UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
---------------------- ------ -------x
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CI VIL ACTION NO . 06- CV-4 0l90-fDS

Preferred Labor LLC , d/b/a Preferred People Staffi ng
Defendant .
----- -- ----- ----- ------ ---- -------- x

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of t he Civil Rights Act o f 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied fo r temporary employment with Defendant Pre fe rred Labor LLC d/b/a Preferred People Staffing (hereinafter "Defendant" ) , who are and were affected by such practices. As aileged with greater particu larity below , De fenda nt , subjected Catherine Darensbourg and female j ob ilIpplicants who ilIpplied for temporary employme nt with De fe ndillnt to repeate d sex-based discrimination by failing to refer individuals for temporary employment based on their sex

1

and by complying wi t h disc~iminato~y requests for temporary employees based on sex made by one or more of its clients , and subjec t ed Catherine Darensbourg to unlawfu l r e taliation .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1 . Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant t o 28 U. S . C. SS 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and inst i tu te d pu~suan t to Section J06(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , as amended, 42 U. S . C . S2000e - 5(f) 11) and (3) ( "Tit le VII " ) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 , 42 U. S . C . S 1981a . 2. The employme nt pra ctices alleged to be unla,.·f ul were and a~e now being commit te d within t he jurisdiction of the United States District Court of Massachusetts , Worcester Division .
PARTIES 3 . Plaintiff, Equa l Employment Opportunit y Commission (the "Commission") is the agency of the United States of Ameri ca cha ~ged with th e administration , interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bri ng this action by Section 106(f) (1) and (3) o f Title VII , 42 U. S . C. S2000e5(f) (1) and (3) . 4 . At all relevant times , Defendant has cO:"ltinuously been doing business in the State of Massachusetts and the city of
2

Worcester, M~ssaehusetts and has continuously had at least fiftee n employees .
5. At all relevant times , Defendan t has cont i nuously been an employer engaged in an indust r y affecting commerce within the meaning o f Sections 701(b) , (g) and (h) of Title VII , 42 U. S.C . 55 2000e(b), (g) and (h) .
6. At all r elevant times , Defendant has p r ocured employees for employers and has been an emp loyment agency within the meaning of section 70l(e) of Title VII , 42 U. S . C. S 2000e(c) .
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7 . More than t hirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit , Catherine Da rensbourg filed a charge with the Commission alleging v i olations o f Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have bee n fulfilled. 8 . Since a t l e ast May o f 2005 and continuing , De f endant has engaged in unlawfu l employment practices at its facilities in Worcester , Massachusetts , i n violat i on of Section 703(a) OJ, (2) and 703 (b) of Title VII , 42 U.S.C . S 2000e2(a)(I) , {2) and (b) . These pract i ces include , but are not limited t o , the following: (a) Defendant discriminated against female job applicants because of their sex .
)

(b) Defendant furnished temporary employees in job f ields

such as const ruction , light industrial, warehouse stocking,

•

distribution, freight handlings , hospitality, catering, and

light janitorial and unlawfully classified jobs on the basis of

sex as men's jobs or women ' s jobs and refused to refer female

job applicants for temporary employment in jobs classified by

Defendants as men ' s jobs .

(c) Defendant complied with discriminatory requests for

temporary employees based on sex made by one or more of its

clients.

(d)

Defendant discriminated against Catherine

Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female job

applican t s who applied for t emporary employment with De fendan t

by failing to refer them for temporary empl oyment because of

their sex,female .

(e) De fenda nt retaliated a gainst Catherine Darensbourg

after she engaged in protected activity and complained about

Defendant's d i scriminatory conduct by refusing to consider her

for job opportunitie s .

9 . The effect of the pract ices complained of above is and

has been to depr i ve Catherine Darensbourg and a class of

similarly situated female employees of equal employment

opportunities and otherwise adversely affec t t heir status as

employees on the basis of sex, inflict emotional pain and

4

suffering «nd humiliation and emba rrassment upon them, and cause them to suffer f i nancial losses and otherwise adversely affect them.
10 . The unlawful employment practices complained of above are and were intentiona l .
11 . The unlawful employment pract ices complained of above are and were done with malice or with reck less i ndi fference to the federa lly protected rights of Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated femal e j ob applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defe ndant .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectful l y requests that this Court :
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors , assigns and all persons i n active concert or participat ion with Defe ndant , from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex .
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies , practices, and programs which provi de equal opportunitie s for women and which eradi cate the effects of Defendant's past and present unlawful employment practices .
C. Order Defendant to make whole Catherine Darensbourg and the class o f similarly sit uated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant and were un l awfu lly denied employment opportunities based on sex by
5

providing appropriate backpay with prejudgement interest, in amounts to be determi ned at trial, and by providing othe r affirmative reliet necessary t o eradicate the eff ects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to instating, reinstating. or otherwise making whole Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applican ts who applied for temporary employment with De fendant and were unlawfully deni ed employment oppo rtunities based on sex .
D. Order Defendant to make whole Catherine Darensbourg
and the class ot simi lar ly situated fema le job applicants who
applied for temporary employment with Defendant and were unlawfully denied emplo~ent opportunities based on sex by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, i ncluding but not l imited to job search expenses that may have been incurred , i n amounts that will be determined at trial .
E. Order Defendant to compensate Catherine Darensbourg
and the class ot similarly situated female job applicants who
appl i ed for temporary employment with Defendant and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employrr.ent practices described above, including but not limited to emotio:)al pain , suffering and inconvenie:)ce , loss of
6

enjoyment of life , humil i ation and embarrassme nt, in amounts to be deter mined at trial .
F. Order Defendant to pay Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who appl ied tor temporary employment with Defendant and were unlawfully denied err.ployroent opportunities based on sex punitive da!T'.ages for i t s conduct described above , in amount s to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such furthe r relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest .
H. Award the Commi s sion its costs in this action .

JURy TRIAL DEIO.ND
The Co~~ission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its co~plaint .

August 31 , 2006

Respectfully submitted,
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy Gene r al Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COI"'JoIISSION

7

1801 L Street , N. W. Washington, D. C. 20507
Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney Judy Keenan Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ne~ Yor k District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor , Ne~ York , Ne~ York 10004 - 2112 Tel. (2121336-3705 Fax. (2121336-3623
elizabeth.grossman~eeoc . gov
judy . ke enan@eeoc . gov
OPPORTUNITY Bos t on Area Office John F . Kennedy Federal Building , Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506 Tel. (6171 565-3210 Fax . (6171 565-3196 arnold .lizana@eeoc . gov
8

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHVSETTS

}

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTlJ'.IITY,

)

Plaintiff,

)

VS.

)

)

PREFERRED LABOR LLC, d/b/a

)

PREI'ERRED PEOPLE STAFFING,

)

Defendant.

)

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

CIVIL ACTlO~ NO.06-40190-FDS

PROTECTIVE ORDER

TillS MATTF:R. having been brought before the Court by Plaintiffs Motion To Enforce Sllbro~tll1 For Production of Documents Pursuant To Fed, R, Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B) (Document No. 24) and Cross Motion Of PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing, a non-party, for a Protccti\e Order (Document No, 32).
IT is Ordered that: 1. The terms, conditions and limitations of this Protective Order ("Order"') shall apply to the following documents which shall be produced by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a and PrderAblc Starting ("PreferAble") for inspection and photocopying and which shall be (k~igllated as "Contidential" in writing by PreterAble. A "ConJidenliaj" designation means that the d[)cum~nt conlains information that has value or could have value or utility to PreferAble and includes:
u. financial information, inventions, research and development methods, computer programs including software and data used in all such programs,

customer and supplier lists, development costs, purchasing, pricing,

profits, markets, sales, accounts, financing, expansions, other information

relating to PreferAble's business strategies;

b. employee information which shall include but is not limited to employee

names, social security numbers, financial account numbers, credit card

numbers, mother's maiden names, passwords, driver's license number.

dates of birth. medical and health care information; and

c. client information which shall include but is not limited to client names.

account information, contact intormation and contract specifications.

")

All "Confidential" documcnts or portions thereof and the information contained

therein shall not be disclosed or made known by counsel for Plaintiff or Defendant to any person

or entity other than the parties or their employees, counsel to this litigation, witnesses testifying

at depositions or at trial in this litigation, and said counsel's experts, paralegals, secretaries and

otller stair

3. The "'Cllnfidential" documents to which this Order pertains, all copies thereof, and

the informalion contained therein may be disclosed to the persons bona fide assisting counsel in

the preparation and trial of the within action, as well as independent experts retained in

cllllncction with this litigation; provided, how.:ver. that prior to any such disclosure such persons

shall consent in writing to be bound by the terms, conditions, and limitation of this Order by

exccutmg a consent in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A and by delivering a copy of such

consent to the counsel who has requested their assistance. Counsel will retain the

'I<:knowledgmcnt. Counsel is not required, however to produce any such acknowledgment to

-2-

counsel Jl)r the other parti"s. Counsel and staff tor the EEOC and Preferred Labor are not

rL'Cjuired to sign an acknowledgment.

4.

All documents to which this Order pertains, and any copies thereof~ shall remain

at all times in the custody of persons subject to this Order as identified above and only persons

who have executed a consent form annexed as 'A'

,

None of the documents to which this Order pertains or the infonIlation contain"d

therein. shall be Llsed by counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, or any other person or entity to

II hom they are provided, for any purpose other than for deposition exhibits, motion practice, and

the prq1aration, litigation and trial of this action. including appeals. At the written request of

Pia111lifr, Defendant or PreferAble, counsel shall confer as to additional procedures with respect

!o confldentiali!: in connection with any motions l1Ied with the Court..

6. Pre/hAble shall be entitled to seek contempt proceedings, injunctive relief,

d'lll1agcs or any other appropriate remedy at law or in equity in order to enforce the terms and

conditions of this Order.

7

None of the documents to which this Order pertains or the information contained

therein, shall be used by counsel for either party or any other entity to whom they are provided,

ttH' any purpose other than for deposition exhibits, motion practice, and the preparation for

litigation in this action, including appeals.

S. Until further Order of this Court, neither Plaintillnor Defendant nor

anyone acting on their behal L as attorney or otherwise. may contact any client of PreferAble

\Vilhout the rrior written approval ofPrcferAb!e, Nothing contained herein shall prevent either

party from petitioning this Court lor permission to contact any client of PrclhAble in the event

-3-

that the discovery material produced via the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition ofPrderAblc establishes

that the contacting of PreferAble's client is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.

9.

In the event that Plaintiff or Defendant desires to challenge th.: designation by

Prei(;rAblc Of any document as "Confidential" or othenvise seeks to modifY any provisions of

this Orekr, counsel may file a motion seeking such relief and the parties will respond to such

motion <IS with any other discovery motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Loc,ll Rules provided, however, that until said motion is decided by the Court, the subject

documents are deemed "Confidential" and not subject to disclosure or use except as provided

h<:rein.

10. In the event that Plaintiff or Defendant is served with a subpoena requesting any

docllments marked "Confidential" pursuant to this Protective Ordcr, counsel for that Party shall

il11!1wdiate!y provide connsd for PreferAble with notice oflhe subpoena by telefaxing a copy

lilcTcofto counsel tor PreterAble in this litigation.

Further, counsel tor Plaintiff and Defendant will not produce documents in response to

such a subpoena 'Aililout providing counsel for PreferAble with such notice and at least len {I 0)

day, to respond to the subpoena. i.e .. by motion to quash or otherwise.

II. All obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of this Order shall survive

and be enforceable should PreferAble be named as a party to this action notwithstanding the

tcrminalioll of this litigation by final judgment or otherwise.

-4-

12. Lpon the Iinal termination of this action, including all appeals, counsel for Plaimi If and De!i:ndant shall return to counsel for PreferAble all documents and copies thereofto \\ hiell ~his Order pertains or confirm that the confidentiality thereof will be maintained.
SO ORDERED: Is/Timothv S. Hillman"--c-_ __ TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-5-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COt:RT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

--_. ----_._-_.-
)

Fl)t1AL LMPLOYlvlENT OPPORTUNITY,

)

PinintitI

)

vs.

)

)

PREfERRED LABOR LLC. d/b/a

)

PREFERRED PEOPLE STAFFING,

)

Defendallt-

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.06-40190-FDS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
L ____._~_..__.__._._.._, hereby acknowledge that I have provided a eopy of the Protecti\c Ord"r entered in the above-captioned matter, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorpllrated hereill by rclercnce_
[ further acknowledge that I have read the aforesaid Order and agree to be bound by the lenns and conditions and limitations contained therein regarding the review and disclosure of Conlidclltiallnformation belonging to non-party PreferAble People, LLC dib/a PreferAble Staning.

By:

 
 Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

-----------------------------------------------------X

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

PREFERRED LABOR LLC,

:

d/b/a PREFERRED PEOPLE STAFFING :

and PREFERABLE PEOPLE, LLC,

:

as successor in interest,

:

:

Defendants.

:

-----------------------------------------------------X

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-40190-FDS
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred Labor LLC d/b/a Preferred People Staffing (hereinafter “Preferred”), who are and were affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, Defendant Preferred subjected Catherine Darensbourg and female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred to repeated sex-based discrimination by failing to refer individuals for temporary employment based on their sex and by complying with discriminatory requests for temporary employees based on sex made by one or more of its clients, and subjected Catherine Darensbourg to unlawful retaliation. Defendant PreferAble People, LLC (“PreferAble”)

1

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 8
purchased Defendant Preferred on April 17, 2007 and is a successor corporation to Defendant Preferred.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of Massachusetts, Worcester Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”) is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Preferred was continuously doing business in the State of Massachusetts and the city of Worcester, Massachusetts and continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Preferred was continuously an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 8
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Preferred procured employees for employers and was an employment agency within the meaning of section 701(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e(c).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant PreferAble has continuously been doing business in the State of Massachusetts and the city of Worcester, Massachusetts and continuously employs at least fifteen employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant PreferAble has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
9. At all relevant times, Defendant PreferAble has procured employees for employers and is an employment agency within the meaning of section 701(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e(c).
10. Defendant PreferAble purchased Defendant Preferred on or about April 17, 2007 and is a legal successor to Preferred.
11. Defendant PreferAble purchased and obtained most of Defendant Preferred’s real property, tangible assets, client service contracts, supervisory employees, non-supervisory employees, temporary employees as well the exclusive right to use Defendant Preferred’s trade names.
12. Since its purchase of Defendant Preferred, Defendant PreferAble has continued to engage in the same business as Defendant Preferred, the provision of temporary labor, out of the same physical facility.
3

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 4 of 8
13. There has been a substantial continuity of business operations by Defendant PreferAble of the business operations of Defendant Preferred, since the date of purchase of Defendant Preferred by Defendant PreferAble.
14. Defendant PreferAble had actual notice of this action at the time it purchased Preferred, and the lawsuit was listed in the Purchase Agreement between the two Defendants.
15. Preferred cannot provide all of the relief sought in this matter. 16. Defendant PreferAble is liable in this matter under the principles of successor liability.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 17. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Catherine Darensbourg filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. Preferred. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 18. Since at least May of 2005 through the date operations were taken over by Defendant Preferable, Defendant Preferred has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Worcester, Massachusetts, in violation of Section 703(a)(1),(2) and 703 (b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1),(2) and (b). These practices include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Defendant Preferred discriminated against female job applicants because of their sex. (b) Defendant Preferred furnished temporary employees in job fields such as construction, light industrial, warehouse stocking, distribution, freight handlings, hospitality, catering, and light janitorial and unlawfully classified jobs on the basis of sex as men’s jobs or
4

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 5 of 8
women’s jobs and refused to refer female job applicants for temporary employment in jobs classified by Defendants Preferred as men’s jobs.
(c) Defendant Preferred complied with discriminatory requests for temporary employees based on sex made by one or more of its clients.
(d) Defendant Preferred discriminated against Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred by failing to refer them for temporary employment because of their sex, female.
(e) Defendant Preferred retaliated against Catherine Darensbourg after she engaged in protected activity and complained about Defendant Preferred’s discriminatory conduct by refusing to consider her for job opportunities.
19. The effect of the practices complained of above is and has been to deprive Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of sex, inflict emotional pain and suffering and humiliation and embarrassment upon them, and cause them to suffer financial losses and otherwise adversely affect them.
20. The unlawful employment practices complained of above are and were intentional.
21. The unlawful employment practices complained of above are and were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Catherine Darensbourg and a class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
5

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 6 of 8
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal opportunities for women and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Preferred’s’ past unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendants to make whole Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and by providing other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to instating, reinstating, or otherwise making whole Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex.
D. Order Defendants to make whole Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to job search expenses that may have been incurred, in amounts that will be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to compensate Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred
6

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 7 of 8

and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and embarrassment, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Catherine Darensbourg and the class of similarly situated female job applicants who applied for temporary employment with Defendant Preferred and were unlawfully denied employment opportunities based on sex punitive damages for its conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

July 21, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
7

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 53 Filed 07/21/08 Page 8 of 8
Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney Robert D. Rose Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004-2112 Tel.(212)336-3708 Fax.(212)336-3623 robert.rose@eeoc.gov judy.keenan@eeoc.gov /s/Arnold J. Lizana III _________________________________ Arnold J. Lizana III Bar No. MA 646161 Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Boston Area Office John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506 Tel.(617) 565-3210 Fax.(617) 565-3196 arnold.lizana@eeoc.gov
8

 
 Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

PREFERRED LABOR LLC, d/b/a

)

PREFERRED PEOPLE STAFFING, and )

PREFERABLE PEOPLE, LLC,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

_______________________________________

Civil Action No. 06-40190-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT PREFERABLE PEOPLE, LLC

SAYLOR, J.

This is an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a temporary

labor agency in Worcester, Massachusetts. The EEOC alleges that defendant Preferred Labor

LLC (“Preferred”) discriminated against applicants for temporary work based on their gender.

After the alleged discriminatory incidents, and after the EEOC filed its initial complaint against

Preferred, defendant Preferable People LLC (“Preferable”) purchased most of the assets of

Preferred’s Worcester operations and began running its own temporary labor agency out of the

former Preferred office. The EEOC then amended its complaint to include Preferable as a

defendant, and now seeks to hold Preferable liable as a successor-in-interest to Preferred.

To the extent the EEOC seeks monetary damages, it is acknowledged that Preferred has

sufficient assets from which to pay them. As for injunctive relief, the EEOC acknowledges that

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 2 of 10
the violations are not ongoing and that Preferable has never engaged in the discriminatory practice. The question is whether Preferable may be nonetheless enjoined from engaging in discriminatory practices, simply because it is the successor to Preferred.
Preferable has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that successor liability in inappropriate in this instance. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted. I. Background
The facts are described in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, unless otherwise noted. Preferred Labor LLC operated a temporary labor agency in Worcester, Massachusetts. Every morning at approximately 5:00 a.m., people would show up at its office and sign up to work for the day. Preferred had clients who put in requests for a certain number of workers to do certain types of jobs, such as construction or janitorial work. As people with the requisite skills to meet the client requests came in, Preferred would assign them to a job for the day, and transport them to the job in vans. A woman named Catherine Darensbourg complained to the EEOC that beginning in at least May 2005, and continuing until April 2007, Preferred refused to assign her to certain jobs for which she was qualified solely because she was a woman. The EEOC alleges that Preferred classified available jobs by gender, complied with gender-based requests from its business clients (e.g. to only send men to perform certain work), and retaliated against Ms. Darensbourg when she complained about the discrimination. In April 2007, Preferred signed an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with Preferable People LLC. The agreement provided, among other things, that Preferable would purchase all the
2

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 3 of 10
assets associated with Preferred’s Worcester operation except for the computers and accounts receivables.1 Preferable had been in business operating temporary labor offices for a number of years, but did not have an office in Worcester until the purchase of Preferred’s operations. As part of the deal, Preferable purchased the rights to use the name “Preferred” in association with temporary labor staffing in the area.2 The APA also included an indemnity and hold-harmless clause, indicating that Preferred, and not Preferable, would be liable for any claims arising from events prior to the signing of the APA.
After the purchase, Preferable operated a temporary labor agency out of Preferred’s former office. The day-to-day operations were not significantly changed. However, as was its corporate-wide practice, Preferable conducted anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity training for employees at the Worcester office, and posted EEO notices for the temporary work applicants. Preferable required that all of Preferred’s former employees who wished to retain their jobs fill out a new job application, which included a pledge to uphold equal employment opportunity. Preferable refused to do business with the client of Preferred that was specifically alleged to have made the gender-based requests. The EEOC has not alleged that any instances of discrimination occurred after Preferable took over operations in Worcester.
There is significant disagreement as to whether Preferable should be characterized as a “successor-in-interest” to Preferred. The EEOC contends that Preferable purchased substantially all of Preferred’s assets, and points out that Preferred no longer conducts any business
1 Preferable also purchased the assets, and took over the operations, of 13 other offices that had been run by Preferred.
2 The Worcester office had both “Preferred” and “Preferable” signs displayed for at least six months following the APA. At some point thereafter, the “Preferred” sign was removed.
3

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 4 of 10
operations.3 Preferable and Preferred contend that Preferable purchased only 14% of Preferred’s assets. There is also disagreement as to whether the managers and permanent employees of Preferred who were alleged to have participated in the discrimination were ever employed by Preferable. II. Analysis
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). A genuine issue is “one that must be decided at trial because the evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant . . . would permit a rational fact finder to resolve the issue in favor of either party.” Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
A. Successor Liability The question of whether Preferable is a “successor” to Preferred “is simply not meaningful in the abstract.” Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249, 264 n.9 (1974).4 There is no single definition of “successor” applicable in every legal context. Id. The relevant question in this case is whether it is appropriate to use the doctrine of successor liability to require Preferable to pay damages or to impose equitable remedies because of its
3 Preferred, however, has not been dissolved; the entity still exists for the purpose of resolving this lawsuit.
4 Howard Johnson involved accusations of unfair labor practices. However, the principles of successor liability that apply in that context are equally applicable in cases involving employment practices that violate Title VII. See, e.g. EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086, 1090 (6th Cir. 1974).
4

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 5 of 10
relationship to the entity that actually committed the violation. In the Title VII context, a court should consider three principal factors before making a successor liability determination: (1) continuity in operations and work force of the successor and predecessor employers; (2) notice to the successor employer of its predecessor’s legal obligation; and (3) ability of the predecessor to provide adequate relief directly.
Rego v. ARC Water Treatment Co., 181 F.3d 396, 402 (3d Cir. 1999). See also Bates v. Pacific Maritime Asso., 744 F.2d 705, 709-710 (9th Cir. 1984).5 “These factors indicate that both fairness and necessity are inherent considerations in successorship analysis.” See Bates, 744 F.2d at 709-710.
1. Continuity of Operations The imposition of successor liability may be appropriate when the successor has essentially continued the operations of the predecessor. That inquiry is not dependent on the manner in which the assets of one company were transferred to the other. See Asseo v. Centro Medico Del Turabo, Inc., 900 F.2d 445, 451 (1st Cir. 1990) (citing Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 43 (1987)). Similarly, the fact that the successor and the predecessor have separate corporate structures does not necessarily make the imposition of successor liability inappropriate. See Trujillo, 694 F.2d at 224. The focus of the “continuity of operations” inquiry is whether the successor’s operations are identical, or very similar, to those of its predecessor. The relevant factors include (1) whether the same employees and management are in place; (2) whether the same product or service is
5 Other courts use similar tests that expand the “continuity of operations’ factor into additional, more specific factors, such as continuity of employees and management, whether the same products are produced, continuity of facility and equipment, or whether the same method of production or operation is used. See, e.g., MacMillan, 503 F.2d at 1094; Trujillo v. Longhorn Mfg. Co., 694 F.2d 221, 224 (10th Cir. 1982).
5

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 6 of 10
produced or offered; (3) whether the same facility and equipment is in use; and (4) whether the same method of production or operation is followed. MacMillan, 503 F.2d at 1094. As to the first factor, there is some dispute as to how long various Preferred employees and managers maintained employment and oversight responsibility at the Worcester facility after Preferable took over operations. However, the second, third, and fourth factors strongly suggest that the continuity-of-operations factor has been satisfied. Preferable is still (1) running a temporary labor agency, (2) out of the same office used by Preferred (and using some of the same desks, vans, and equipment), (3) using the same basic day-to-day procedures.
Fairness also demands consideration of whether the potentially discriminatory practices of the predecessor are being followed by the successor. Id at 1090 (quoting Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973) for the proposition that successor liability should attach when the change of employers does not change the likelihood that potential victims will be hurt by the continued questionable policies). Here, Preferable has implemented non-discriminatory policies and has discontinued Preferred’s practices.6
Regardless of the similarity of operations, successor liability will not be imposed if it is not necessary. See Bates, 744 F.2d at 709-710. However, even if the successor has implemented model equal employment policies, successor liability may attach if necessary to make the victims of the discrimination whole and further the important public policy goals of equal employment opportunity.
2. Notice
6 Conversely, if the successor benefitted from the predecessor’s discriminatory practices, successor liability is more likely to attach. Trujillo, 694 F.2d at 225. There is no evidence of that in this case.
6

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 7 of 10
The second factor for successor liability is easily satisfied. There is no dispute that Preferable had notice of the EEOC suit against Preferred when it signed the APA and took over the Worcester office.
3. Ability of Preferred to Provide the Necessary Relief The third factor for imposing successor liability concerns the ability of the predecessor to provide adequate relief. If the predecessor no long has sufficient assets to pay monetary damages, successor liability may be appropriate to ensure compensation to the victims or to ensure that the new entity does not enjoy a market advantage that arises out of a discriminatory practice. See MacMillan, 503 F.2d at 1092. See also Musikiwamba v. ESSI, Inc., 760 F.2d 740, 748-751 (7th Cir. 1985). Similarly, if the appropriate remedy is equitable in nature, the successor employer may be required to reinstate the discrimination victim. See Ramirez v. DeCoster, 194 F.R.D. 348 (D. Me. 2000) (“the successor doctrine was designed to grant remedial relief—i.e., backpay, reinstatement, or seniority—to an employee who, solely because of a change in ownership, is unable to obtain similar relief from the predecessor”). See also Bates, 744 F.2d at 711 (finding successor liability for injunctive relief, where the predecessor was available to provide monetary damages, and where the burden to successor was slight and the benefits to the plaintiff class were significant). Here, it is not disputed that Preferred has sufficient assets to cover any monetary damages sought by the EEOC.7 The question, then, is whether Preferable is a necessary party in order to provide complete equitable relief.
7 At the July 14, 2008 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, EEOC’s counsel expressly acknowledged that “Preferred is certainly insured enough to provide the [monetary] relief that EEOC is seeking.” See docket #65-4, Exh. H.
7

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 8 of 10
The most common form of equitable relief for which a successor is necessary is reinstatement. See Chungchi Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31, 43 (1st Cir. 2003). The complainant (Ms. Darensbourg) is not, however, seeking such relief. The EEOC argues, however, that in order to further the important public policy of ensuring equal employment opportunities, Preferable must provide relief that Preferred—because it no longer conducts any business—cannot provide. The EEOC has suggested as possible forms of equitable relief (1) the issuance of a press release by Preferable, or a letter to its clients, indicating that discrimination has occurred previously at the Worcester location, but that the practice has been disavowed, and will no longer be tolerated; or (2) rewriting of anti-discrimination policies, retraining of employees, and periodic reporting to the EEOC. However, the EEOC has not alleged that Preferable has violated any equal employment laws, or that it is likely to do so in the future.
Preferable argues that none of these measures are necessary, as none would make past discrimination victims whole or prevent future discrimination. Furthermore, Preferable argues, the first option would accomplish nothing but sullying its reputation with its clients, and the second option is unnecessary because it already has adequate anti-discrimination policies, it has retrained all of its employees that were formerly with Preferred, and all new Preferable employees receive anti-discrimination training as a matter of course.
Although the question of successor liability is a question of fact, the question of what equitable relief is appropriate or necessary is left to the sound discretion of the District Court. See Easley v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 758 F.2d 251, 263 (8th Cir. 1985). Thus, before determining whether a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Preferred is able to provide the necessary relief, the Court must determine what relief it would deem necessary.
8

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 9 of 10
B. Whether Equitable Relief Is Necessary Assuming that unlawful discriminatory employment practices have been found,
Title VII vests District Courts with broad discretion to award appropriate equitable relief to remedy unlawful discrimination. The Courts are empowered to order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees or any other relief as the court deems appropriate. Brzozowski v. Corr. Physician Servs., 360 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). See also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). While the awarding of some injunctive relief is mandatory where the discrimination is ongoing, such relief is not required where the discrimination has ceased and there is no reasonable probability of further noncompliance. See In re National Airlines, 700 F.2d 695, 697 (11th Cir. 1993). Accord Anheuser-Busch, 758 F.2d at 263 (finding the injunction issued by the district court to be too broad, and thus unfair to the employer, and remanding to fashion an injunction that would apply only to the group of employees at the facility affected). Here, and as noted, the victim is not requesting reinstatement. Moreover, Preferable does not have a history of discrimination and has implemented anti-discrimination policies; the EEOC does not allege that those policies are deficient or that discrimination is ongoing. Accordingly, the Court concludes that injunctive or equitable relief against Preferable is not necessary to achieve justice, and would serve only a symbolic purpose, if any. Under the circumstances, the Court will not order such relief. If it is determined that Preferred engaged in discriminatory employment practices, Preferred has sufficient assets from which to pay the monetary damages sought by the plaintiff. Because the EEOC has admitted that fact, and because the Court has decided that damages are
9

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 76 Filed 02/13/09 Page 10 of 10

the only potential relief to be awarded in this case on the present facts, no reasonable factfinder could determine that plaintiff would be unable to collect adequate relief from Preferred. It follows that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that successor liability should be imposed upon Preferable. III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Preferable’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. So Ordered.

Dated: February 13, 2009

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor F. Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge

10

 
 Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 1 of 18
'

IDiiTED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF 1\R~SSACHUSETTS

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP?ORTl1~1TY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

)

)

V.

)

)

PREFER.1U1D LABOR LLC, d/b/a

)

PRE;;<'riR.~D

STAFFING,

)

)

Defendant.

}

----------~----------)

Ch-11 Action No. 06-4(}190-FDS

CONSEI'•i"T DECREE

T'cis cause of action W!iS initiated oo or abmrt August 31, 2006 by P!.l!i:rr"df Equal

Err!ployme:lt Opport:.:.!l:ity Cm::mllssior: (EEOC), an agency ofthe Ulli.ted States Governme:1t.

EEOC filed

vn ofthe Civil Rights Act ofl964, as ll.l!lf:nded,and Title I ofthe

Rights Act of 1991 to correct u.nlawfhl employment practices en t!:e basis cf sex md retsliatioc:,

and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Catherine D!llre!:!llbomg (Dfu"'e!!Sbourg) and a

class of other si!T',iiar!y situated f=ale job applicants who appliecl for terr,p<)!ll.I"J day labor with

Defendant. EEOC's Complaint alleged Del['en(lant subjected Da:reniibO'ilfg and female job

Defenrl!mt to .repe!rttlrl sex-based

discrhnination by failing to refer individuals for temporary day laboc based 0::1 their sex, and by

ccmpl;M~g with Ciscrlminatory requests for tel:!lporary employees basad on sex made by one or

more ofits clients. Col:!lplaint also alleged Defendant reulliated ag!li"lSt Darensbourg

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 2 of 18

she complained about Defendant's &.scr:i:lrJnatory conduct by ref'l.lllir:g to consider her for

job opportunities.

The parties agree that it is

rrmtuai interest to fully resolve

furlher litigation.

parties stipulate and consent to 6e entry

between the parties,

The parties lla:ve agreed that this Decree may be entered with011t Finclings -"r--~ and

Conclusions of Law lla:vir:g made and enta."ed by the Court.

ir" consideration of the rettillll. promises of each party to !:his Decree, the sufficiency of

is tereby ackr.owledged, it is agreed

IS ORDERED, ADJGDGED AND

DECREED AS FOLLOWED:

L

Decree resolves all offue issues ~ad by EEOC

No. 161-2005-

00460 and the complaint filed by EEOC this a..."tion. This

:n no way

nEOC's

right to pro::ess any other pending or future charges that may ::e against Defendant to

comz:umce actions on any charges as EEOC sees fit.

2. OnAprill7, 2007, Defendant entered illto an .Asset Pcrchase

with

Preferable People LLC and or. April23, 2007, Defendant ceased opemtions of its temporery day

Iaber b'"silless. Shmdd Defendant .resume conducting business as a tempol'!li'Y day labor ag~~c:;r,

te1m "Defendant" includes Defendant's ma..'l!lgers, cfficem, agoots, or paroot organization for

purposes

injunctive relief required in this Decree.

3.

Court has jurisdic~on ofthe subject matter of this cction

venue is proper, and a:E administrative p-erequisites lla:ve been met.

2

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 3 of 18
4. No party shall contest the validity of this Decree. 5. No party shall contest the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court to enforce this Decree and its terms, or the right of EEOC to bring an enforcement suit upon the breach of any of the terms ofthls Decree by Defendant. 6. Breach of any term of this Decree should be deemed a substantive breach. EEOC shall detennine whether Defendant has complied with the terms ofthis decree and is authorized to seek compliance with the Decree in the United States District Court, which slruill retain jurisdiction to enforce this Decree. 7. IfDefendant resumes conducting business as a temporary day labor agency during the term of this decree, Defendant shall be enjoined from discriminating against any individual because of the individual's sex. This injunction includes, but is not limited to enjoining Defendant from complying with discriminatory requests for temporary employees made by their clients, enjoining Defendant from placing or referring applicants or employees to assignments based on their sex, enjoining Defenrumt from discouraging applicants or employees from applying for or accepting assignments based on their sex, enjoining Defendant from classifying jobs or assignments on the basis of sex, and enjoining Defendant from otherwise discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of sex. 8 If Defendant reslllJles conducting business as a temporary day labor agency during the tenn of this Decree, Defendant shall be enjoined from retaliating against any individual for asserting her or his rights under Title VII, including from retaliating against any indi'lidual who fiJes or has filed a charge, gives or has given testimony or given assistance with the investigation or litigation of these charges or action, or asserts or has assertad her rights under Title VII. Defenrumt is enjoi.11ed from retaliating against any individual who engages in or
3

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 4 of 18

engaged protected activity under Title VII and :from :retaliating against Charging Party and

9.

during tenn ~·-''"-'• Decree, Defelltdal:Jt shall provide EEOC with drnfts for appror..!

docurnJents refi::ran:ced below para.gmphs 28,29, 36, 37, 38 and 39, no later 30 days

to resr;uniiJg b1lSirl:ess. EE1QC will have 10 days to approve each ofthe ref~:renced dot>lllll:ents, or

to noti.f)r

necessary changes thereto. Defendant shall have five days to

such c!:langt:s, or tc no~:itvEEOC that it is unwilling to do so. Ifthe parties c11m1ot agree on my

aspect of the referenced COC'J.Inenl:s, EEOC shall have the right to petition court

Mm::~emrv Dammges a:~:d Claims nocess

10.

30 days ofthe entry ofthls Decree, Defendant shall pay a totsl

$250,000.00 in damages a Claims Fund to be dism'buted by the Claims

a. $30,000.00 in compensatory d&'!lages to Charging Party Catherine

Dare!Cllbourg;.
:n $20,000.00 co:r:rrpe~:Batocy dai:mges to Claiml::nt Kr,sta Gu:glieln1etli;

c. $200,000.00 compensa<.c:y dacages to be cist:ibt:ted to addiiic>!i!il

Claimants det..,~ed by EEOC to be qualified for monets:y

11.

EEOC's sole dis.,"''etion, CAC Services Group, LLC shall act as

Adrninistrator Jror the cblims process this case. The Administrator be resJJO!lllible

establishing, ml'!nag:ing and making dilitribuliom :from the Claims Fund solely

±.e

EEOC may inspect the records of the Fund at

EEClC sees

4

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 5 of 18
fit Defendant shall be solely responsible for all fees, expenses and any other costs inciiiTed by the Administrator.
12. The Administrator shall establish an interest bearing account into which the Claims Fund payment from Defendant shall be deposited. Any interest on the account shall become part of the Fwd. The Administrator shall establish, maintsin and make distributions from the Fund in accordance with the EEOC's instructions. EEOC shall have sole authority regarding the maintenance ofthe Fund and shall hold sole discretion and authority to authorize any and all distributions from the Fund. All funds in the accowt shall be used to pay dwwages to class members and charging parties as defined and set forth below, except iliat my funds remaining in the accowt after all distributiollS to class members md charging parties have been made shall be distributed in accordsnce with paragraph 25 below.
B. Defendant shall pay all costs associated with distributing and ad!r.inistering tbe Fund, including all fees, expenses and any other costs billed by the Administrator, and the costs of compil.ID.g a list of the names and addresses for all Potential Claimants and making reasonable efforts to locate those Potential Claimants. Reas0011ble efforts shall consist of attempting to obtain CIIITent contact infon:n2ltion for Potential Claimants for whom Defend~mf s contact information is out ofdate through a search based on the potential claimant's social security number. Defendsnt shall cooperate with such efforts by providing any related documentation it has regmrding such potential claimants if so requested by the Arn:ni:nistrator or EEOC. No costs shall be deducted from the Claims Fund.
14. For purposes ofthis Decree, Potential Claimants are defined as females who applied or attempted to apply for work with Defendant, and/or worked for Defendant, through its Worcester, Massachusetts facility from January 1, 2005, up to Apri123, 2007.
5

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 6 of 18

Within 30 days ofthe entry

Administrator shall send

Potential Clllill=ts a Notice of Settlement

Claim

attached as Exhibit B. Begimmg '1:e

Ad::nil::istret~'r shall also nm English and Spacish-hmguage public mmouncements regarding

eligibility relief under this decJree (attached as Exhibit C) in media outlets, including

newsprint radio, in the metropolitan Worcester, Massachusetts regicn on Mondz.ys,

Wednesdays and Fridays for three conse...Oltive we~>Sl!. be malntailled by the Administrator

public armmmcemerrt shall includa a
PoltenitialClaimants may call to

obtam a Claims

The Claim Form explicitly advise Potential Clair::Jants oftheir

respmJ.Sil:rllity tc fully respo!ld to each question in

Form a:1d to supply a!.! of the

re<fue:sted ir:formatio:a befo:e the expi"ation

deadlines set for'".h herein, and tc keep EEOC

advised

clJ.ange in rumJ.e, address OI telephone DU!llber, order to preserve any rights they

may have under lhe Decree. The deadline for returning Clai-n Form shall be proninently

at dispiayed

top of the Claim Form. AllClaim Fol::nlli!Ub!!:lit:!edto EEOC must be

postn!!Ikerl by 90!!> day from the date of entry nf'''";• Decree.

Notice of Settlement

sent by the Administrator to

Potential Clalr!lanlS at their last known address both by reg~llar Class U.S. nail and by

return. receip! requested, tog&JJ.er with a postage-paid retm::l envebpe ;:ddressed to

EE~)C. As desc:.ibed in paragraph 13, the Administrator a.tterript to obtain current contact

infonnation for Potential Claimants for whom Defendant's contact infonnation is out ofdate through a search based on the Potential Claimant's social security number. ".:"'.:1e ACmicis:r~:tor

shall

EEOC with mail t:reclcing info=.atioc..

'•

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 7 of 18

17. Each Potential Claimant shall be offered an opportunity to submit a

to

EEOC. Any PotJ::ntia.l Claim<>nt wishing to file a

r::rU~st sulm:it to 3E<DC a cornpletad Clakl

Fmm to fue Boston Area Office of EEOC withfu 90 days

Decree,

togeib.er w'i+.h ill relevant info=.ation the Potential Cl!Um.ant wish<:s to sult>mit her

EEOC, ill its dis,"l:etion, may request additional inf:orn1ation. Pot,entii!.l Clafullmt fails to

provide EEOC v,ith a oompletad Claim Fonn and all relevant lnf!,rmlllti!m

wishes to submit with her elm by the deadllne stated

as untimely, unless EEOC, in its sole discretion, determines that good shoWE

permit consideration ofthe claim. Potential Claima;!lt

!nformllltion which may be requested by EEOC, EEOC its

for failure to cooperate.

lK EEOC shall review the Clairml

received by EEOC in order to l:JJl.ke a de!tennil:IatiJ::n

compensatory damages, back pay and/or front pay. EEOC shall have sole discretion to deny any

claims submitted to it For purposes of this Cement Decree, an eligible Cl!!im.ant is a person

who EEOC has determined is eligible for relief from the Claims

matter. EEOC shall

divide the Claims Fund among eligible Claimlmts amounts to d~;mnnedbyEEOC.EEOC

retafus sole discretion to determine the amounts to be awl.ll'Ged from Cillims F'ur&:l. ~o s;erscn

or party has a right to object to EEOC's detenninations.

19~ .A..ll Potential Claima:1ts determined !o be e:ii$i':l:le by EBOC

"Claimac1ts" a'1d rece!ve a Notice ofEligibiJity (E;dri.bltD)
(Exhibit E) by regular mail, which shall notifY Cla.i!rumts

a Cl.i:am:antAcceptlance Fmrn

7

..

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 8 of 18

be paid te tl:.em from. the claims fi.md, scl!ie<:tto modh"'i.caion by EEOC or fue

sol:milsaic•n of a signed Claim.ant Acceptance by a Claim.ant :shall indicate fueir acc:epianc:e

Cl<rimEntAcceptance Form by 6e deooF.,..e be deemed to have declined to p&"'ticipate

m.ay consider late Claim.ant Acceptance Forms under COZI:lpelling circumstances.

20. All Potential Claimants determined to be meiigible b-;r EEOC receive a

Notice cfl:nelig:1Jility (Exbihlt F).

A Claimmlt or Po1terrtial Cl!limmt fillY raise an objection to EEOC's

deter;:nh"!lltion ofeligibility by delivermg to

EEOC a written explanation

for the objection. Objections must be within 30 days ofEEOC's mailing

No~ces ofElig:tility and Irieligibility, alt:J.O'.IghEEOC and the Coi.irtmey consider late

objections raised by Potential Claim.mts.

22. After the deadline for su1b•mi·tting objections, the Cm.~;."t will conduct a firil:.~e!!S

heermg to decide any umesolved objections. At least 7 days prior to fue fa:..-:uess :J.ea.-i:;:g, EE<OC
provide a ;proposed c·aimant Di:stribu1t:ioll L.ist to the Court and Defendant including

crnu:;.g,es resulting from the informal res<~lulion of l!!lY objections. The Court

proposed Claim.ant Distribution or modifica1iorwbased on any objections.

23.

Clail:i:l.aut Distribution List rega.-ding

Defmdant and the Administrator

8

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 9 of 18

via U.S. :vlail oft1e eligible Claimants and the amounts to be paid to each eligible Cl!limlmt.

Within 1:J days of the date EEOC mails fue notice to Defendant and A<lrnin~stmtor regarding

Cisitributicm offue Claims Fa'ld, the Administrator ism=e arrd send checks to the eligible

Clair.rnlnts in the amounts directed by EEOC, togelher with a notice to eligible Claillimt !hat

check must be cashed w~thln 90 days of the date ofthe check, or check sbill be void

tl:e claim be d!mied. The checks shall be soot by overnight delivery service.

24.

Clailliant has not cashed E check wi'Jrln 90 days after date of the cl::eck,

check be voided and !he claim shall deemed denied.

On the 180th day after !he Ad:!r.!nistrator has sent checks to eligible Clllir=lents,

the Administ!Etor shall advise EEOC writing ofthe a::nount of any funds remaicing in the

Claiw..s

account, inclucing my f.mds "Whi,.h remain because checks were not cashed,

whlch could not distributed after diligent efforts by the Administrate; to locate a Claimlrr:t,

and mterest which has accroed. EEOC shall instruct Administrator in writing to iss-.:te a
m check for remaining balar.ce the Claims Ftmd account to a 501(c) organization

Massachusetts selected by EEOC which promotes eq-..W eoploy:nent opportunities wcrr::m.

Admicistratcr shall issue a

to such o;g&nization within l 0 days after EEOC sends

ins~Metion regarding final discibution

ClainsF1md

account may then be closed.

26. The Administrator shall provide EEOC copies oftrm:Jsmittalletters and

checks sent to Chargill.g Party all Claiments

1C days of isSU!l!lce.

27. All payments to Claimants shall considered as ncn-pecur.iary, corr.pensatory

damages employment discrininatior. a!!d not as wages. The Administnrtor shall issue an :!RS

form 1099 to all class members with each check.

9

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 10 of 18

Written Policies and Proceil!nl!'es

28. IfDefendant resumes cond'..leting business !IS ~:: tempota."Y day labor agency

during term

Decree, Defendant sh•ll implei:lent and maintain

policies

proced= prohibifulg employment discrimination, including sex discrimination and retaliation.

Sue!:. :policies must set forl:b, at a mii1.immn, Defendant's commitment to opportunity all

aspec1S ofemp!oyme:J.! and set for"ill a detailed expl!!lllltion of prohibited coc:duct end

not re>.ali.ate against employees who J:llllke oomplaints of

discrimination, who oppose practices fuey consider to be unlawfully discriminatozy, :m.d/or whc

participate in protected activity or who provide infornation related to oompiai!:ls of

discrimination. Tne :policy shall illlso explain that it applies to all applicants and ernrployees,

fune, part-time or tem:porlh"Y, and whether applyl.ng fur or working a position at Defendac'lt's

facilities, a client site, or a remote location.

29. IfDefendant resumes conducting buainess es a tempornry day labor agency

during term ofthis Decree, Defendant shall immediately implement a complaint procedure

for

employees who believe that lhey been discrir:rlnated against or retaliated

against As part of these cooplaint procedures, applican1S !lllcl. employees ofDefendent shall be

able to report incide:r:~ts of cl:scrimination or retaliation to Eetnber oftha ma:::mgement team

at e."ly Defendant location, to f.'l}' person in Defendant's Human Resources Office, or to a toll-

free number for reporting incidents ofdiscrimination or retaliati.or.. fu aliriition, as ;Ja.Tt oftllese

compi.ai:n.t procedure~ it be the dul:'j of any :nember of the mam~gement team at any

Defendant locaton to immediately report any allegations of or SW~Pected il1cidents

discrim',.,ation or retaliation to tile Defendant's Human Resources Office,

:o

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 11 of 18

IfDefendant resumes croducting business as a tempora.ry day labor agency

term o::' this Decree, Defendant

within 30 days ofresnmi,.,,g bJ:.Siness, establish

1md oaintllin afunctioning toll-free tele;Jhone rr.;mber for reporting :incidents of discrio:ination

or

Tne telephone shall be answered by hurean re..."C'cJices perscnnel who are

to

investigate claims of discrimination 11nd

The telephone shlill be answered personally

by trained

resources

from 9:00a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday

Friday.

During other hours, this telephone line shall have an mttgoing recorded message contcining

infu!""Eatioo. about complaint reporting procedure a::d a

of sta:Ied

sbill.

accept recorded messages and CO!:lplsints.

31. IfDefendant resumes conducting business as a tec:Jpora:ry day labor agency

during the term

Decree, Defendant shall immediately implenent and =dnta:in procedures

for the invertigation and handling of reported ailegllti\ons of or Sfu>J?e<:ted b.cidents of

discrirl:!inlltion or retaliation, togel!:er with a di!lcipliillll'Y policy for e::nployees who engage

d!s-.··rimim!tory or re<.aliatory behavior.

IfDefendant resumes conduc:ing bm:iness as a temporary labor agency

dw:ing the teiO of this Decree, Defendant distribute a ropy ofthe written policies
an procedures described in pa.c.graphs 28 through 31 above to of its applicants employees

within30 days ofresuming business and shall

distribute a ropy of the writtenpolici;~s

and procerrcJies to new applicants and employees at the such applicants or employees

apply fur employment with and/or job placement Defend!mt.

N;:dice and Posting

33. IflDe!fmd!lllt resUE:les conducting business as a ternpoV>...ry day labor agency

term of t.lris Decree, Defendant shall, within days cf resumi:·1g bosiLess, display

H

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 12 of 18

me mad::ttain EEOC poster each of its fac:ilities in a place vi;>ually accessible to apj'lic)atlts

emjplC)Iee!l ofDefendan:l

Within days of re>mming business, Defendant :itlaU display and maintain in

each ofits facilities, a place visually accessible to applicants and employees of Defendot, a

copy

non-discrimination policy described paragl'lr,h 28, COZ!lplaint prooedCJ:e

d~:criltJed in pamgmph 29, disciplillmy

for ~loyees qage in discl'i.!::llnatory,

:!:m:rassillg or retsliatory behavior descn"bed paragraph 31.

35. Within 10 days ofresuming bus''-'!less, :Jefendant shall display end rmillr.ain

each

facilities, in a

visually

to applicants employees of:Jefendant, a

nm<'ar conta;ning the toll-t:•ee number for reporting hcidents of disc:r'llilination, or

and

describing how applicants and employees may use the nl.lrrlber.

36. Withb days of res-.mring

Defendant display and mad::ttain

facilities, a place visually accessible to applicacts and employees

a

rern~lial Notice :;JUXsuant to this Decree, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G, printed on

EEOC letterhead, md. thereafter dist.":ibute a ropy of fue

notice to !!ll new

apjllliC!i:l.ts end employees at the time such applica:uts or ~loyees

~loymmt

mdlor job placement by Defenda:ut.

37. Within 10 days ofresuming business, Defendant's President md ChiefExecutive

Oftlc~lr shall send a memorandum to all ap][)i!l:&"l,ts am! e~_,;ioyees emphasizing Defooda:ut's

roinmitmentto abide by federal laws prohibiting ~loymeot discrimination, including laws

pnJl:Ibi!ilng sex &criminaticn and ha!<.ssn:.ec.t, ;>:regn!lEccy discrimi:n.anon and harassment,

retlliiation,, and shall thereafter distribute a copy of the memonmdlll!l to all new applicants

12

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 13 of 18

ernplcye1~ at the time such applicants or employees apply fer ernplo,ymtent

placenlent by Defendant.

38. Within l 0 days ofresuming business Defendant

outlets in the metropolitan Wo:rcester, Massachusetts region to be ide!lti:lied by EEOC

del!igJJed to inform applicants and potential app!ie~L"'lts Defendant

ofsex end shall not wc.cliate against aey lndiviih;al who opposes discrimi::m.tion by

Defeedact. T:'lese not:ces s::;a[ be placed on a hl-monlhly basis for the duration ofthis Decree.

4 :nonfus for the dUI"..tion ofthis Decree, Defendant shall provide EEOC written

certification tl:lll:t it has fulfilled this o'oligatior., together with a true copy of each

appeared in the media outlet. 39. Within 30 days of resuming business, Defendant

proV'lde a memo •,o of its

current clients setting forth the obligations of Defendant ar.d its clients

u,.1scn.mm. at1.on

1aws,

g:.tv.mg

noti.ce

o f

t
t

h e

ext'sterrce

o"4'•..1u.1' s

";;".;ecree

ron,.,itment to abide by such iaws end this Decree. Defendant shall pfC!V-"ie EEOC

certificatio~:. L'lat it has fuLfilled this obligation within 10 days of the it

ll'!el!lO. For the duration of this Decree, Defendant provide meno to all new eli<~

obtllin<:dby DeJfen<illnt at the time thetthe entity becomes a client,

wTi·tten certific;ati(ln that it bas fulfilled 1hls obligation within 10 days

date it bas provide<!

memo.

40. IfDefendac1t res:m:es corrducting business as a temporn.•·y day labor agency

tenn oftlris Decree, Defercii!ll'lt shcil implement recruitment pollid~~s

l:ll:rget

f!l!llllle job applicants ~md emphasize that Defendant shall comply with federal

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 14 of 18

&sc:rimin!!'lon laws, shall not comply with discriminatory requests temporary employees

made by Defendant's clients, shaH not ;?lace or refer applicants or employees to assigmnents

based on their sex or classify jobs ar assignments bi!!Sed on sex, and

applicants to seek all positions for whlch they ere q_ualified. Til.ese recruil1:lem policies shall

CO!lii=e effect for at least duration of thls Decree.

IfDefendant resu:nes cooducting business as a tempol'I!J.ry dey

agency

dm::ing che term ofthls Decree, Defendant shall implement perfoi'I!Jl?Oce

proced:u.res whl6

includ.e a req_uirement that managers and supervisors comply and contn'bute to cor::;plia.nce

;;~,ith federnl anti-discrimination laws, Def~ant's a.c"'1ti-discrL-cination policies end procedures,

thls Decree, and to provide tlt_at lillil1agers and supervisors are evaluated by Defend.e:ct fer

their compliance with this req_uirement.

Anti-DiscrlmiJG!!fioB Trllining

42. If Defendant resumes conducting business as a temporm:y iabor agency

d!L-bg !he ter::n ofthls Decree, Defendant sillill provide all of its employees with no fewer t'l1n

four :!lours of:raining federnllaws prohl'biting disc~on employn:entwith:in 30 days

resuming business. Tnereafter, Defendant shall provide all of its new employees this

training within days of the commencement of employment by a !lew employee. Defew'Jant

~tain e.ttendance records identifyi11g the name and job title of the attendees at each

sessioo. Within 10 days of each trlill:ring session, Defendant provide to EEOC a copy ofthe

attendance records from traini::lg session.

43. WiL'lln 60 days of resuming bl.:l!iness, end every six mor:L'ls thereac'l:er the

daration of tl:Jis Decree, Defendant shall provide no fewer eight additional hcurs of training

federal laws prohi!Jiting discrimination for all =gernent and supervisory employees

14

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 15 of 18

De:fendartt, There~U'ler, Defendant shall provide

new managers and supervisory

personneiwit'l thls iraici!'cg within 10 days ofthe date

are placed in allllmagerial

or supervisory position. Defendant shall mai::ltain attendance records identifYing tl:;e name a::d

job

attendees at each session. Within 10 days of each tr!lining session, Defendant

p!c~viiteto EEOC a copy ofthe atten~ce records from the training session.

Additional Monitoring Provisions

IfDefundant resumes conducting busine:ss es a terrlp0l1ey day labo:r agency

tenn of tlrls Decree, Defendant

records

written or oral complai::lts

or aHeg<itr(IDS of t'!iscriminatlon or retaliation made by my

applicants or employees. Wilchin

4 mc~ntl'lll of resuJ!lling business, and every 4 months the~e!!fte~, DefendEnt sbal: provide EEOC

a written report contsining, at a minimum, a Sllllll:ll!ll"Y of each complaint, and for each

""''"'<"="· !he me ofthe oomplainl,.,g party or party who was allegedly subjected to

discrir:cilltllltion or re+.aliation, 6.e me of the TI<l11'Smlfs1 who allegedly engaged in such

discrimilt!lltory or retaliatory conduct, the results

investigation of fue corr:.plai:!:::t or

remeilial action taken by Defendant A date ofthe expiration oftlrls De,CTe,e.

report shall be sent to EE'OC 30

Wi6in 4 months ofresu!!'Jng !Tu!lin<::ss, every 4 months thereafter, Defendar!t

sh.al.l

a written report to EEOC corrt!lining a brea.'i<dow:rr by sex ofiili applic!ll:lts a

breakdown by sex of all individuals referred to work assigmnents, for the preceding 4rr.o!:t.'ls.

each applicant, i:he name address, telephone other contact infmm&ion, social se~:urity number, sex, rlates of applications, job

as!!igrumtents offered and dates of offers, job aS!iiglJD:J'mt!i accepted, aril compensation for such

15

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 16 of 18

job asslgnments. The re;>ort shall also inc~ude a listh"lg of all job assignments avail.ab:e through

Defe<-1dant dur',ng the preceding 4 :mcntl::s.

46. If Defendant :esumes conducting business as a temporary Iaber agency

term. of this Dec::-ee, Defendant shill ~ain such record£ as ere necessery tc
demcnstrate whether or not it is mcompliance with

29 C.P.R.§ 1602 et. seq. and to verify that reports submitted purnua.'lt to

ac..""trrate. IfDefendant resumes conducting business as s temporary labor agrocy duringthe

term ofthis Decree, Defendant also specifically msintain the following doouments for

duration

Decree and three yeers following the termimltioc. of the Decree: all job

postings; all epplications for tempocery day labor and other documents submittee or

completed as part ofthe application ;;~rooess, including ':rut not limited to epplications received

in-pe~ by mail, by fax, by electronic means; ail records regardi::lg the selection

plalceJLent oftemporw:y employees; perso:rnrel including ail performance evaiuations,
discipline and tennination records; all advertisements for any ope:l. positions; ooreplaints

discrimination or retaliation and all records relating to the investigation rernadistion of such

complaints; ail notices ofrejection to job applicants, requested change ofassignment, or

pwm.otion; compute:ized payroll and personnel data; customer and job profile forms;

all eiectronice:lly stored versiollB of the records described herein.

47. In addition to the monitoring provisions set

elsewhere in Decree, !f

Defendant resumes conducting business as a tempo:rery day

agency during the term ofthis

Decree EEOC :may molliter compliance during the

ofthis Decree, by inspection of

Defendant's promises, records, inte::views

Upon

days notice by the EEOC, Defendant shall

available for inspection copyi..ngany

Hi

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 17 of 18
~eoords requested by EEOC, facilities sought to be ID...«pected by EEOC, employees sought to interviewed EEOC. 48. All materials required by this Decree to be sent to EEOC shall be addressed to: Equa! Employment Opportunity Cornm:ission Boston A:tea Office Legal Uci: Atte::rti.on; Amold J. Lizana Trial Attorney F. Ken11edy Federal Building, Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506 Duration of Decree 49. T'nis Decree sball :emain effect five years the date cf entry.
Defendant resumes business during the tenn cfthe Decree, the Decree sl:'.ful remm in effo~ for five years from date Defendect :resumes business. Tbe Decree s'::lall not expire wbile any enforcement action concerning the Decree is pending. Court shall retain jurisdiction over ihls act:on dur,.ng the duration ofthe D=ee. The matter may be admhhtratively closed but shal: not be disrnissed during duration ofthe Decree. Within 30 after the date set the expiration ofthe Decree, the parties sball submit a stipulatioc of dismissal to Court or a notice the Decree bes not expired due to pendency of an enforce:::1ent actlo!l..
17

Case 4:06-cv-40190-FDS Document 89 Filed 07/06/09 Page 18 of 18

SO O:RCERED, ADJiUDGED M'D DECRi'EED this _ _ day of_::~:ft-----'

New Yoik, New York
~.Av lr'lt 2(,. ' 2009
Dati%!:
Dated:

Hon. F. Denris Saylor united States District

Eli.zab GrosSIJ:lBll,

Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTIJNITY OOMMISSION
33 W'nitehall s"' Floor

NewYor.k,:NY 10004-21~2

212.336.3696

elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov

Rebero:. Wilson
PEABODY & A.R.'IOLD LLP
Attorneys for Defendant 600 Atl!mti.c Ave:n.ue
Boston, MA 02210

PREFEfu'UID PEO?LE,
Box47172~
Chadotte, NC 282847-1721

18

 
 Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 1 of 12
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Worcester) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:06−cv−40190−FDS

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Preferred Labor Date Filed: 08/31/2006

LLC

Date Terminated: 07/10/2009

Assigned to: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV

Jury Demand: Both

Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Arnold J. Lizana , III U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission E.E.O.C. Boston Area Office J.F.K. Federal Building Room 475 Boston, MA 02203−0506 617−565−3210 Fax: 617−565−3196 Email: arnold.lizana@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Grossman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 20507 212−336−3701 Fax: 212−336−3623 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4667 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Keenan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5th Floor 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004−2112 212−336−3705 Fax: 212−336−3623 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 2 of 12

Ronald S. Cooper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Rose Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10027 212−336−3708 Email: robert.rose@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Preferred Labor LLC doing business as Preferred People Staffing
Defendant PreferAble People, LLC as successor in interest

represented by Rebecca J. Wilson Peabody & Arnold LLP 30 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617−951−2094 Fax: 617−235−3567 Email: rwilson@peabodyarnold.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Poliferno Long & Leahy 100 Summer Street 11th floor Boston, MA 02110 617−439−4777 Fax: 617−439−3153 Email: richard.poliferno@aig.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Houlding Peabody & Arnold LLP Federal Reserve Plaza 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210−2261 617−951−2100 Fax: 617−951−2125 Email: ehoulding@peabodyarnold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Michael Riordan McElroy Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue P.O. Box 2075 Morristown, NJ 07932 973−993−8100 Fax: 973−425−0161 Email: jmriordan@mdmc−law.com

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 3 of 12

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey M. Burns Seyfarth Shaw World Trade Center East, Suite 300 Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 617−946−4800 Email: jburns@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ADR Provider
Judge Timothy S. Hillman TERMINATED: 06/16/2009

Mediator
Mag. Judge Robert B. Collings TERMINATED: 08/14/2007

Mediator
Judge Morris E. Lasker TERMINATED: 04/17/2009

Mediator
Judge Timothy S. Hillman TERMINATED: 06/16/2009

Cross Claimant
PreferAble People, LLC as successor in interest

represented by J. Michael Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey M. Burns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Preferred Labor LLC

represented by Rebecca J. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Poliferno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Houlding (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 4 of 12

Date Filed 08/31/2006
08/31/2006 11/15/2006 12/28/2006
01/03/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007
02/28/2007 03/05/2007 03/05/2007 03/05/2007
03/06/2007
03/06/2007
03/07/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Preferred Labor LLC Filing fee: No fee required; $ 0.0, receipt number NA, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheets)(Hassett, Kathy) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/20/2006 (Jones, Sherry). Additional attachment(s) added on 9/20/2006 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 08/31/2006)
Summons Issued as to Preferred Labor LLC. (Hassett, Kathy) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
2 ANSWER to Complaint by Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
3 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference: Scheduling Conference set for Monday 1/29/2007 at 10:15AM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Rebecca J. Wilson on behalf of Preferred Labor LLC (Wilson, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
5 Joint MOTION to Amend 3 Notice of Scheduling Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 5 Motion to continue scheduling conference. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Reset Hearing: Scheduling Conference reset for Monday 3/5/2007 at 2:30PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) Modified on 1/16/2007 (Hassett, Kathy). (Entered: 01/12/2007)
6 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference Pursuant to Rule 16.1. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
7 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 16.1. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) Modified on 3/6/2007 (Hassett, Kathy). (Entered: 03/05/2007)
8 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Scheduling Conference held on 3/5/2007. Case called, Counsel appear for scheduling conference, Scheduling order to issue. (Court Reporter M. Kusa−Ryll.) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: Document #7 corrected because: Filed as Certificate of Consultation, Court corrected title (Hassett, Kathy) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
9 Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 9/6/2007 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Amended Pleadings due by 3/30/2007. Discovery to be completed by 10/31/2007.(Castles, Martin) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
10 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
11 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
12 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
13 Joint MOTION for Order to Of Reference for Mediation by Federal Magistrate by Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 13 Motion for Order of reference to Boston Magistrate Judge for mediation. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 5 of 12

04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/17/2007 05/10/2007 07/13/2007 07/25/2007 07/26/2007 08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/14/2007
09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/13/2007 09/26/2007 10/01/2007

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Electronic ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Case is referred to a Boston Magistrate Judge for mediation.(Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
Electronic Notice of assignment to ADR Provider. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings appointed. The Court will contact counsel with regard to scheduling.(Tyler, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
14 NOTICE OF AND ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION scheduled for for 8/22/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 23 before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings. (Dolan, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE RE−SCHEDULING MEDIATION FROM 8/22/07 TO 8/29/2007 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 23 before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings. (Dolan, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
15 Joint MOTION to Continue Mediation to 9/7/2007 Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
16 Amended MOTION to Continue Mediation to September 18, 2007, September 24, 2007 or September 29, 2007 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
Judge Robert B. Collings : Electronic ORDER entered Denying as Moot 15 Motion to Continue; Granting 16 Motion to Continue Mediation. Mediation re−scheduled for 9/18/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 23 before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings. (Dolan, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
Judge Robert B. Collings: Electronic NOTICE entered. Judge Morris E. Lasker has been designated as the ADR Provider in this case in place of Judge Collings. The mediation previously scheduled before Judge Collings will take place on the same date and at the same time, i.e., September 18, 2007 at 10:30 A.M., before Judge Lasker in Courtroom, #8 (3rd floor). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of assignment to ADR Provider. U.S. District Judge Morris E. Lasker appointed.(Franklin, Yvonne) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of ADR Conference.Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearing set for Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before U.S. District Judge Morris E. Lasker. As stated previously, Counsel and principals are directed to be present and have full settlement authority. In addition, the parties should submit no later than five (5) business days a brief memorandum addressing the party's position on the merits of the case and on settlement. The memorandum should be marked "Confidential − Not for Docketing". In the event that you believe the case is not ripe for mediation at this time, plese notify opposing counsel and the court as soon as possible. (Franklin, Yvonne) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
17 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Conference to October 1, October 2 or October 5, 2007 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 17 Motion to Continue: Status Conference reset for Monday 10/1/2007 at 3:30PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING The Mediation set for September 18, 2007; The Mediation Hearing is now set for 9/25/2007 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge F. Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
18 REPORT of Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider (Howarth, George) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Status Conference held on 10/1/2007. Case called, Counsel appear by telephone for status conference, Court orders 30B6 deposition to be completed by 11/7/07, Motion to amend complaint due by 11/21/07, Oppositions due by 12/10/07, Court sets further status conference:Status Conference set for 12/17/2007 at 2:30PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Court Reporter M. Kusa−Ryll.) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 6 of 12

10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/16/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/27/2007 11/29/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007
12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007
12/27/2007
12/27/2007

20 NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by Elizabeth A. Houlding (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
21 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Preferred Labor LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Consent Protective Order))(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
22 Joint MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 22 Motion to Amend scheduling order. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
Reset Hearing: Status Conference reset for Wednesday 1/30/2008 at 3:00PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
23 NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by Rebecca J. Wilson (Wilson, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: APPROVED AND SO ORDERED 21 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Preferred Labor LLC. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
26 DECLARATION re 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B), 25 Memorandum in Support of Motion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey M. Burns on behalf of PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of J. Michael Riordan by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
29 AFFIDAVIT of J. Michael Riordan re 28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of J. Michael Riordan by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
30 Opposition re 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) filed by Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
Filing fee: $ 50.00, receipt number bst000517 for 28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of J. Michael Riordan. (Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
31 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to December 28, 2007 to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B), 25 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 26 Declaration, by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Preferred Labor LLC.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B). Response due by 12/28/2007. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 28 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Added J. Michael Riordan for PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 7 of 12

12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 01/10/2008 01/10/2008 01/25/2008
01/25/2008 01/30/2008
02/06/2008

filing. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Forms and then scroll down to CM/ECF Forms. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
33 MEMORANDUM in Support re 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Subpoena filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Burns, Jeffrey) Modified on 1/2/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 12/28/2007)
34 DECLARATION of Michael Riordan re 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C to Certification, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits D−F to Certification, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits G−H to Certification, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits I−M to Certification)(Burns, Jeffrey) Modified on 1/2/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 12/28/2007)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Yohama Guarino, Esq. in Support re 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Burns, Jeffrey) Modified on 1/2/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 12/28/2007)
36 Proposed Document(s) submitted by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. Document received: Proposed Order on Cross Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
37 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Subpoena For Production of Documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
38 DECLARATION of Arnold J. Lizana re 37 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lizana, Arnold) Modified on 1/11/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 01/10/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered. REFERRING MOTION 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman.(Castles, Martin) Motions referred to Timothy S. Hillman. (Entered: 01/25/2008)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order, 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman. (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 1/30/2008, Case called, Counsel appear for status conference, Parties inform court of the status of discovery, Scheduling order will need to be extend after Magistrate Judge Hillman rules on the pending motions to compel and for protective order, Court sets further status conference after the hearing on the motion: ( Status Conference set for 2/6/2008 at 2:15PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV.). (Court Reporter: M. Kusa−Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Lizana,Rose/Houlding) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Motion Hearing held on 2/6/2008 re 24 MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(B) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 32 Cross MOTION for Protective Order filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. Case called, Counsel appear, Counsel argue motion, Matter taken under advisement, Order to issue. (Digital Recording 10:04.)(Attorneys present: Lizana, Rose, Riordan, Houlding) (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 8 of 12

02/06/2008 02/12/2008 04/02/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/10/2008 04/14/2008 04/15/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/16/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered. ORDER Cancelling Deadline. The status conference set for 2/6/08 is hereby cancelled. The court will reschedule after Magistrate Judge Hillman rules on the pending motions. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
39 Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ORDER entered granting 24 Motion to Compel; granting 32 Motion for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Protective Order with Attached Acknowledgment) (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
40 Joint MOTION to Amend 9 Scheduling Order, Set Hearings,, on EEOC Motion to Amend by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Preferred Labor LLC.(Lizana, Arnold) Modified on 4/2/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 04/02/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 40 Motion to Amend scheduling order. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference reset for 6/12/2008 at 2:00PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman. (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
41 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Conference to July 14, 2008 by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 41 Motion to Continue. Status Conference reset for 7/14/2008 at 3:15PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 16, 2008 to File Motion to Amend Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to file motion to amend the complaint. Motion due by 5/16/2008. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
43 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Memorandum of Law, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Errata N, # 17 Errata O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit E−1)(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
44 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Excess of Twenty Pages by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
45 Opposition re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Preferred Labor LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
46 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
47 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 2)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/3/2008: Corrected # 3 Exhibit B part 2(original had last page missing) (Hassett, Kathy). (Entered: 06/02/2008)
48 DECLARATION re 46 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through C, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits D through G, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits H through L, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits M through R)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 9 of 12

06/02/2008 06/03/2008
06/12/2008 06/13/2008 06/20/2008 07/08/2008 07/14/2008
07/21/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008
08/08/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008

49 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 44 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Hassett, Kathy) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
50 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to June 20 to File Response/Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint. Replies due by 6/20/2008. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
51 REPLY to Response to 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Lizana Reply Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 06/21/2008)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert D. Rose on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rose, Robert) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2008 re 43 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Case called, Counsel appear, Counsel argue Motion, The Court grants 43 Motion to Amend Complaint and Amended Pleading due by 7/21/2008. Further Status Conference set for 10/17/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Court Reporter: Kusa−Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Lizana, Grossman, Riordan, Houlding) (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
53 AMENDED COMPLAINT against PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing, Preferred Labor LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
54 ANSWER to 53 Amended Complaint by Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
55 Transcript of Rule 15 Motion Hearing held on July 14, 2008, before Judge Saylor. Court Reporter: Marianne Kusa−Ryll at 508/929−3399. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Redaction Request due 8/26/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/5/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/3/2008. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
56 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above−captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, a copy of which is attached to this entry.. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
57 ANSWER to 53 Amended Complaint , Affirmative Defenses, CROSSCLAIM against Preferred Labor LLC by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
58 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
60 MEMORANDUM in Support re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 4)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
61 DECLARATION re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by J. Michael Riordan by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B to Riordan Certification, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits C and D to Riordan Certification, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits E through I to Riordan Certification, # 4 Exhibit

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 10 of 12

08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008
08/13/2008 09/02/2008 09/03/2008 09/04/2008 09/05/2008 09/15/2008
09/15/2008 10/02/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008

Exhibits J through M to Riordan Certification)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
62 AMENDED DOCUMENT by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. Amendment to 58 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing.(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
64 Amended MEMORANDUM in Support re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 4 to Motion for Summary Judgment)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
65 DECLARATION re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by PreferAble People, LLC d/b/a PreferAble Staffing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B to Riordan Certification, # 2 Exhibit C and D to Riordan Certification, # 3 Exhibit E through I to Riordan Certification, # 4 Exhibit J through M to Riordan Certification)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered finding as moot 59 Motion for Summary Judgment. Amended motion for summary judgment filed. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
66 STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT PREFERRED LABOR TO RESPOND TO CROSSCLAIMS by PreferAble People, LLC, Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
67 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to September 15, 2008 to File Response/Reply to 63 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Preferable People by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Lizana, Arnold) Modified on 9/4/2008 (Jones, Sherry). (Entered: 09/03/2008)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment. Response due by 9/15/2008. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
68 DEFENDANT PREFERRED LABOR LLC D/B/A PREFERRED PEOPLE STAFFING ANSWER to 57 Answer to Amended Complaint, Crossclaim of PreferAble People LLC by Preferred Labor LLC.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
69 Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1 re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Arnold Lizana, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit E−1, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q 1, # 19 Exhibit Q 2)(Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
70 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lizana, Arnold) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
71 NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by Jeffrey M. Burns (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
72 REPLY to Response to 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment , With Appendix filed by PreferAble People, LLC. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
73 AFFIDAVIT of Yohama Guarino, Esq. re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment , With Exhibits by PreferAble People, LLC. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
74 Response by PreferAble People, LLC to 69 Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1,,. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
75 MEMORANDUM in Support re 63 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment of PreferAble People LLC filed by Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 10/03/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 11 of 12

10/08/2008 02/13/2009 02/17/2009 02/23/2009
02/23/2009 02/23/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009
03/09/2009
03/09/2009 03/13/2009 03/17/2009
04/17/2009 04/17/2009

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered. ORDER Cancelling Deadline. The status conference set for 10/17/08 is hereby cancelled. The Court will rule on the pending motion for summary judgment on the papers. The status conference will be reset after the ruling. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
76 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing : Status Conference set for 3/17/2009 at 2:30PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Robert D. Rose in Support of EEOC's Motion for Reconsideration of Court' February 13, 2009 Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Preferable People, LLC)(Rose, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
78 MEMORANDUM in Support re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rose, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
79 Letter regarding their attendance for the March 17th conference from J. Michael Riordan. (Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
80 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PreferAble People, LLC. (Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
81 AFFIDAVIT of J. Michael Riordan in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PreferAble People, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B and C)(Burns, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
82 AFFIDAVIT of Yohama C Guarino, Esq. in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PreferAble People, LLC. (Burns, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/10/2009 (Jones, Sherry).Changed the text. (Entered: 03/09/2009)
83 Opposition re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Preferred Labor LLC. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
84 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 3/17/2009, Case called, Counsel appear for status conference by telephone, Parties inform Court they would like to attempt to resolve case either privately or through mediation, Court sets further status conference in order to give parties additional time, ( Status Conference set for 4/17/2009 at 3:30PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV.). (Court Reporter: M. Kusa−Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Lizana,Rose/Houlding) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
86 NOTICE of ADR Conference; Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearing set for 5/19/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 − Worcester before Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman. Please see notice for additional details.(Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 4/17/2009, Case called, Counsel appear for status conference, Parties request case be referred to Judge Hillman for mediation, Parties agree to mediation date of 5/19/09 at 9:00AM, Court sets further status for that same

Case: 4:06-cv-40190 As of: 09/05/2018 05:15 PM EDT 12 of 12

04/17/2009 04/17/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009 05/19/2009
06/16/2009 07/06/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/23/2009 08/21/2009
08/21/2009

date, ( Status Conference set for 5/19/2009 at 4:00PM in Courtroom 2 − Worcester before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV.). (Court Reporter: M. Kusa−Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Lizana,Rose/Houlding,Wilson/Riordan) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Case referred to Magistrate Judge Hillman for mediation.(Castles, Martin) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of assignment to ADR Provider. Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman appointed.(Franklin, Yvonne) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE. The status conference set for 5/19/09 before judge Saylor will be held in the Worcester Courthouse. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE to Counsel re: Scheduling Conference. Counsel may appear by telephone and shall notify clerk with contact info. (Roland, Lisa) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 5/19/2009. Case called, Counsel for dft's Preferred Labor and PreferAble People appear for status conference, Mediation between parties is ongoing with Magistrate Judge Hillman this date, Court will set further status conference promptly depending upon the report from the Magistrate Judge as to the outcome of the mediation, Plaintiff EEOC was excused from the status conference after reporting to the court that case has settled with dft after mediation. (Court Reporter: M. Kusa−Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Houlding,Wilson/Riordan) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
88 REPORT of Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider. (Belpedio, Lisa) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
89 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. CONSENT DECREE.(Castles, Martin) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
90 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered. SETTLEMENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
91 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff EEOC and defendant PreferAble People.(Castles, Martin) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
92 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff EEOC and defendant PreferAble People. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
93 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice as To Crossclaims Against Defendant Preferred Labor LLC by PreferAble People, LLC, Preferred Labor LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
94 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice as to Defendant PreferAble People, LLC by PreferAble People, LLC, Preferred Labor LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: 08/21/2009)