use in the selection of new candidates for the merged janitorial position.
4. All incumbent Custodian Class II employees will receive no less than 87.5 percent of the salary of the newly created merged janitorial position.
5. . Mr. Robert Minnifield will be offered $40,955.17.
6. Ms. Sharon Grant will be offered a two week trial in the newly created merged janitorial position. If she chooses to remain in the position, she will receive $11,324.42.
The Court will conduct a fairness hearing on [Date] at [Time] at the following address:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division United States Courthouse 85 Marconi Blvd. Columbus, Ohio 43215
At this hearing the United States and the Defendant will ask the Court to approve and enter the Decree after the Court considers any objections regarding the proposed relief from persons who may be affected.
The Court will consider only written objections at the fairness hearing, so if you wish to object, you must make your objection in writing. Your objection must·state the name and number of this case, your name, address and telephone number and the reason(s) for your objection(s). Your objection must· be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of this notice. You must send your objection to each address below:
1. Honorable [Judge's name] United States District Court Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
2

United States Courthouse 85 Marconi Blvd. Columbus, Ohio 43215 2. David Y. Chen, Esq. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section P. O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 3. Drew H. Campbell, Esq. Bricker & Eckler 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291 If you have any questions, you may write to the Department of Justice attorney named above or you may call (800) [Number).
3

 
 ...

FILED

. t"\rt"ll~ll~lt':~T",H,' ~)I: ~Q~ll.!y

, ..... ~ J

j ~..... i \ ,

i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

95 MAY 19 Mill: 41

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

Civil No. C2-95- 506

Judge

JuJJlDI Magistrate

6/lAHAM

MAGISTRATE JUDOEAQL

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges: 1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-6(b), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1345. 3. Defendant Steubenville City Board of Education is a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio and is charged with administering and maintaining public schools in Steubenville, Ohio. 4. Defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(b) . 5. Defendant maintains two separate classifications for its janitorial employees: Custodian Class I and Custodian Class

II. Only females are hired and employed in the Custodian Class II position, which was formerly entitled matron; and only males are hired and employed by Defendant in the Custodian Class I position.
6. The starting salary for males employed by Defendant in the Custodian I position in 1988 was $13,534.00, and the starting salary for females employed by Defendant in the Custodian II position in 1988 was $10,634.00. Upon information and belief, there remains a pay disparity between the two positions, and Defendant pays more to male Custodians I than to female Custodians II.
7. Defendant has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against men and women, deprive or tend to deprive men and women of employment opportunities, and adversely affect the status of men and women as employees because of their sex. Defendant has implemented these policies and practices, among other ways, by:
(a) Adopting and maintaining gender-segregated job classifications for janitorial positions in the Steubenville School District;
(b) Failing or refusing to hire and employ females in the Custodian I position and failing or refusing to hire and employ males in the Custodian II position;
(c) Paying women who perform custodian duties lower wages than males who perform the same or substantially similar duties; and
-2-

(d) Failing or refusing to take- appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the present effects of those policies and practices.
8. The policies and practices of Defendant described in Paragraph 7, above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by males and females of their right to equal employment opportunity at the Steubenville School District without discrimination on the basis of their sex. The pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Unless enjoined by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.
9 .. Defendant has discriminated against Robert Minnifield on the basis of his sex, male, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
(a) failing or refusing to hire Mr. Minnifield for the position of Custodian II in approximately July 1988 because of Mr. Minnifield's sex; and
(b) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Mr. Minnifield.
-3-

10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received a timely charge filed by Mr. Minnifield (Charge No. 22088-1795), in which he alleged, inter alia, that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his sex when he was denied hire for the position of Custodian II at the Steubenville City School District. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that the allegation of sex discrimination was true, attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the matter and subsequently referred the charge to the Department of Justice.
11. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for an order enjoining Defendant from:
(a) Classifying, filling or compensating custodian positions at Steubenville School District on the basis of sex; and
(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to overcome the effects of the discriminatory policies and practices as described in this complaint, including providing make whole relief to Robert Minnifield and all other persons who have suffered loss as a result of the discriminatory policies and practices.
-4-

The Plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.

WILLIAM B. FENTON DAVID Y. CHEN Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 307-5769

EDMUND

GUS, JR.

Unitedt@tes ttorney

JAMES RATTAN, State Bar No. 0018632

Assistant United States Attorney

Southern District of Ohio

- 5-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

' , ·... i -.

;.; • ',!. ~
~;QU"i': :..-
-:." /", .~.... -
~.;-".I :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

Civ. No. C2-95-506

JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL Plaintiff, the United States of America, and Defendant, the Steubenville City Board of Education, through counsel, hereby move for dismissal of this case, stating as follows: 1. On or about August 28, 1995, this Court approved a consent decree resolving all issues between the parties raised by the United States' May 19, 1995, Complaint. 2. The consent decree provides that "[a] fter three' (3) years this matter shall be dismissed unless the United States moves, upon notice to the Defendant, for its continuation in order to carry out the purposes of the Decree." 3. Three years have passed since entry of the consent decree. 4. All terms and conditions of the decree have been satisfied. 5. There are no outstanding issues remaining between the parties.

6. Continuation of the decree is not necessary to effectuate its purposes.
7. A proposed order of dismissal is attached. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss this case.

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

_.....

~~~

BILL LANN LEE

-.--_....

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

William B. Fenton

Claire L. Gregory

Attorneys

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 65968

Washington, D.C. 20035

Telephone (202) 307-5769

Fax (202) 514-1105

Attorneys for the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FOR THE DEFENDANT STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION:
Drew H. Campbell Bricker & Eckler 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone (614) 227-2300 Fax (614) 227-2390

date:

date:

-2-

f.Ci:)Ke~f.E'~~'~1R\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT lrn~~~f.j WI ~1bY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

f(ENNETH J. MURPHY, Clerk
COLUMBU~ OHIO
UNITED bTATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

Civ. No. C2-95-506

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Dismissal, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the case is dismissed.

Entered this

day of ___________ , 1998.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

FILED
OCT 131998 Kennetn J. Murphy, Cl~lK
COluglbuS, Ohio

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD )

OF EDUCATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

-----------------------------)

Civ. No. C2-9S-S06

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Dismissal, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the case is dismissed.

Entered this

/:1

ZlI day

of

C2~

, 1998.

Drew H Campbell/ Esq. Bricker & Eckler - 2 100 S Third Street Columbus/ OH 43215-4291
Re: 2:95-cv-00506
**** NOTICE ****
YOU MUST INFORM THIS OFFICE/ IN WRITING/ OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 18/ 1996 THE FILING FEE FOR CIVIL COMPLAINTS INCREASES TO $150 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 17/ 1997 DIVERSITY AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY INCREASES TO $75/000
THANK YOU

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

Case No. Judge Magistrate Judge

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE AND TO SCHEDULE A FAIRNESS HEARING
Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant the Steubenville City Board of Education respectfully move the Court to enter the accompanying proposed Order tentatively approving the proposed Consent Decree, attached as Exhibit l to that Order, subject to final approval and entry by the Court, and to schedule
~
a fairness hearing for the purpose of considering any objections regarding the relief proposed to·be awarded under the Consent Decree and to determine whether the Consent Decree may be finally entered.
The proposed Consent Decree, if given final approval and entered by this Court, wiil resolve all pending issues in this case.
A Memorandum in Support, Joint Stipulation of Facts, and a proposed Order tentatively approving and entering the Consent
/ / / / / /

Decree, subject to final approval and entry after the fairness hearing, accompany this Motion.

For the Defendant:

Respectfully submitted, For the Plaintiff:

Drew H. CampB'ell Bricker & Eckler 100 South Third Street columbus, Ohio 43215-4291

David Y. Chen u.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968
(202) 307-5769

- 2-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STEUBENVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

Case No. Judge Magistrate Judge

JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT For the purposes of settlement of potential litigation only, acknowledging that the following stipulations of fact exclude those facts upon which the Defendant's defenses would have been based and that the stipulation of facts in no way constitutes or should be construed as an admission of liability by the Defendant, the parties stipulate as follows: 1. The Defendant maintains two separate classifications for its janitorial employees: Custodian Class I (Custodian I) and Custodian Class II (custodian II). Females have been employed in the Custodian II position while males have been employed in the Custodian I position. 2. On or about March 8, 1988, Robert Minnifield completed a written application with the Steubenville City School District and on or about March 26, 1988, took a civil service examination administered by the Steubenville City Civil Service Commission ("Commission") for a position as a custodian. Based on his examination score, Mr. Minnifield placed second on the resultant

eligible list, behind another male candidate. Male and female applicants were administered the same examination and the eligible list included both males and females in descending order according to their examination results.
3. On or about May 4, 1988, the Defendant requested that the Commission certify female candidates from the eligible list for two vacant Custodian II positions. The Commission certified the four highest ranked females from the eligible hire list. On or about June 20, 1988, the Defendant made offers of employment to Sharon Grant and Anna Kennedy Leyland, who were the females with the two highest scores of those females to whom the exam was administered. Both Ms. Grant and Ms. Leyland were ranked lower on the eligible hire list than Mr. Minnifield.
·4. According to the Plaintiff, the male and female custodians in some schools, on occasions, have cleaned restrooms designated for use by students of the opposite sex of the custodian while classes were in session. According to the Defendant, any such activity violates the express policy and was without the knowledge or consent of the Defendant.
5. The Defendant has not sought pre-certification of a bona fide occupational qualification for either the Custodian I or Custodian II positions.
6. The starting salary for Custodians I employed by Defendant in the 1987-88 school year was $13,534, and the starting salary for Custodians II employed by Defendant in the 1987-88 school year was $10,634. The starting salary for Custodians I e-
-2-

mployed by Defendant in the 1994-95 school year is $17,318, and the starting salary for Custodians II employed by Defendant in the 1994-95 school year is $13,607.
7. There are core duties assigned to all custodial employees of the Defendant. Some custodial employees are required to clean classrooms, restrooms, and the halls in their respective school buildings and, as to these employees, such tasks comprise a portion of their core job duties. To the extent that Custodians I and Custodians II perform the same tasks, their jobs are substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
8. The Plaintiff has independently verified that, in August of 1994, the Defendant offered all incumbent Custodian II emplCDyees a Custodian I position. With the exception of Ms. Sharon Grant, each incumbent Custodian II declined the offer of the Custodian I position.

Agreed and consented to,

For the Plaintiff:

David Y. Chen U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 307-5769

-3-

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:95-cv-00506-JLG-MRA

USA, et al v. Steubenville Bd Edu Assigned to: James L Graham Referred to: Mag. Judge Mark R. Abel Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 05/19/1995 Date Terminated: 08/28/1995 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff USA

represented by William B Fenton Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litagation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202-514-6269 Email: william.b.fenton@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant Steubenville City Board of Education

represented by Drew H Campbell Bricker & Eckler - 2 100 S Third Street Columbus, OH 43215-4291 614-227-2300 Email: dcampbell@bricker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/19/1995

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (referred to Mag. Judge Mark R. Abel ) () (bw) (Entered: 05/24/1995)

05/19/1995 05/19/1995 06/01/1995
06/01/1995 06/21/1995 06/21/1995
07/03/1995 07/03/1995 07/10/1995 07/17/1995 08/03/1995
08/28/1995
10/06/1998 10/13/1998

2 JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT () (bw) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
3 MOTION by plaintiff & defendant for entry of a consent decree and to schedule a fairness hearing () (bw) Modified on 05/24/1995 (Entered: 05/24/1995)
4 ORDER by Judge James L. Graham granting motion for entry of a consent decree and to schedule a fairness hearing [3-1] . Matter is referred to Mag Abel to conduct a fairness hearing and for a report and recommendation. (cc: all counsel) () (bw) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
5 ORDER for Entry of Consent Decree by Judge James L. Graham (cc: all counsel) () (bw) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
6 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff& defendant to amend order for entry of consent decree () (bw) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
7 ORDER and Amendment of consent decree by Judge James L. Graham granting motion to amend order for entry of consent decree [6-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (bw) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
8 LETTER to court from Alice Herring () (bw) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
9 LETTER to court from Mattie Patterson () (bw) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
10 LETTER to court from Sandra Rowley () (bw) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
11 LETTER to court from Anna Kennedy () (bw) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag. Judge Mark R. Abel that the proposed consent decree be approved and entered by the Court. NOTICE: Parties have 10 days to file objections (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (bw) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
13 ORDER by Judge James L. Graham Adopting the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [12-1] entering the Proposed Consent Decree and terminating case (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (bw) (Entered: 08/28/1995)
14 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff & defendant to dismiss case () (bw) (Entered: 10/07/1998)
15 ORDER by Judge James L. Graham granting joint motion to

dismiss case [14-1] (cc: all counsel) () (bw) (Entered: 10/13/1998)