1 Mary Jo O'Neill, AZ Bar No. 005924 Sally C. Shanley, AZ Bar No. 012251
2 Sandra J. Padegimas, AZ Bar No. 011652 Katherine J. Kruse, AZ Bar No. 019167
3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office
4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504
5 Telephone: (602) 640-5061 Fax: (602) 640-5009
6 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10
Equal Employment Opportunity 11 Commission,
12
Plaintiff,
13

14

vs.

15 University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona 16 corporation, and Apollo Group, Inc., an
Arizona corporation,
17

18

Defenda nts.

) ) ) Case No. CV06-2303-PHX-MHM ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the

21 Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

22 religion, and to provide appropriate relief to, Robert Lein, William Davis, Harry

23 Hamilton, and Darry Thornton, and a class of individuals who are not members of the

24 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“LDS”), who were adversely affected by

25 such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that

26 Defendants, the University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc., discriminated against

27 Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of individuals, based on their

28 religion, non-LDS, by treating them less favorably with regard to terms and conditions of

-1-

1 employment including distribution of enrollment leads, granting of tuition waivers, 2 and/or reprimands. The Commission further alleges that, after Messrs. Lein, Hamilton, 3 and Thornton complained about the discrimination, Defendants further discriminated

4 against these three individuals by transferring them based on their religion, non-LDS, or

5 in retaliation for their complaints of discrimination. Finally, the Commission alleges that

6 Defendants further discriminated against Mr. Lein based on his religion, non-LDS, or in

7 retaliation for his complaint of discrimination, by terminating him.

8

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

10 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

11 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

12 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

13 U.S.C. § 1981a.

14

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

15 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

16

PARTIES

17

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

18 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

19 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to

20 bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and

21 (3).

22

4. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona

23 corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Arizona and has

24 continuously had at least 15 employees.

25

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Apollo Group, Inc., an Arizona

26 corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Arizona and has

27 continuously had at least 15 employees. Apollo Group, Inc. is the parent corporation of

28

-2-

1 Defendant University of Phoenix, Inc. Collectively, they are referred to herein as

2 “Defendant Employers.”

3

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employers have continuously been

4 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections

5 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

6

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

7

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Messrs. Lein,

8 Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of

9 Title VII by Defendant University of Phoenix All conditions precedent to the institution

10 of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

11

8. Since at least August, 2001, Defendant Employers have engaged in

12 unlawful employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

13 § 2000e-2(a)(1). These practices include discriminating against Messrs. Lein, Davis,

14 Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of individuals, based on their religion, non-LDS, by

15 treating them less favorably with regard to terms and conditions of employment,

16 including but not limited to the distribution of enrollment leads, granting of tuition

17 waivers, and/or reprimands.

18

9. On or near October 2003, Defendant Employers engaged in unlawful

19 employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

20 2(a)(1), and/or Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices

21 include discrimination against Messrs. Lein, Hamilton, and Thornton, based on religion,

22 non-LDS, and/or opposition to unlawful employment practices, by transferring them after

23 they complained of unlawful discrimination based on religion.

24

10. On or near September 2004, Defendant Employers engaged in unlawful

25 employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

26 2(a)(1), and/or Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), by terminating Mr.

27 Lein based on his religion, non-LDS, and/or his opposition to unlawful employment

28 practices.

-3-

1

11. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 above

2 has been to deprive Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of non-

3 LDS individuals, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their

4 status as employees, because of their religion, non-LDS, and/or because they had

5 complained about religious discrimination.

6

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8, 9, and

7 10 above were intentional.

8

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8, 9, and

9 10 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected

10 rights of Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS

11 individuals, including a class of employees who had opposed religious discrimination.

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

14

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their

15 officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them,

16 from engaging in discrimination based on religion, and from engaging in retaliation for

17 opposition to unlawful employment practices.

18

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

19 and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for non-LDS individuals,

20 and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful

21 employment practices, including but not limited to issuance of a written apology.

22

C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

23 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing appropriate back pay

24 with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and to provide Mr. Lein

25 front pay and/or reinstatement.

26

D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

27 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing compensation for past

28 and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described

-4-

1 in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, including job search and relocation expenses, in amounts 2 to be determined at trial.

3

E. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

4 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing compensation for past

5 and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in

6 paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of 7 enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

8

F. Order Defendant Employers to pay punitive damages for their malicious

9 and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, in amounts to be

10 determined at trial.

11

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

12 public interest.

13

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

14

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

15

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

16 complaint.

17

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of April, 2007.

18

RONALD S. COOPER

19

General Counsel

20

JAMES LEE

21

Deputy General Counsel

22

GW

23

ENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

24

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

25

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, NW

26

Washington, DC 20507

27

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill

28

Regional Attorney

-5-

1

2

Supervisory

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
Phoeni
11

12

Attorneys

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

s/ Sally C. Shanley Trial Attorney
s/ Sandra J. Padegimas Trial Attorney s/ Katherine J. Kruse Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave. Suite 690
x, Arizona 85012 for Plaintiff
-6-

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 6

1 Mary Jo O'Neill, AZ Bar No. 005924 Sally C. Shanley, AZ Bar No. 012251
2 Sandra J. Padegimas, AZ Bar No. 011652 Katherine J. Kruse, AZ Bar No. 019167
3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office
4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504
5 Telephone: (602) 640-5061 Fax: (602) 640-5009
6 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10
Equal Employment Opportunity 11 Commission,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14 vs.

15 University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona 16 corporation,

17 Defenda

nt.

) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the

20 Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

21 religion, and to provide appropriate relief to, Robert Lein, William Davis, Harry

22 Hamilton, and Darry Thornton, and a class of individuals who are not members of the

23 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“LDS”), who were adversely affected by

24 such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that Defendant,

25 the University of Phoenix, discriminated against Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and

26 Thornton, and a class of individuals, based on their religion, non-LDS, by treating them

27 less favorably with regard to terms and conditions of employment including distribution

28 of enrollment leads, granting of tuition waivers, and/or reprimands. The Commission

-1-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 6

1 further alleges that, after Messrs. Lein, Hamilton, and Thornton complained about the

2 discrimination, Defendant further discriminated against these three individuals by

3 transferring them based on their religion, non-LDS, or in retaliation for their complaints

4 of discrimination. Finally, the Commission alleges that Defendant further discriminated

5 against Mr. Lein based on his religion, non-LDS, or in retaliation for his complaint of

6 discrimination, by terminating him.

7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

9 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

10 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

11 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

12 U.S.C. § 1981a.

13

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

14 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

15

PARTIES

16

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

17 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

18 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to

19 bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and

20 (3).

21

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, the University of Phoenix, an Arizona

22 corporation (the “Employer”), has continuously been doing business in the State of

23 Arizona and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

24

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an

25 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections

26 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

27 \\

28 \\

-2-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 6

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Messrs. Lein,

3 Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of

4 Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this

5 lawsuit have been fulfilled.

6

7. Since at least August, 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

7 employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

8 2(a)(1). These practices include discriminating against Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

9 and Thornton, and a class of individuals, based on their religion, non-LDS, by treating

10 them less favorably with regard to terms and conditions of employment, including but not

11 limited to the distribution of enrollment leads, granting of tuition waivers, and/or

12 reprimands.

13

8. On or near October 2003, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful

14 employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

15 2(a)(1), and/or Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices

16 include discrimination against Messrs. Lein, Hamilton, and Thornton, based on religion,

17 non-LDS, and/or opposition to unlawful employment practices, by transferring them after

18 they complained of unlawful discrimination based on religion.

19

9. On or near September 2004, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful

20 employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

21 2(a)(1), and/or Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), by terminating Mr.

22 Lein based on his religion, non-LDS, and/or his opposition to unlawful employment

23 practices.

24

10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above

25 has been to deprive Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of non-

26 LDS individuals, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their

27 status as employees, because of their religion, non-LDS, and/or because they had

28 complained about religious discrimination.

-3-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 6

1

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and

2 9 above were intentional.

3

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and

4 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected

5 rights of Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS

6 individuals, including a class of employees who had opposed religious discrimination.

7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

9

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

10 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

11 engaging in discrimination based on religion, and from engaging in retaliation for

12 opposition to unlawful employment practices.

13

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

14 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for non-LDS individuals, and

15 other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment

16 practices, including but not limited to issuance of a written apology.

17

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

18 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing appropriate back pay

19 with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and to provide Mr. Lein

20 front pay and/or reinstatement.

21

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

22 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing compensation for past

23 and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described

24 in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, including job search and relocation expenses, in amounts

25 to be determined at trial.

26

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton,

27 and Thornton, and a class of non-LDS individuals, by providing compensation for past

28 and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in

-4-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 5 of 6

1 paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of

2 enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

3

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious

4 and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, in amounts to be

5 determined at trial.

6

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

7 public interest.

8

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

11 complaint.

12

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of September, 2006.

13

RONALD S. COOPER

14

General Counsel

15

JAMES LEE

16

Deputy General Counsel

17

GW

18

ENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

19

20

21

22
s/
23

24

25

Supervisory

26

27

28

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507
Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney
s/ Sally C. Shanley Trial Attorney
s/ Sandra J. Padegimas Trial Attorney

-5-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 1 Filed 09/25/06 Page 6 of 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Phoeni

7

Attorneys

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

s/ Katherine J. Kruse Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave. Suite 690
x, Arizona 85012
for Plaintiff

-6-

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employme nt Opportunity )

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona )

corporation, a nd Apollo Group, Inc., an )

14 Arizona corporation,

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM ORDER

17

Currently pending before the Court are four motions to intervene, (Dkt. #43, 44, 46,

18 60), and two m otions to strike claim s. (Dkt. #81, 85). Counse l for the interveners has

19 withdrawn all non-religious claims for intervention, (Dkt. #105), and so the Court’s inquiry

20 is limited to the religious discrim ination-based claims for intervention and the motions to

21 strike. After considering the parties’ briefs and the applicable case law, the Court issues the

22 following omnibus order.

23

I. Background

24

The First Amended Complaint was filed in this case on 4/26/2007. (Dkt. #23). The

25 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asserted religious discrim ination

26 claims against the University of Phoenix and its corporate parent, Apollo Group (collectively

27 “the University”), on behalf of four charging parties and a class of individuals who were

28

1 adversely affected by the University’s alleged policies. Several members of the proposed

2 class have moved to intervene, which the University opposes.

3

In addition, the University has m oved to strike the claim s of all of the previously-

4 unnamed class m embers on the grounds that (1) the claim s were not adm inistratively

5 exhausted, and (2) the identification of class m embers through a disclosure statem ent is

6 improper. The University has also m oved to strike the claim s of two individuals who did

7 exhaust their claims, but who failed to bring suit within 90 days afterward as required for

8 them to challenge the University on an individual basis. (Dkt. #85).

9

II. Analysis

10 A. Intervention

11

Eight individuals have sought to intervene in the EEOC’s action: Darry Thornton,

12 Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alyssa Polk, Jennifer Hallman, Morseller Ector,

13 Mark Ector, and Shelly Cham bers Thompson. Counsel for the putative interveners has

14 argued that they are entitled to intervene as a matter of right, and that these individuals do

15 not seek permissive intervention. (Dkt. #43 p. 8-9; 44 p.8).

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) allows a party, upon timely application, a right

17 to intervene in an action “(1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional

18 right to intervene; or (2) when the applican t claims an interest relating to the property or

19 transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the

20 disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability

21 to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing

22 parties.”

23

Title VII provides aggrieved parties an unconditional right to intervene in an EEOC

24 enforcement action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (2007). Therefore, each aggrieved party has

25 a right to intervene in this enforcement action if the Court considers their applications timely.

26

1. Thornton

27

a. Right to Intervene

28

- 2 -

1

Darry Thornton is one of the charging parties in this mater. (Dkt. #43). The charge

2 he filed with the EEOC led to the current enforcement action. As a charging party, Title VII

3 gives him an unconditional right to intervene. Id. ; EEOC v. GMRI, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 562,

4 563 (D. Kan. 2004).

5

b. Timeliness

6

The Court acknowledges that timeliness is determined by considering the totality of

7 the circumstances. NAACP v. New York , 413 U.S. 345, 365-66 (1973). The University

8 points to various factors that should inform the Court’s assessment of timeliness, including

9 (1) the stage of the current proceedings, (2) prejudice that the resultant delay might cause,

10 and (3) the reason for the delay. (Dkt. #48).

11

In light of the totality of the circum stances, the Court finds the motion to intervene

12 timely. Discovery in the case has not yet close d, and allowing Thornton to intervene is

13 unlikely to require it to be extended. Because his claims gave rise to the enforcement action,

14 much of the discovery related to his claims has likely already occurred, or can be completed

15 before the discovery deadline in the case. Allowing him to intervene is unlikely to prejudice

16 the parties.

17

2. Muscianisi and Chambers Thompson

18

a. Right to Intervene

19

Muscianisi and Chambers Thompson also brought claims of religious discrimination

20 to the EEOC. The EEOC did not make any determination as to the merit of either claim. For

21 Muscianisi’s claim , it determ ined that it was unlikely to complete its adm inistrative

22 processing within 180 days, and so terminated its investigation. (Dkt. #54, Exhibit 1). For

23 Chambers Thompson’s claim, the EEOC terminated the processing of the charge after more

24 than 180 days, issuing Cham bers Thompson a Notice of Right to Sue. (Dkt. #125). The

25 Court finds that Muscianisi and Chambers Thompson consequently are aggrieved persons

26 who have a right to intervene. GMRI, 221 F.R.D. at 563 n.4 (“‘an aggrieved person is

27 defined as a person who has filed a charge with the EEOC’”) (quoting EEOC v. Rappaport,

28 Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., 273 F. Supp. 2d 260, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)).

- 3 -

1

b. Timeliness

2

In light of the totality of the circum stances, the Court finds that the m otions to

3 intervene by Muscianisi and Cham bers Thompson are also timely. Discovery has not yet

4 closed, and allowing them to intervene should cause little or no delay to the disc overy

5 deadlines. Counsel for the interveners has informed the Court that Chambers Thompson’s

6 deposition is currently scheduled for May, 2008. Particularly in light of the Court’s

7 disposition of the other m otions to intervene in the case, the parties are unlikely to be

8 prejudiced.

9

3. Hallman

10

a. Right to Intervene

11

Hallman brought an EEOC claim of discrimination on the basis of her religion and

12 national origin in March, 2007. The EEOC closed its file in Septebmer of 2007, determining

13 that, based on its investigation, it was unable to conclude that the information established a

14 violation of the statutes. (Dkt. #54 Exhibit 3).

15

The Court does not find that Hallman is an aggrieved person within the meaning of

16 the statute, particularly in light of the fact that this class action litigation had commenced at

17 least five months prior to processing of Hallman’s charge. If the EEOC could not determine

18 that Hallm an was a victim of discrim ination, the Court cannot conclude that she is an

19 aggrieved person such that she should be permitted to intervene.

20

The second basis for intervention as of right is also una vailing. Fed. R. Civ. P.

21 24(a)(2). The Court concludes that Hallman’s interest is “adequately represented by existing

22 parties,” and that she is therefore not “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a

23 practical matter impair or impede [her] ability to protect that interest.” Id. Accordingly,

24 Hallman’s motion to intervene is denied.

25

4. Edenburgs, Polk, Morseller Ector, and Mark Ector

26

a. Right to Intervene

27

Because none of these individuals brought religious discrim ination claims with the

28 EEOC, the Court cannot conclude that they areaggrieved persons within the meaning of the

- 4 -

1 statute. Similarly, their interest is adequa tely represented by the charging partie s and the

2 class, and so the Court will deny their motions to intervene. Id.

3 B. Motion to Strike Claims

4

The University has moved to strike the claims of various class members disclosed to

5 it through disclosure statements produced in the litigation, or alternatively, for the Court to

6 grant declaratory judgment in its favor. (Dkt. #81, 85).

7

1. Failure to Exhaust and Failure to Satisfy Pleading Requirements

8

a. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

9

The EEOC has asserted claims on behalf of the four charging parties, as well as a class

10 of individuals — many of whomhave never filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC.

11 The University asserts that the claim s of many of these class m embers should be stricken

12 because they were not properly exhausted through the administrative process provided for

13 under Title VII.

14

The University adm its that the EEOC has been perm itted in the past to bring

15 unexhausted claims on behalf of a class, but asserts that the “practice is no longer peirsmsible

16 in light of the holding by the United States Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and

17 Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2007).” (Dkt. #81).

18

In Ledbetter, the Plaintiff attempted to sue her employer for gender discrimination on

19 the basis that she received poor evaluations because she was female. Id. at 2166. Because

20 pay decisions were made on the basis of her discriminatory evaluations, she was denied pay

21 raises. Id. These pay decisions continue d to affect the amount of her pay throughout her

22 employment, and toward the end of her employ, she was earning significantly less than her

23 male colleagues. Id. The disparate pay decisions occurred outside the statutory limitations

24 period, but the disparate pay continued to be received within the limitations period. Id. The

25 defendants argued that she could not challenge the discrimination in court because she had

26 failed to bring an EEOC char ge with respect to the actual acts of discrimination — the

27 discriminatory evaluations and pay decisions — within the limitations period. Id.

28

- 5 -

1

The Court, citing the language of the statute, held that “ [a]n individual wishing to

2 challenge an em ployment practice under this provision m ust first file a charge with the

3 EEOC . . . Such a charge m ust be filed within a specified period . . . afte r the alleged

4 unlawful employment practice occurred . . . and if the employee does not submit a timely

5 EEOC charge, the employee m ay not challenge that practice in court.” Id. at 2166-67

6 (emphasis added).

7

The Unive rsity asserts that the language and holding in Ledbetter overrules the

8 previous cases that have permitted the EEOC to bring class actions that include unexhausted

9 claims. The Court finds that it does not.

10

At a mi nimum, L edbetter is not directly on point. It involves an individual with

11 unexhausted claims, and does not address the ability of the EEOC to bring une xhausted

12 claims on behalf of a class.

13

In addition, the Ledbetter Court bases its holding on the language of the statute itself,

14 and quotes directly from it. Id. It does not provide any reasoning that would support a

15 reading that it intended to overrule the casesthat had previously allowed the EEOC to assert

16 unexhausted claims on behalf of a class. It fials to discuss those cases whatsoever, including

17 cases that it had cited to favorably just a few years prior. See EEOC v. Waffle House, 122

18 S. Ct. 754, 761 (2002) (recognizing the distinction between an individual epmloyee’s private

19 cause of action and the EEOC’s enforcem ent role in securing relief for a group of

20 individuals, citing to Occidenta l Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC , 432 U.S. 355 (1977), and

21 General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980)).

22

Furthermore, the language of the statute — on which the Ledbetterdecision is based

23 — does not address the ability of the EEOC to assert claim s on behalf of a class, whether

24 exhausted or not. The statute specifically discusses the inability of an “individual” to bring

25 claims if “the employee does not submit a timely EEOC charge.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

26

27

28

- 6 -

1 There are im portant policy reasons to m ake a distinction between an individual and the

2 EEOC when considering the ability to bring unexhausted claims in court.1

3

Finally, a requirement that all claims be exhausted completely defeats the purpose of

4 the EEOC bringing a class action. If the claims were exhausted, the EEOC would have either

5 determined that they had m erit, and pursued them individually, or not have m ade such a

6 determination (making class disposition of the claims highly unlikely). Logic dictates that

7 the Supreme Court would have given a little more discussion to a decision that would have

8 the practical effect of nullifying the EEOC’s ability to bring class actions.

9

The Court finds that the decision in Ledbetterdid not address, and therefore could not

10 affect, the EEOC’s ability to bring unexhausted claim s on behalf of a class. Because the

11 University relies on Ledbetter to support its argument that the EEOC is no longer permitted

12 to bring unexhausted claims on behalf of a class, the Court holds that these claismshould not

13 be stricken.

14

b. Failure to Satisfy Pleading Requirements

15

The University argues that even if the EEOC is permitted to pursue claims on behalf

16 of the newly disclosed class members, the mere inclusion of their names in a supplemental

17 disclosure statement does not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (Dkt. #81). The

18 University cites to the recently decided Suprem e Court case of Bell Atlantic v. Twom bly,

19 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007), for support for its position.

20

In Twom bly, the Court announced that the standard needed to m eet Rule 8

21 requirements was one of “plausibility,” rather than merely “possibility.” Id. at 1974. The

22

23

1The University, in arguing that the class m embers’ claim s m ust be exhausted,

repeatedly highlights the im portance of the conciliation process in em

ployment

24 discrimination claim s. The University asserts that inform al m ethods of conference,

25 conciliation and persuasion are preferable to resolution in the federal courts. The Court notes that the charging parties’ exhausted claims, presumably arising out of similar circumstances
26 to the unexhausted claim s, were subject to this m andatory conciliation process without

27

success. Furthermore, conciliation is not foreclosed on behalf of the class members’ claims merely because litigation has commenced; the parties are free, and in fact encouraged, to

28 resolve these claims cooperatively.

- 7 -

1 Court required the plaintiff to assert enough f acts in the com plaint to raise a reasonable

2 expectation that discovery would reveal evidence to support the plaintiff’s clai.mId.at 1966.

3 The University argues that here, the claim s of the class m embers whose identities were

4 revealed through disclosure statem ents are “w oefully deficient” as m easured against the

5 plausibility standard announced in Twom bly. (Dkt. #81). The University asserts that the

6 “factual predicates with respect to these individuals’ claims are not simply vague, they are

7 entirely absent.” (Id.)

8

The Court disagrees that the inclusion of class members’ names in a disclosure

9 statement is deficient under the sta ndard announced in Twom bly. Without determ ining

10 whether the Twombly pleading standard in fact applies outside of the context of antitrust

11 cases, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint in this case, in any event, satisfies

12 the “plausibility” requirement. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974.

13

The First Am ended Complaint in this case sets forth the factual predicates for the

14 Plaintiffs’ claims, and indicates that the claims are being asserted on behalf of a class whose

15 membership had not been entirely determ ined. (Dkt. #23). The later fleshing-out of the

16 claims through disclosure of class members as they became known to counsel is sufficient

17 to bring those claims into the realm of “plausibility.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974.

18

Accordingly, the Court holds that the cla ims of the class m embers should not be

19 stricken on the basis that they do not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the

20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

2. Failure to Bring Suit Within 90 Days of Notice of Right to Sue

22

The University has also moved to strike the claims of two class members — Wesley

23 Jueckstock and Phyllis Stewart — who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC but

24 did not tim ely file a lawsuit on their own behalf. (Dkt. #85). The EEOC was unable to

25 conclude that the information in the charges established a violation of Title VII, and issued

26 notices that opened up a 90-day period in which they could have pursued a private Title VII

27 enforcement action. Because neither Jueckstock nor Stewart exercised this right, the

28

- 8 -

1 University argues that their claims are forever time-barred and cannot now be brought by the

2 EEOC. (Id.)

3

Further, Jueckstock entered into an unrelated settlem ent agreem ent with the

4 University, in which he released all potential claims against the University. The EEOC, the

5 University argues, is therefore precluded from re covering “any additional relief on his

6 behalf.” (Id.)

7

There is significant authority to suggest that the EEOC is not m erely a proxy for

8 victims of discrim ination; it can bring an ac tion in its own nam e to term inate unlawful

9 employment practices and secure appropriate relief. SeeGeneral Tel. Co. of the Northwest,

10 Inc. v. EEOC , 100 S. Ct. 1698, 1700, 1703 (1980). The EEOC’s claim s are not m erely

11 derivative of the claim s of the individuals it represents, and it “does not stand in the

12 employee’s shoes.” EEOC. v. Waffle House, 122 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2002). In other words,

13 the EEOC is not barred fromseeking relief on behalf of Jueckstock and Stewart by virtue of

14 the fact that they are now individually barred from initiating a private enforcement action.

15

The Ninth Circuit has specifically held the EEOC is not prohibited from suing on

16 behalf of a party who chooses not to sue in the allotted ninety days. EEOC v. Occidental

17 Life Ins. Co. of Cal,. 535 F.2d 533, 536 (9th Cir. 1976) (“should the person concerned choose

18 not to sue during the allotted 90 days, the EEOCis not prohibited fromsuing thereafter. The

19 statute in no way limits the time within which it must sue, so long as the charging party has

20 not done so.”). The fact that Jueckstock and Stewart did not bring claims within the ninety

21 day period does not now prevent the EEOC fromraising claims on their behalf. The EEOC

22 is charged with vindication of the public interest, and is not m erely c oncerned with the

23 enforcement of private rights. Id. at 542.

24

The University also argues that the EEOC’s previous inability to conclude that a

25 violation had occurred now prevents themfrom asserting these claims. The Court finds that

26 it does not. The EEOC points out that it no longer conducts full investigations of each

27 charge, and consequently, the agency no longer issues “no cause” findings. (Dkt. #89). The

28 notices of dismissal “unequivocally reflect that the EEOC made no determination that Mr.

- 9 -

1 Jueckstock’s or Ms. Stewart’s charges were unfounded.” (Id. ) In any event, “the courts

2 retain remedial powers under Title VII despite a finding by the EEOC of no reasonable cause

3 to believe that Title VII has been violated.” General Tel. Co. of the Northwe st , Inc. v.

4 EEOC, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 1707 (1980).

5

Finally, the University seeks to strike Juec kstock’s claim based upon his earlier

6 settlement and release of all potential claims against the University. The Court finds that this

7 is not a basis to strike his claim.

8

The Court reiterates that the EEOC, as vindicator of the public interest, is not merely

9 a representative of the individual claimants. EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp,. 813 F.2d

10 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1987). Its right to bring suit is independent of the em ployee’s private

11 action rights. Id.

12

Instructive is EEOC v. Waffle House , 122 S. Ct. 754 (2002), holding that an

13 employee’s agreement to arbitrate, to which the EEOC was not a party, did not preclude the

14 EEOC from seeking victim-specific judicial relief for the employee. The Court cautioned,

15 however, that it was “ an open question whether settlem ent or arbitration judgm ent would

16 affect the validity of the EEOC’s claim or the character of relief the EEOC [could] seek.”

17 Id. at 766. Similarly, “[t]he Fifth and Sixth Circuits have suggested that a prior settlement

18 may limit the scope of relief that the EEOC may seek on behalf of the settling employee.”

19 Goodyear, 813 F.2d at 1543 (citing cases). And it also“goes without saying that the courts

20 can and should preclude double recovery by an individual.” General Te,l1. 00 S. Ct. at 1708.

21

The Court does not view thes e concerns relating to remedies as a proper basis for

22 striking the claim altogether. The m otion to strike Jueckstock’s cla im on this basis is

23 therefore denied.

24

III. Conclusion

25

The Court finds that Darry Thornton, a charging party in the case, Francine

26 Muscianisi, and Shelly Chambers Thompson should be permitted to intervene as of right, and

27 the other motions for intervention should be denied. The Court also finds that the University

28 has not presented sufficient evidence that the claims of the class members should be stricken.

- 10 -

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion to intervene by Shelly Chambers Thompson

3 (Dkt. #60).

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the m otions to

5 intervene by Darry Thornton and Falonia Edenburgs, (Dkt. # 43), and Francine Muscianisi

6 and Alyssa Polk (Dkt. #44).

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the motion to intervene by Morseller Ector,

8 Mark Ector, and Jennifer Hallman, (Dkt. 46).

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the motions to strike claims or alternatively

10 for declaratory judgment. (Dkt. #81, 85).

11

DATED this 1st day of May, 2008.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26

27 28

- 11 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 218 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2

1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employme nt Opportunity )

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona )

corporation, a nd Apollo Group, Inc., an )

14 Arizona corporation,

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM ORDER

17

On May 2, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Intervene

18 in the EEOC’s enforcement action against the University of Phoenix and Apollo Group, Inc.

19 (Dkt. #149). The proposed interveners whose Motions were denied have m oved for

20 reconsideration of the Court’s Order. (Dkt. #152).

21

“The Court will ordinarily deny a m otion for reconsideration of an order absent a

22 showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

23 been brought to its attention earlier with r easonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1). The

24 motion “shall point out with specificity . . . any new m atters being brought to the Court’s

25 attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier.” Id.

26

The Court finds that the proposed interveners have not m et the ir burde n on their

27 Motion for Reconsideration. They failed to demonstrate that the Court’s Order constituted

28 manifest error, or that they provided new facts or legal authority not previously before the

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 218 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2

1 Court. Furthermore, the Response filed by the EEOC was filed in contravention of LR Civ.

2 7.2(g)(2), and thus, was not considered. (Dkt. #154).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. #152).

5

DATED this 21st day of May, 2008.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 309 Filed 08/15/08 Page 1 of 1
FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUG 14 2008
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Respondent,
v.

No. 08-80089
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-02303-MHM District of Arizona, Phoenix

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.; et al., ORDER

Defendants - Petitioners.

Before: CANBY and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Petitioners’ motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition for
permission to appeal is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply, received on June 20, 2008.
The petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied.

AT/MOATT

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employme nt Opportunity )

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona )

corporation, a nd Apollo Group, Inc., an )

14 Arizona corporation,

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM ORDER

17

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda addressing the question of whether

18 this action is properly considered a “pattern or practice” case. Although the Plaintiffs

19 brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (“§ 706”) as opposed to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6

20 (“§ 707”) — the traditional provision used for pattern or practice cases — the Court finds

21 that there is authority to support the Plaintiffs’ claimthat pattern or practice actions may be

22 brought under either section. SeeEEOC v. Int’l Profit Associates, Inc,.No. 01-C-4427, 2007

23 WL 3120069, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) (“the EEOC is statutorily authorized to bring

24 a pattern or practice action to enjoin systematic unlawful employment practices, as defined

25 by 42 U.S.C. § 200e-2(a)(1), under either section 706 or 707.”). The Defendants have cited

26 to no authority to the contrary. Although the Plaintiffs had previously failed to specify that

27 this is a pattern or practice case, the Defendants should have been on notice that the Plaintiffs

28 intended to bring pattern or practice claims based on the number and type of allegations made

1 in the case. Further, the Defendants have not indicated how they will be prejudiced by such

2 a reading of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint; to the contrary, the Plaintiffs assert that this will have

3 no effect on the type or amount of discovery in the case. Accordingly, the Court finds that

4 the Plaintiffs may proceed with their pattern or practice claims.

5

IT IS ORDERED permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of this

6 case as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination.

7

DATED this 19th day of September, 2008.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 1 of 29

Mary Jo O'Neill, AZ Bar No. 005924 Sally C. Shanley, AZ Bar No. 012251 2 Katherine J. Kruse, AZ Bar No. 019167 Lucila G. Rosas, CA Bar No. 187345 3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office 4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504 5 Telephone: (602) 640-5029 Fax: (602) 640-5009 6 Email: katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov
lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov 7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10

II Equal Employment Opportunity 12 Commission,

13

Plaintiff,

14
-and-
15

16 Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelly Chambers Thompson,
17

18

Plaintiff-I ntervenors,

19 vs.

20
University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona
21 corporation, and Apollo Group, Inc., an
22 Arizona corporation,

Case No. CV06-2303-PHX-MHM CONSENT DECREE

23

Defendants.

24

I. RECITALS

25

1. This matter was instituted by the Plaintiff, the Equal Employment

26 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission"), an agency of the United

27 States, alleging that Defendants, the University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo

28 Group, Inc. ("Defendants") violated Sections 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights

-1-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 2 of 29

Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by engaging in a

2 practice of discriminating against Robert Lein, William Davis, Harry Hamilton,

3 Darry Thornton, and a class of aggrieved persons who were not members of the

4 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("LOS"). The named individuals and

5 additional class members are collectively referred to as "Class Members". The

6 alleged practice of discrimination included treating the Class Members less

7 favorably with regard to terms and conditions of employment including, but not

8 limited to, distribution and redistribution of enrollment leads, granting or denying

9 of tuition waivers, discipline, and the denial of promotions. The EEOC also

10 alleged that, after Messrs. Lein, Davis, Hamilton, and Thornton complained about

11 the discrimination, Defendants further discriminated against Messrs. Lein,

12 Hamilton, and Thornton by transferring them based on their religion, non-LOS, or

13 in retaliation for their complaints of discrimination, in violation of Sections 703(a)

14 and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 3(a). The EEOC further

15 alleged that Defendants discriminated against Mr. Lein based on his religion,

16 non-LOS, or in retaliation for his complaint of discrimination, by terminating him in

17 violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and

18 3(a). Defendants deny the EEOC's and Interveners' allegations in their entirety.

19 Defendants' agreement to the entry of this Consent Decree shall not be

20 construed as an admission of any statutory violation, liability, or other 21 wrongdoing.

22

2. Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, and Shelly Chambers

23 Thompson are Plaintiff Intervenors in this action and have filed a Complaint in

24 Intervention. The term "Class Members" includes Plaintiff Intervenors.

25

3. The EEOC, Intervenors, and Defendants (collectively, "the Parties"),

26 desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree ("Decree"), agree

27 to the jurisdiction of this Court over the Parties and the subject matter of this

28 action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree

-2-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 3 of 29

enforceable against Defendants University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, 2 Inc.

3

4. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties as to the issues

4 resolved, as well as upon their successors and assigns.

5

5. The EEOC and Defendants agree that this Consent Decree fairly

6 resolves the issues alleged by the EEOC in this lawsuit, and constitutes a

7 complete resolution of all of the EEOC's claims against the Defendants asserted 8 in this lawsuit.

9

6. Plaintiff Intervenors and Defendants agree that this Consent Decree

10 fairly resolves the issues alleged by the Plaintiff Intervenors in this lawsuit, and

II constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Plaintiff Intervenors' claims against

12 the Defendants asserted in this lawsuit.

13

II. DEFINITIONS

14

7. The following terms, when used in this Consent Decree, shall hav

15 the following meanings as set forth below. All terms defined in the singular shall

16 have the same meaning when used in the plural, and all terms defined in th

17 plural shall have the same meaning when used in the singular.

18

(a) Claim Share- The settlement amount which the EEOC

19

determines will be paid to a particular Eligible Class Member.

20

(b) Claimant - An individual who requests that EEOC seek relief

21

on his or her behalf or for whom the EEOC has, in fact, sought relief.

22

(c) Class Administrator - The individual retained to carry out the

23

administrative functions necessary to distribute the Class Settlement

24

Funds, as more specifically provided in ~ X, infra.

25

(d) Class Members- The Class of individuals covered by this

26

Decree consists of all non-LDS employees employed by University of

27

Phoenix Online Enrollment Department between January 1, 2001 and the

28

Effective Date of this Decree, identified by the EEOC as Class Members

-3-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 4 of 29

on or before October 17, 2008.

2

(e) Eligible Class Members Entitled to Monetary Relief - To be

3

eligible for class relief under this decree, a Claimant, as defined in 117(b)

4

above, must be determined by EEOC to be a non-LOS employee,

5

employed by University of Phoenix Online Enrollment Department between

6

January 1, 2001 and the effective date of this Decree, who meets criteria

7

established by the EEOC.

8

(f) Complaint of Religious Discrimination, Harassment or

9

Retaliation - A complaint of discrimination, religious harassment, religious

10

favoritism, or resulting retaliation, shall be any oral or written complaint

11

which comes to the attention of a supervisor or manager or the Employee

12

Relations Department and makes allegations which are appreciated by an

13

supervisor or manager or Employee Relations representative to be an

14

allegation of religious discrimination, religious harassment or resulting

15

retaliation.

16

(g) EEO - The term "EEO" shall refer to the phrase "equal

17

employment opportunity."

18

(h) Effective Date - The Effective Date of this Decree is the date

19

on which the Court gives final approval to the Decree, after hearing, if

20

required.

21

(i) Final Class Distribution Lists - The Final Class Distribution

22

Lists are the list of Eligible Class Members and the amount of each such

23

class member's Claim Share. See 11 X, infra.

24

U) Diversity Officer - A person with expertise in EEO and

25

personnel matters, selected by Defendants, and agreed to by the EEOC.

26

The Diversity Officer's primary functions are to review all policies and

27

procedures referenced in this Decree and monitor Defendants' compliance

28

with the Decree, and report to the Parties as to Defendants' compliance

-4-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 5 of 29

with the Decree.

2

(k) Parties - The Parties to this Decree are Plaintiff, the U.S.

3

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff Intervenors

4

Thornton, Thompson and Muscianisi, and Defendants, the University of

5

Phoenix and Apollo Group.

6

(I) Private Counsel - Attorneys representing Intervenors in this

7

action.

8

(m) Corporate Human Resources-. The primary functions are to

9

(1) review all policies and procedures referenced in this Decree, (2) to

10

review and either approve or disapprove all hiring, promotional, tuition

11

denial, and lead assignment distribution and redistribution decisions at

12

University of Phoenix Online, and (3) to investigate all complaints of

13

discrimination.

14

(n) Supervisory Employee - The terms "Supervisory Employee"

15

and/or "Management Employee" as contained herein shall mean an

16

individual employed in the Online Enrollment Department who has

17

supervisory authority.

18

(0) Non-Supervisory Employee - The term "Non-Supervisory

19

Employee" as contained herein shall mean an individual employed in the

20

Enrollment Department of Online who does not have supervisory authority.

21

III. JURISDICTION

22

8. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of

23 this lawsuit. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

24 Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any Party or

25 person. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the duration of the

26 Decree for the purposes of entering all orders, judgments and decrees which

27 may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein.

28

-5-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 6 of 29

IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS

2

9. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for four (4) years from th

3 Date of the Court's entry of this Decree. The Commission reserves the right to

4 file an enforcement action under Paragraphs 64-68 ("Enforcement of Consent

5 Decree") of this Decree to extend the Decree for whatever period is necessary to

6 allow Defendants to comply fully with the terms of this Decree.

7

10. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding among the

8 Parties with respect to the matters herein.

9

11. If one or more provisions of this Decree are rendered unlawful or

10 unenforceable the unaffected provisions will remain enforceable.

11

12. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce

12 Defendants' obligation to comply with Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.

13

13. The Commission reserves all rights to proceed with respect to

14 matters not covered by this Consent Decree and to secure relief on behalf of

15 aggrieved persons not covered by this Consent Decree. Under no

16 circumstances shall the EEOC, by commenting or electing not to comment upon

17 proposed policies or procedures pursuant to Section VII ("Affirmative Relief'), be

18 deemed to have waived its right to investigate or litigate any alleged adverse

19 effects of said policy upon equal employment opportunities. Nor shall the EEOC,

20 by commenting or electing not to comment upon said policies or procedures, be

21 considered to have accepted the validity of, or approved, the provisions adopted

22 by Defendants.

23

14. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude the

24 Commission from filing lawsuits based on charges not resolved in this Decree.

25

V. INJUNCTION

26

15. Defendants are permanently enjoined from discriminating against

27 any employee or applicant in assignment or reassignment of leads, approval or

28 denial of tuition benefits, discipline, hiring, promotions, and any other term and

-6-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 7 of 29

condition of employment because of that employee's religion. Defendants shall

2 afford employees the same terms and conditions of employment it affords all

3 other employees in similar positions regardless of their religion. Defendants are

4 also permanently enjoined from terminating any employee because of that 5 employee's religion.

6

16. Defendants are permanently enjoined from retaliating against any

7 applicant, employee, or Class Member for his or her participation in the EEOC

8 process, the investigation by the EEOC into this matter, participation in this

9 lawsuit, complaining about or opposing any employment practice made unlawful

10 by one or more of the statutes enforced by the Commission, asserting any rights

11 under this Decree, or filing a charge of discrimination under any of the statutes

12 enforced by the Commission.

13

VI. MONETARY RELIEF

14

17. In full settlement of all monetary claims asserted by the EEOC and

15 Plaintiff Intervenors on behalf of the currently identified Charging Parties,

16 Intervenors and the Class Members, Defendants agree to pay a total of

17 $1,875,000. In addition, Defendants agree to pay Private Counsel fees in the

18 amount of $100,000.

19

18. Defendants shall pay to each Charging Party, Intervenor, and

20 identified Class Member the amount identified in Attachment A by check no later

21 than ten (10) days from the date of the Court's entry of the Consent Decree. The

22 settlement represents payment of back pay with interest plus compensatory

23 damages, as detailed in Attachment A. The check shall be made payable to

24 each individual listed in Attachment A and mailed directly to each individual at the

25 addresses provided by the Commission. For portions designated as back

26 wages, Defendants shall be responsible for the employer's share of any

27 applicable to payments under this Decree. Defendants will pay all payroll taxes

28

-7-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 8 of 29

they owe on the back wages for the tax year during which payment is made, and

2 deduct the additional payroll taxes owed by each Class Member.

3

19. Defendants shall prepare and distribute tax reporting forms to the

4 Class Members who receive payment under this Decree: I.R.S. form W-2 for the

5 back wages, and I.R.S. form 1099 for the compensatory damages.

6

20. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of the check,

7 Defendants shall submit a copy of check and all related correspondence to Mary

8 Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300

9 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

10

21. Defendants shall not condition the Class Members' receipt of monies

II pursuant to this Decree upon the Class Members' agreement to (a) maintain as

12 confidential the terms of the decree, (b) waive their statutory right to file

13 additional charges of discrimination with any federal or state anti-discrimination

14 agency, or (c) waive their right to apply for a position with the Defendant.

15

VII. AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF

16

Notices

17

22. Within sixty (60) days of Entry of this Decree, Defendants shal

18 conspicuously post the Notice of Final Approval of Settlement attached hereto a

19 Attachment B, in locations where all other employee-related notices are posted,

20 at all facilities in Phoenix, Arizona where employees of the Enrollmen

21 Department at Online work.

22

23. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendants shall

23 conduct Initial Orientation regarding the Consent Decree as part of its required

24 EEO training of all management and supervisory officials in the Enrollment

25 Department at Online with authority to make hiring, promotion recommendations

26 and or decisions, assign or reassign leads, approve or disapprove tuition

27 waivers, and make or recommend disciplinary actions up to and including

28 terminations; and Employee Relations employees whose responsibilities include

-8-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 9 of 29

the Enrollment Department employees at Online, about the terms and conditions

2 of the Decree, its EEO Policy and of the Zero Tolerance Policy, which is attached

3 as Attachment C. At this initial orientation and training session, Defendants in

4 the persons of the highest ranking management official of the Online Division and

5 the head of the Human Resources Department shall inform all attendees that any

6 breach of, or failure to comply with, the terms and conditions set forth in this

7 Decree, its EEO Policy, or the Zero Tolerance Policy shall subject them to

8 dismissal or other appropriate disciplinary action. This training may be delivered

9 by webcast or by closed-circuit presentation and Defendants shall maintain an 10 electronic registry of attendance.

II

24. Within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this Decree, Defendant

12 shall send an individualized "zero tolerance" notice to all supervisors, manager

13 and Employee Relations personnel in the Enrollment Department at Online,

14 which will state that, if any complaint of LDS favoritism or discrimination agains

15 non-LDS employees is substantiated, the member of management who engaged

16 in the favoritism or discrimination, will be immediately terminated. The Zer

17 Tolerance Notice is attached as Attachment C.

18

Letters of Reference

19

25. In response to any third party inquiries, Defendants will provide

20 Class Members with nothing less than a neutral reference.

21

26. Defendants shall provide to all Charging Parties and Intervenors at

22 least a neutral letter of reference in the form attached hereto as Attachment D.

23 For any Charging Parties and/or Intervenors who received nothing less than a

24 "Meets Expectations" performance evaluation and never received any written

25 discipline, Defendants shall note this satisfactory performance in their letter.

26

Letters of Apology

27

27. Defendants shall execute and deliver a letter of apology attached

28 hereto as Attachment E to all Charging Parties and Intervenors.

-9-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 10 of 29

Tuition Waiver

2

28. Defendants will provide Intervenor Shelly Chambers Thompson with

3 a tuition waiver to complete her Bachelor's Degree at the University of Phoenix,

4 Online Campus. Ms. Thompson will enroll in the University within six (6) months

5 of the entry of this Decree, maintain continuous enrollment, and comply with all

6 other standard student guidelines.

7

Training

8

29. Within sixty (60) days of Entry of this Decree, Defendants shall

9 select a qualified and competent trainer, who will be agreed upon by the EEOC.

10 Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the entry of this Decree, the

11 proposed trainer shall submit to the EEOC a proposed equal employment

12 opportunity ("EEO") training program for new employees, non-supervisory

13 employees, and supervisory employees working in the Enrollment Department at

14 Online, and Employee Relations employees supporting the Enrollment

15 Department at Online. Each training program will include the following

16 information: (a) a detailed agenda; (b) curriculum vitae(s) for the individual(s)

17 who will conduct the training; (c) a copy of the materials to be handed out at the

18 training, (d) a plan to ensure that all employees receive the required training.

19

30. During each of the four (4) years in which this Decree is in effect,

20 web-based interactive training seminars shall be provided to all of the employees

21 of the Enrollment Department at Online, both managers, non-managers, and

22 Employee Relations employees who support the Enrollment Department at

23 Online. The web-based interactive seminars will be recorded for potential use in

24 SUbsequent years' training. The training shall be of the following durations:

25

(a) Defendants will provide non-supervisory employees at least

26

one (1) hour of EEO training, focusing on religious discrimination and

27

retaliation.

28

(b) Defendants will provide management employees at least one

-10-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 11 of 29

and one-half (1Y2) hours of EEO training. The Commission shall have the

2

right to attend and participate in this training, focusing on religious

3

discrimination and retaliation and how to identify complaints and to process

4

EEO complaints.

5

(c) Defendants will provide Employee Relations employees who

6

support the Enrollment Department at Online at least three (3) hours of

7

EEO training, focusing on religious discrimination and retaliation and how

8

to identify complaints and how to investigate EEO complaints.

9

31. With regard to new employees hired in the period between the

10 annual training sessions, the following shall apply.

II

(a) Defendants will provide non-supervisory employees at least

12

one (1) hour of EEO training, focusing on religious discrimination and

13

retaliation, within thirty (30) days of hire, and on an annual basis thereafter.

14

This training may be by webcast purchased from an outside vendor,

15

including a copy of the recorded presentation referenced above.

16

(b) Defendants will provide management employees at least one

17

and one-half (1Y2) hours of EEO training within thirty (30) days of hire or

18

promotion into a supervisory position, and on an annual basis thereafter.

19

This training may be by webcast purchased from an outside vendor,

20

including a copy of the recorded presentation referenced above. The

21

Commission shall have the right to attend and participate in this training.

22

(c) Defendants will provide Employee Relations employees who

23

support the Enrollment Department at Online at least three (3) hours of

24

EEO training, focusing on religious discrimination and retaliation, within

25

thirty (30) days of hire or promotion into an Employee Relations position,

26

and on an annual basis thereafter. This training may be by webcast

27

purchased from an outside vendor, including a copy of the recorded

28

presentation referenced above. The Commission shall have the right to

-11-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 12 of 29

attend and participate in this training.

2

32. Defendants shall maintain an electronic registry of attendance for

3 each training, along with a current employee list by position and title, and keep

4 these records for the duration of the Decree.

5

33. At a minimum, the EEO training programs shall include the following:

6

(a) instruction on the requirements of all applicable equal

7

employment opportunity laws including, but not limited to Title VII of the

8

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, with particular focus on religious

9

discrimination and retaliation.

10

(b) a review of Defendants' non-discrimination employment

II

policies and procedures and its Zero Tolerance policy as described in

12

Paragraph 26, infra, and of the specific requirements of this Decree, with

13

particular emphasis on the complaint procedures and prohibitions on

14

religious discrimination and retaliation in Paragraphs 35-40 and the

15

Notices referenced in Paragraphs 24-26.

16

(c) training for supervisory, management, and human resource

17

employees shall include instruction on the proper procedures for

18

responding to employee complaints of discrimination, including but not

19

limited to how to investigate complaints of discrimination if doing so is

20

within the person's job duties.

21

(d) a strong statement about its Zero Tolerance policy shall be

22

made at every training by the highest level Online management official,

23

who will attend in person and who will emphasize the Company's

24

prohibition of any religious discrimination and consequences of violating

25

this prohibition.

26

Adoption of Effective EEO Policies and Procedures

27

34. Within ninety (90) days of the date of entry of this Decree,

28 Defendants' Corporate Human Resources ("HR") Officials shall review

-12-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 13 of 29

Defendants' existing equal employment opportunity policies and procedures,

2 including policies proscribing religious discrimination and retaliation and develop

3 and implement new and/or revised policies and provisions to ensure equal

4 employment opportunities are afforded to all employees regardless of their

5 religion. Defendants' written policies must include, at a minimum:

6

a. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of religiou

7

discrimination and retaliation;

8

b. A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe

9

they have been discriminated or retaliated against to come forward;

10

c. A description of the consequences, up to and including

11

termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy;

12

d. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they

13

have been discriminated against and for witnesses of discrimination;

14

e. That discrimination or retaliation, by anyone, including

15

management officials, supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and

16

customers, is prohibited and will not be tolerated;

17

f. The identification of a phone number and email address wher

18

employees who believe they have been subjected to discrimination can

19

report the discrimination and who have the authority to investigate

20

allegations of discrimination in a neutral and confidential (to the extent

21

practicable) manner;

22

g. A written statement that an employee may report the

23

discrimination to a designated person outside of his or her chain of

24

management should the complainant believe managers in the chain of

25

command have a conflict of interest, are implicated in the allegations, or

26

may not adequately investigate the complaint; and

27

h. Assurances that Defendants will investigate allegations of

28

discrimination, promptly, fairly, reasonably and effectively by appropriate

-13-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 14 of 29

investigators and that appropriate corrective action will be taken by

2

Defendants to make victims whole and to eradicate the discrimination.

3 These policies shall be added to the Apollo Group Employee Handbook as pa

4 of its next regularly scheduled revision, currently scheduled for January 2009.

5

35. In addition, Defendants shall review its policies and procedures t

6 guard against religious discrimination in (a) promotions; (b) assignment of leads;

7 (c) discipline and discharge; (d) tuition benefits, (e) other terms and conditions 0

8 employment, and (f) terminations. Said policies and procedures shall b

9 reviewed and approved or modified by the Diversity Officer within one hundred

10 twenty days from the date of entry of this Decree.

II

36. Defendants will ensure that within sixty (60) days of the entry of thi

12 Decree, Corporate Human Resources will specially assign and train at least on

13 Employee Relations Manager and four (4) University of Phoenix Onlin

14 Employee Relations' Representatives regarding handling of allegations and

15 complaints of religious discrimination and violations of the Zero Tolerance Policy.

16

37. Defendants will ensure that Corporate Human Resources will

17 immediately and appropriately investigate all such complaints and provid

18 complainants with written acknowledgment any such complaint.

19

38. Defendants will take appropriate remedial measures up to and

20 including terminating supervisors or managers found to have engaged in

21 religious discrimination or retaliation based upon information obtained in an 22 resulting investigation.

23

39. Defendants will retain all records regarding the adoption,

24 implementation, and revision of EEO policies and procedures.

25
Management Evaluation and Compensation

26

Incorporating EEO Compliance

27
40. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendants shall
28

-14-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 15 of 29

develop and implement a written management evaluation and compensation

2 system which includes EEO compliance and compliance with this Decree as

3 factors for evaluating manager performance in the Enrollment Department at 4 Online.

5

Consent Decree Diversity Officer

6

41. Appointment of Diversity Officer- By the effective date of this Decree,

7 Defendants and EEOC will agree upon a Consent Decree Diversity Officer to 8 oversee the implementation by Defendants of the terms of this Decree. The

9 Diversity Officer will have broad powers to effectuate the purposes and enforce

10 the terms of this Decree, including but not limited to authority to retain experts to

11 obtain professional opinions, reports, or studies as the Diversity Officer deems 12 necessary to carry out his/her responsibilities.

13

42. Replacement of Diversity Officer- In the event the Diversity Officer i

14 unable or unwilling to continue to serve, the Parties shall jointly select a new

15 Diversity Officer.

16

43. Resolving Disputes Over Diversity Officer Appointment - If, however,

17 the EEOC and Defendants cannot agree upon a Diversity Officer by the Effective

18 Date of this Decree or within thirty days following the notification of a need to

19 replace the Diversity Officer, the EEOC shall provide Defendants with a list of at

20 least three candidates, from which list Defendants shall select the Diversity

21 Officer. If no one on the EEOC's list is acceptable to Defendants, Defendants 22 may ask the EEOC to provide another list.

23

44. Staffinq- Defendants shall provide the Diversity Officer adequate

24 staff to complete all of the requirements of this Decree.

25

45. Cooperation - The Diversity Officer shall, to the maximum extent

26 practicable and consistent with the Diversity Officer's obligations, work

27 cooperatively with Defendants so as not to unduly interfere with Defendants'

28

-15-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 16 of 29

operations. Defendants shall cooperate with the Diversity Officer to the

2 maximum extent practicable.

3

46. Access to Region, Premises, Employees, and Information - The

4 Diversity Officer shall have reasonable access to relevant documents and other

5 sources of information necessary to exercise his or her duties under this Decree.

6 Such documents and other sources of information shall include:

7

(a) All records documenting disciplinary actions taken during the

8

reporting period, including documents supporting the discipline,

9

investigative records, and records reflecting the decision-making process;

10

(b) All records documenting handling of employee complaints of

II

religious discrimination or retaliation made during the reporting period,

12

including any records of the complaint; any investigative records, including

13

notes of witness interviews, records gathered, investigative reports or

14

recommendations; records reflecting what, if any, remedial steps were

15

taken as a result of the complaint; and any records documenting the

16

decision-making process;

17

(c) A list of employees during the reporting period and records

18

that reflect attendance at all the EEO training required in Paragraphs 29-

19

33, above;

20

(d) Documents that reflect all of the positions, including the

21

management positions, at University of Phoenix Online filled during the

22

reporting period either by new hire or promotion, including job posting,

23

applications received, name and religious affiliation of the person selected

24

for the position, names of all decision-makers involved in the selection, and

25

any records documenting the qualifications of the selectee and the

26

decision-making process;

27

(e) Copies of any EEO policies and or procedures revised during

28

the reporting period to implement or meet the objectives of the Consent

-16-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 17 of 29

Decree;

2

(f) The reports of the lead distribution and redistributions and

3

tuition waiver denial and withdrawals.

4

The Diversity Officer and the EEOC shall have reasonable access to

5 review all non-privileged records maintained by Defendants relating to the

6 implementation or administration of this Decree.

7

47. Diversity Officer Responsibilities. During the term of the Decree, the

8 Diversity Officer will have the following responsibilities to be completed at least

9 every six months, unless otherwise noted:

IO

(a) Evaluate whether Defendants have taken appropriate and

11

reasonable action to protect non-LDS employees from religious

12

discrimination and retaliation;

13

(b) Review records documenting employee complaints of

14

discrimination or harassment based on religion, including oral and written

15

complaints, charges of discrimination, and investigative records relating to

16

such complaints.

17

(c) Review and analyze the data regarding hiring, discipline, and

18

promotions to management positions to determine whether University of

19

Phoenix Online is making progress in hiring and promoting non-LOS

20

employees in a nondiscriminatory manner.

21

(d) Review all hiring and management-level promotion decisions

22

to analyze in depth the selection process for potentially discriminatory

23

decision-making.

24

(e) Meet with University of Phoenix Online's President at least

25

quarterly to make recommendations regarding compliance with this Decree

26

and other EEO matters;

27

(f) Assist in review and revision of existing employment policies

28

and procedures;

-17-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 18 of 29

(g) Review the University of Phoenix Online's policies and

2

procedures related to distribution and redistribution of lead data, as

3

discussed in Paragraphs 49-50 below, and the data regarding the

4

distribution and redistribution of leads to make any further

5

recommendations to ensure that it is being done impartially without regard

6

to religion;

7

(h) Review the University of Phoenix Online's tuition waiver

8

policies and procedures and all denials and withdrawals, as set forth in

9

Paragraphs 50-52 below and make any further recommendations;

10

(i) Review and ensure the recruiting, screening, and selection of

11

all positions, including management positions in the Online Division all

12

done without discrimination.

13

(j) In combination with the Reporting required under Section VII

14

below, report to the EEOC every six months on all of its activities,

15

observations and recommendations about further conduct by Defendants,

16

if any.

17

48. In combination with the first semi-annual Report required under

18 Section VII below, the Defendants shall ensure that the Diversity Officer shall

19 provide to the EEOC with the following:

20

(a) a status report on the project to review and revise existing

21

policies as necessary to ensure equal employment opportunities, as

22

required in Paragraphs 34-39 above;

23

(b) proposed EEO training programs, as required in Paragraphs

24

29-33, above; and

25

(c) the location(s) and dates of the posting of the Notice required

26

in Paragraph 23, above;

27

(d) the dates and certification of the hand delivery of the Notices

28

required in Paragraph 25, above;

-18-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 19 of 29

(e) any and all revisions to the University of Phoenix Online's lead

2

distributions and tuition waivers policies and procedures, as explained in

3

Paragraphs 48-52 below.

4

49. No later than thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled training, as

5 required under Paragraphs 29-33, above, Defendants shall inform the EEOC and

6 the Diversity Officer of the date, time, and location when the training is scheduled 7 to be conducted.

8

Hiring and Promotions Procedures

9

50. For the duration of the Decree, the Corporate Human Resource

10 Department shall review and oversee the filling of all hiring and promotiona

11 opportunities at the University of Phoenix Online.

12

51. For the duration of the Decree, the Corporate Human Resource

13 Department shall be responsible for ensuring that all Enrollment Departmen

14 hiring and promotional opportunities are appropriately posted and/or advertised.

15

52. For the duration of the Decree, the Corporate Human Resource

16 Department shall be responsible for identifying the most qualified candidates fo

17 hiring and promotion and referring these candidates to the hiring manager(s) fo 18 selection.

19

53. For the duration of the Decree, Defendants shall maintain all record

20 of all University of Phoenix applicants/candidates considered for hiring and 21 promotion.

22

54. For the duration of this Decree, Defendants shall make all hiring and

23 promotion decisions in a non-discriminatory manner without regard to religion.

24
Review and Monitoring of Lead Distribution by

25

Diversity Officer

26
55. The Diversity Officer shall review the lead distribution an
27
redistribution process at the University of Phoenix Online to assess whether th
28

-19-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 20 of 29

lead distribution and redistribution is being made impartially without regard t

2 religion. The Diversity Officer shall ensure that all leads are being distributed and

3 re-distributed without regard to any employee's religion and consistent with th

4 Company's published policies and procedures, which shall be based solely on

5 legitimate business-related factors.

6

56. The Diversity Officer shall have all access to Defendants' lead

7 information and personnel necessary to ensure the foregoing. The Diversit

8 Officer shall review and approve all distribution policies and procedures to ensur

9 that the lead distribution and redistribution be done in a non-discriminator

10 manner. The Diversity Officer shall review lead distribution and redistribution n

11 less than every six months for the entire term of the Decree.

12
Review and Monitoring of Tuition Waivers by

13

Diversity Officer and Corporate Human Resources

14

57. The Diversity Officer shall review the policies and procedures fo

15 approval and denial of tuition waiver requests, and make recommendations t

16 Defendants and the EEOC about any necessary changes in the policies and

17 procedures to ensure that the tuition waiver benefit is being made available to all

18 employees on a non-discriminatory basis.

19

58. Within one-hundred twenty (120) days of the date of entry of thi

20 Decree, the Diversity Officer shall review all relevant records to determine if th

21 approval or the denial of tuition waivers is being made impartially without regard

22 to religion. The Diversity Officer shall have all access to Defendants' tuition

23 waiver information and personnel necessary to make this assessment. Th

24 Diversity Officer shall include in the reports required herein the results of th

25 foregoing review.

26

59. All Online Enrollment Counselors will be subject to the same formall

27 announced policies and procedures regarding Tuition Waivers. Unles

28 Defendants elect to change their Tuition Waiver policy for all Online Enrollmen

-20-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 21 of 29

Counselors, all Enrollment Counselors will become eligible for the Tuition Waive

2 immediately upon hire. No Enrollment Counselor will be denied or lose thei

3 Tuition Waiver benefit unless: (1) that action is totally consistent with the policie

4 and practices then in place for all Online Enrollment Counselors; and (2) tha

5 action has been reviewed and approved in advance by Corporate Human

6 Resources and/or the Diversity Officer. A record of the basis of the decision shall

7 be created and retained by Defendants.

8

VII. REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING

9

60. For the duration of the Decree, Defendants agree to maintain such

10 records as are necessary to demonstrate their compliance with this Decree and

11 verify that the reports submitted are accurate, including but not limited to the

12 documents specifically identified below.

13

61. For the four (4) years in which the Decree is in effect, Defendants

14 shall retain the following hard-copy and computer records and the EEOC shall

15 have access to the information with reasonable advance written notice:

16

(a) all personnel files including all hiring, performance appraisals,

17

promotions, tuition waivers, discipline, lead distributions and

18

redistributions, and termination records;

19

(b) all complaints of discrimination or favoritism based upon

20

religion and all records of the investigation of those complaints;

21

(c) all complaints of retaliation prohibited by statutes enforced by

22

the EEOC, and all records of the investigation of those complaints;

23

(d) all records reflecting the transfer or redistribution of leads from

24

one Enrollment Counselor to another as well as records that reflect any

25

lead assigned to an Enrollment Counselor by an Enrollment Manager or

26

any other Defendant supervisor and/or management official;

27

(e) all records of employee discipline and discharge, including an

28

investigative records supporting the decision;

-21-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 22 of 29

(f) all records of hiring and promotions, including the position

2

announcements, the names of the candidates for the position, the name of

3

the person selected for the position, and any records relied upon

4

Defendant in making their selection.

5

(g) all records relating to all denials and withdrawals of the tuition

6

waiver benefits.

7

VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF CONSENT DECREE

8

62. It is expressly agreed that if EEOC concludes that Defendants have

9 breached this Consent Decree, EEOC may initiate a lawsuit in this Court, after

10 complying with the informal resolution procedures set forth in Paragraphs 63-66, 11 below.

12

63. Prior to initiating an action to enforce the Decree, the Commission

13 shall provide written notice ("Notice of Dispute") to Defendants of the nature of

14 the dispute. This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) believed to have

15 been breached and a statement of the issues in dispute. The notice may also

16 include a reasonable request for documents or information relevant to the

17 dispute. Service of the Notice of Dispute and any Responses shall be made by

18 hand-delivery, facsimile transmission, or electronic mail.

19

64. Within fourteen (14) days after service of the Notice of Dispute,

20 Defendants shall provide a written response and provide the requested

21 documents or information.

22

65. After service of the Responses, the Parties will schedule a telephone

23 or in-person meeting to attempt to resolve the dispute.

24

66. If the dispute has not been resolved within forty-five (45) days after

25 service of the Notice of Dispute, an action to enforce the Decree may be brought 26 in this Court.

27

IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

28

67. The Commission and Defendants agree to take all steps that may be

-22-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 23 of 29

necessary to fully effectuate the terms of this Decree.

2

68. Each party shall be responsible for and shall pay its own costs and

3 attorney's fees as of the date the Parties execute this Consent Decree, except as

4 noted in Paragraph 16, above.

5

X. SIGNATURES

6

Approve as to form and content:

7 MARY JO O'NEILL 8 Regional Attorney

9 SALLY C. SHANLEY 10 Supervisory Trial Attorney

II U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 12 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Phoenix District Office
!/ 13 33.. 00... N. Centr.al Ave., SUite 690 /)
14 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
15 {L~Jli/

::.~~

(

\

/

20

21

:: Attorney for In\~~~:~

\

-.

24

25

26

27

28

Attorneys for Defendant University of Phoenix, Inc.
JvdAJ~~~
APOIIO(oup
9163068.2

-23-

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 24 of 29
ATTACHEMENT A – FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 25 of 29

ATTACHMENT B

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF Apollo Group and University of Phoenix

This Notice is being posted in part as a result of a Court Order and Consent Decree in the case, EEOC v. Apollo Group and University of Phoenix, CIV 062303-PHX-MHM. The EEOC sued Apollo Group and University of Phoenix alleging religious discrimination based on the fact that certain employees were non-LDS. The EEOC also alleged the Apollo Group and University of Phoenix retaliated against certain employees because they opposed the religious discrimination. Apollo Group and University of Phoenix deny these allegations. The EEOC and Apollo have agreed to the entry of the above-referenced Court Order and Consent Decree.

This Notice is also being posted as a result of conciliation agreements entered into by the EEOC and Apollo Group.

It is unlawful under federal law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of religion--by preferring an employee in any way because his/ her religion or by treating an employee worse because he/ she does not belong to a certain religion.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC.

Apollo Group and University of Phoenix will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of religion or any other protected category (ethnicity, race, national origin, gender, age, disability and veteran status) and will not retaliate against any employee.

If you believe you have been discriminated against by Apollo Group and University of Phoenix based upon your religion, you should immediately contact one of the following Senior Employee Relations Consultants in the Human Resources Department:

1.

April Alcorn – (602) 557-1086

2.

Beata Buddukiewicz – (602) 557-1360

3.

William Posey – (602) 557-1626

4. Diane Hoogesteger – (602) 557-3040

9193133.1

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 26 of 29
Whether you do or do not contact the Employee Relations Department, you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 640-5000; or
(2) Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD) of the Attorney General's Office, 1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007, (602) 255-5263.
or have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you believe you are being discriminated against. No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Apollo Group or University of Phoenix for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal law, (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination, or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the ACRD and the address or telephone numbers listed above.

Dated:

____

___________________________________
Diane Thompson, Chief Human Resources Officer

DO NOT DEFACE OR TAKE DOWN

9193133.1

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 27 of 29

ATTACHMENT C

FORM OF ZERO TOLERANCE NOTICE

Any form of religious di scrimination or favoritism has long been prohibited by feder al law (Title VII of the Civil Ri ghts Act of 1964), Ar izona stat e law (the Arizona civil Rights Act), as well as by Apollo cor porate personnel policy. Apollo and the Uni versity of Ph oenix are now subject to a federal Court Order and Consent Decree expr essly pr ohibiting any for m of relig ious disc rimination or favoritism at its Onli ne Divi sion. An y vi olation of this Court Order subjects t he violator, and Apollo, to bei ng held i n co ntempt of court by the Feder al Distri ct Court of Arizona.

For

these reasons, Apollo has put in pl ace a “Zero Tolerance” Policy at its

Online Division. Pursuant to this Policy, if any super visor or manager at Online

has a complai nt of religious discriminati on or f avoritism against hi m or her

substantiated, that supervisor or manager will be immediately terminated from

employment with the Apollo Group.

Training regarding this Zero Tolerance Policy w ill be conducted at Online in the near future. Also, pursuant to the Court’s Order, Online Super visors and Managers will have their job performance evaluated at least annually on the ir overall compliance with Ap ollo’s Equal Employment Opportunity pers onnel policies and the terms of the Court Order and Consent Decree.

Vince Grell [Title]

Diane Thompson [Title]

9192314.1

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 28 of 29

ATTACHMENT D [Date] Dear Employer,
[Name] was an em ployee of the University of Phoenix from [D ate] until [Date]. He/she last served in the position of Enrollment Counselor and was a full time regular employee.
The University of Phoenix prides itself on encouraging professional excellence through training and example, and we hope you find this candidate suitable for your needs.
Sincerely,

VP/Director

Tracy Bonjean of Employee Services

9189864.1

Case 2:06-cv-02303-MHM Document 344 Filed 11/07/08 Page 29 of 29

[Date]

ATTACHMENT E

[Employee] [address] [address]
Re: University of Phoenix
Dear [Name]:
On behalf of the University of Phoenix and myself personally, I wish to express my sincere apology that some aspects of your experience while employed at the University of Phoenix failed to meet your expectations. In particular, I am sorry that you believe that your religious beliefs may have been taken into consideration regarding various aspects of your employment.
Thank you for the contributions you made while employed at the University of Phoenix and we wish you nothing but success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,

Diane L. Thompson Chief Human Resources Officer

9189864.1

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 1 of 24
CLOSED,PROTO,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−02303−MHM

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Phoenix, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Mary H Murguia Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/25/2006 Date Terminated: 11/07/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Katherine J Kruse EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5029 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Joleen O'Neill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5044 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5007 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J Padegimas EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5061 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 09/19/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucila G Rosas EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−640−5025

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 2 of 24
Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Darry Thornton
Intervenor Plaintiff Falonia Edenburgs
Intervenor Plaintiff Francine Muscianisi
Intervenor Plaintiff Alysia Polk
Intervenor Plaintiff Morseller Ector TERMINATED: 05/02/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Jennifer Hallman TERMINATED: 05/02/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Mark Ector TERMINATED: 05/02/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Shelley Thompson

represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells Kirtley Wells Law Office 3800 N Central Ave., Ste. 615 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−264−7424 Fax: 866−743−4332 Email: tk@kwlolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
University of Phoenix Incorporated an Arizona corporation

represented by William R Hayden Snell &Wilmer LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 3 of 24

Phoenix, AZ 85004−2202 602−382−6000 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: bhayden@swlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian J Foster Snell &Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Ctr 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−0001 602−382−6000 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: bfoster@swlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Robert Woodard Snell &Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Ctr 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−0001 602−382−6000 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: jwoodard@swlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Drew Mitchell Snell &Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Ctr 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−0001 602−382−6000 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: mmitchell@swlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2007

Defendant Apollo Group Incorporated

represented by Brian J Foster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Robert Woodard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Hayden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mark Ector

Date Filed 09/25/2006
09/25/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
2 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Earl H Carroll. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06−2303−PHX−EHC. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (PEM) (Entered: 09/27/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 4 of 24

09/27/2006 11/30/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006 12/15/2006
01/12/2007 01/17/2007 02/06/2007 02/15/2007
02/20/2007 02/22/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007 03/02/2007 03/20/2007 04/12/2007

3 Summons Issued as to University of Phoenix, Inc.. (PEM) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. University of Phoenix, Inc. served on 11/21/2006, answer due 12/11/2006. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by University of Phoenix, Inc..(Mitchell, Matthew) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Mitchell, Matthew) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
7 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. The undersigned hereby recuses himself from furtherparticipation in the above−entitled case and the case is reassigned to Judge Mary H. Murguia, by random draw. Future pleadings filed in this case shall bear the new case number: CIV 06−2303−PHX−MHM. Case reassigned to Judge Mary H Murguia for all further proceedings. Judge Earl H Carroll no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 12/14/06. (KMG) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
8 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE − Scheduling Conference is set for 2/15/2007 04:00 PM before Judge Mary H Murguia. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 1/10/07. (KMG) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
9 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Brian J Foster, William R Hayden, Joshua Robert Woodard adding William R Hayden and Brian J Foster for University of Phoenix, Inc., Joshua Robert Woodard and Brian J Foster for University of Phoenix, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
10 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Appearances: Katherine Kruse for the plaintiff. Brian Foster and Joshua Woodard for the defendants. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on 2/15/07. Discussion held regarding the scope of discovery and whether or not it should be limited to the employees identified in the action. The Court DIRECTS counsel to confer on the issues. If the parties are unable to resolve them, counsel is granted leave to request the Court's assistance. The Court FURTHER DIRECTS plaintiff's counsel to submit a revised proposed scheduling order incorporating the deadlines set this date. Once the issues are addressed regarding the scope of the class, the Court requests counsel notify the Court as to when an appropriate time would be to refer this matter to a magistrate judge for settlement conference. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
12 Notice re Submission of Revised Rule 16 Proposed Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 11 Scheduling Conference,,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/18/2008. Dispositive motions due by 2/22/2008. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 02/21/07. (MHM) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
14 Notice re Service of Defendant's Initial Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
15 Notice re Service of Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
16 Notice re Service of First Request for Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
17 Notice re Service of Discovery Papers by University of Phoenix, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
18 Notice re Notice of Service by University of Phoenix, Inc. of Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 5 of 24

04/18/2007 04/18/2007 04/18/2007 04/26/2007 04/26/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/23/2007 06/11/2007 06/13/2007
06/14/2007 06/18/2007 07/13/2007

19 STIPULATION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Proposed Amended Complaint Showing Additions and Deletions# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
20 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Stipulation to Amend Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Proposed Amended Complaint showing additions and deletions# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
21 LODGED Proposed First Amended Complaint re: 20 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Stipulation to Amend Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
22 ORDER granting leave to file the First Amended Complaint lodged separately on this date. The Clerk shall file the lodged First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 4/25/07. (KMG, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Apollo Group, Inc., and University of Phoenix, Inc.; Jury Demand, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(KMG) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
24 Notice re Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
25 Notice re Service of Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
26 NOTICE of Deposition of William J. Davis, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
27 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc..(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
28 NOTICE of Deposition of William J. Davis, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
29 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for Discovery Dispute Hearing on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia, at which time counsel shall appear in person. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Katherine Kruse and Sandra Padegimas for the plaintiff. Brian Foster and Joshua Woodard for the defendant. Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 6/13/07. Counsel argue their positions to the Court. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's request in part. The Court DIRECTS counsel to meet and confer regarding contact information involving certain on−line department individuals that may not have been given that should have been given. Defendant shall provide the information of all the managers who worked in the online division while the charged parties were working at the University of Phoenix. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff not to contact these managers. The Court DIRECTS that once the EEOC identifies a manager who engaged in preferential treatment, Defendant is directed to provide the names of the enrollment counselors who reported to that manager or enrollment managers who directly report to that manager at the time of the identified preferential treatment. [This is a TEXT ONLY entry. There is no.pdf documents attached.](KSP) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
30 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Apollo Group, Inc. for proceedings held on 6/13/2007 before Judge Mary H. Muruia. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
32 TRANSCRIPT of Motion to Compel Proceedings held on 6/13/07 before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn A Sanchez. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
33 NOTICE of Deposition of William J. Davis, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 6 of 24

08/13/2007 09/13/2007
09/14/2007 09/14/2007
09/19/2007
09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/27/2007
10/05/2007 10/12/2007 10/18/2007 10/23/2007 10/28/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 11/05/2007 11/08/2007

34 Notice re Service of Defendants' First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
35 STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO THE EEOC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' First Amended Answer to the EEOC's First Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulation to File First Amended Answer to the EEOC's First Amended Complaint)(Foster, Brian) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
36 NOTICE of Deposition of Darry Thornton, filed by all defendants. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Expert Discovery (Deadlines) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
38 ORDER re 35 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants may file a First Amended Answer to the EEOC's First Amended Complaint in the form attached to the Stipulation filed by the parties. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 09/18/07. (MHM) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
39 Defendants' First Amended Answer to the EEOC's First Amended Compaint ANSWER to Amended Complaint by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc..(Foster, Brian) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
40 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time as to Expert Discovery Deadlines.. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/18/07.(KMG) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
41 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Telephonic Appearances: Brian Foster and Patricia Kirtley. Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 9/27/07. IT IS ORDERED denying the request to continue the deposition. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
42 Notice re Service of Defendants' Second Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
43 MOTION to Intervene by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
44 MOTION to Intervene by Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Intervener Complaint)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
45 Notice re Service of Third Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
46 MOTION to Intervene by Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, Jennifer Hallman. (Attachments: # 1)(Kirtley, Patricia) Modified 10/29/07 to reverse docs (KMG). (Entered: 10/28/2007)
47 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 MOTION to Intervene, 43 MOTION to Intervene, 44 MOTION to Intervene filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
48 RESPONSE in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Intervene As A Plaintiff filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 MOTION to Intervene, 44 MOTION to Intervene filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
50 Notice re PLAINTIFF EEOC'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(A)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Equal

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 7 of 24

11/09/2007 11/12/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007
11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/11/2007
12/11/2007 12/11/2007
12/13/2007
12/13/2007

Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
51 REPLY in Support re 43 MOTION to Intervene filed by Darry Thornton. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
52 NOTICE of Deposition of Robert Lein, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 11/12/2007)
53 Notice re Service of Defendants' First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
54 REPLY in Support re 46 MOTION to Intervene, 44 MOTION to Intervene filed by Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Mark Ector. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
55 Notice re Service of Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
56 Notice re Service of Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories and Second and Third Requests for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
57 Notice re Service of Defendants' Third Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
58 Notice re of Service of Fourth Request For Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
59 Notice re Service of Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
60 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Shelley Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
61 Notice re Service of Sixth Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
62 First MOTION for Extension of Time To Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
63 ORDER − Upon 62 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) Discovery shall close on May 30, 2008; and (2) Dispositive motions shall be due on June 27, 2008. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 12/10/07.(SAT) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
64 Notice re Service of Defendants' (Revised) Fourth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
65 STIPULATION to Extend Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
66 ORDER re 65 STIPULATION − Extending the deadline for Dft to disclose expert witnesses from December 14, 2007 to March 14, 2008; and Extending the deadline for Pla to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses, if any, from January 4, 2008 to April 25, 2008. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 12/12/07. (KMG) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
67 RESPONSE to Motion re 60 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 8 of 24

12/14/2007 12/18/2007 01/11/2008 01/15/2008 01/17/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008 01/31/2008 02/07/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/15/2008 02/21/2008
02/22/2008
02/26/2008

68 NOTICE of Deposition of Wesley Jueckstock, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
69 NOTICE of Deposition of Karen Matthews, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
70 Notice re Service of Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Fourth Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
71 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 6/13/2007 before Judge Mary H. Murguia. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
72 NOTICE of Deposition of Wayne Foraker, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
73 NOTICE of Deposition of Karen Matthews, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
74 NOTICE of Deposition of Darlene Jones, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
75 NOTICE of Deposition of Shanita Patterson, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
76 NOTICE of Deposition of Patricia Reed, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
77 NOTICE of Deposition of Phyllis Stewart, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
78 NOTICE of Deposition of Wayne Foraker, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
79 Notice re of Service of First Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
80 Notice re of Service of First Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's Second Set of Request For Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
81 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
82 Notice re Service of Defendants' Fifth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
83 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time EEOC TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS PLEADING ENTITLED MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIMS ASSERTED OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (JOINT MOTION) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
84 ORDER re 83 IT IS ORDERED granting the parties' Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for EEOC to Respond to Defendants' Pleading entitled Motion to Strike Claims Asserted or Alternatively Motion for Declaratory Judgment. The response deadline is extended from February 29, 2008 to March 7, 2008. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 02/21/08. (MHM) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
85 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted on Behalf of "Class Members' Wesley Jueckstock and Phyllis Stewart or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−F)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 9 of 24

03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/12/2008 03/12/2008
03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/21/2008
03/24/2008 03/25/2008
03/26/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008

86 RESPONSE in Opposition re 81 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
87 NOTICE of Appearance by Lucila G Rosas on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
88 NOTICE of Deposition of Shanita Patterson (to be held 3/28/08), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted on Behalf of "Class Members' Wesley Jueckstock and Phyllis Stewart or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
90 Notice re Service of Seventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
91 Notice of ERRATA by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 86 Response in Opposition to Motion (Kruse, Katherine) Modified on 3/14/2008 INCORRECT DOCUMENT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM (Notice) TO (Errata) (REW, ). (Entered: 03/13/2008)
92 Notice re Service of Expert Disclosure by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
93 REPLY in Support re 81 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
94 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia. Counsel shall facilitate a conference call and contact chambers at 602−322−7580. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
95 REPLY in Support re 85 MOTION to Strike Claims Asserted on Behalf of "Class Members' Wesley Jueckstock and Phyllis Stewart or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Telephonic Appearances: Katherine Kruse for Plaintiff; Patricia Kirtley for potential Intervenor, Darry Thornton; Brian Foster for Defendant. Telephonic discovery dispute hearing held on 3/25/08. Counsel state their positions to the Court. The Court will allow plaintiff to conduct a search as they've described this date. The Court will not require the defendant's to produce all of it in written form. Plaintiff shall conduct a word search via computer that is not limited to the online campus employees, but involves the results of the 2001 cultural survey. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide defense counsel with copies of anything they print out. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.)(KFZ) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
97 NOTICE of Deposition of Shanita Patterson, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
98 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Magpayo, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
99 NOTICE of Deposition of Darlene Jones, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
100 NOTICE of Deposition of Phyllis Stewart, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 10 of 24

04/01/2008 04/03/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/07/2008 04/08/2008
04/08/2008
04/18/2008
04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008

101 Notice re Service Of Defendants Second Set Of Non−Uniform Interrogatories And Third Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
102 Notice re Service of Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
103 NOTICE of Deposition of William Wecker, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
104 Notice re Service of Eighth and Ninth Supplemental Disclosure Statements by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
105 Notice re Withdrawl of Non−Religious Claims For Intervention by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Mark Ector, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
106 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Strike Claims Asserted or, Alternatively, Motion for Declaratory Judgment 81 by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) Modified on 4/9/2008 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM (Supplemental Motion) TO (Supplement) (KMG). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Telephonic Appearances: Katherine Kruse for the plaintiff. Brian Foster for the defendant. Patricia Kirtley for the proposed intervenor. Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 4/8/08. Discussion held. The Court wil allow defense counsel to review the proposed subset and make ay objections that he feels might be appropriate based on what's been discussed this date and based upon the Court's prevous rulings. After his review, the Court DIRECTS Mr. Foster to provide Plaintiff's counsel anything additional by Friday, April 11, 2008 and brief the issue by Monday, April 14, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
108 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for Discovery Dispute Hearing on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
109 RESPONSE re 105 Other Notice (Interveners' Notice of Withdrawl [sic]) by Defendants University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
110 NOTICE of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
111 NOTICE of Deposition of Diane Thompson, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
112 NOTICE of Deposition of Jared Wallentine, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
113 NOTICE of Deposition of Kimball Layton, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
114 NOTICE of Deposition of Todd Nelson, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
115 NOTICE of Deposition of Vince Grell, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
116 NOTICE of Deposition of Wayne Foraker, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
117 NOTICE of Deposition of Wendy Brandt, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 11 of 24

04/18/2008 04/21/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008
04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008
04/29/2008

118 NOTICE of Deposition of Tracy Bonjean, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
119 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Magpayo, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
120 Notice re of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Sixth Request for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
121 Minute Order: To allow the defendants an opportunity to respond to all discovery issues, the Court ORDERS that the Discovery Dispute Hearing currently set on April 23, 2008 be reset to Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia, at which time the Court will address all pending discovery issues. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
122 Notice re Service of Defendants' Third Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
123 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS directing counsel for the proposed interveners to provide the Court with the details about the filing, processing, and termination of intervenor Shelly Chambers Thompson's claim with the EEOC by close of business on Friday, April 25, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
124 NOTICE of Deposition of Phil Draper, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
125 REPORT of Thompson EEOC Claims by Intervenor Plaintiff Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
126 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 Supplemental MOTION to Strike re Motion to Strike [Docket No. 81]Supplemental MOTION to Strike re Motion to Strike [Docket No. 81] filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
127 STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR EEOC TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' PLEADING ENTITLED "MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIMS ASSERTED OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT" by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
128 Notice re Errata by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 127 Stipulation, and Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for EEOC to Respond to Defendants' Pleading Entitled "Motion to Strike Claims Asserted or Alternatively Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
129 STIPULATION and Joint Motion to Take Additional Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
130 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. ECR: Vicki Reger. Appearances: Katherine Kruse and Lucila Rosas for the plaintiff. Brian Foster for the defendant. Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 4/28/08. Discussion held. The Court DIRECTS the Defendant to produce the remaining 250−300 documents requested by the Plaintiff by close of business on Friday, May 2, 2008. The Court FURTHER DIRECTS the Plaintiff to submit a list to the Court of the 15−20 enrollment counselors identified by the EEOC as alleged perpetrators of discrimination, along with the support for the request, by close of business tomorrow, April 29, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
131 Notice re of Service of the Expert Rebuttal Report of Richard Tonowski by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 12 of 24

04/29/2008
04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008
05/02/2008
05/02/2008

132 Reply in Support of Notice of Withdrawal of Claims by Intervenor Plaintiffs Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Mark Ector, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
133 Notice re First Amended Notice of Deposition of Wayne Foraker by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
134 Notice re 30(B)(6) Deposition of Apollo Group, Inc. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
135 Notice re 30(b)(6) Deposition of University of Phoenix by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
136 Notice re of Service of Response to Defendants' 2nd Set of Interrogatories and 3rd Set of Requests for Production by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 101 Other Notice (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
137 NOTICE of Deposition of Dustin Phillips, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
138 NOTICE of Deposition of Sam Biggs, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
139 NOTICE of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
140 NOTICE of Deposition of Vince Grell (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
141 Notice re Filing Material Regarding Discovery Dispute by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
142 NOTICE of Deposition of Edmond Bardwell, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
143 NOTICE of Deposition of Al Southergill, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
144 NOTICE of Deposition of Tom Stofferahn, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
145 NOTICE of Deposition of Dana Hutchison, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
146 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark Hallisy, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
147 ORDER re 129 Stipulation to Take Additional Depositions, IT IS ORDERED granting parties request to allow each side to take twenty−fivedepositions in this case. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 05/01/08. (MHM) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
148 Minute Order: Under the broad standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discoverable material includes information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. After conducting a discovery dispute hearing and reviewing the parties submissions, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs provided sufficient justification to receive the requested discovery. Accordingly, the Court directs the Defendants to provide the names and contact information for the enrollment counselors or lower level managers who reported to the twenty−four managers identified by the EEOC as managers who allegedly engaged in discrimination. The Court directs the Defendants to provide this information as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than one week from today. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
149 ORDER granting the motion to intervene by Shelly Chambers Thompson 60 . FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the motions to intervene by Darry Thornton and Falonia Edenburgs, 43 , and Francine Muscianisi

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 13 of 24

05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008
05/07/2008 05/07/2008
05/07/2008
05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008
05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008

and Alyssa Polk 44 . FURTHER ORDERED denying the motion to intervene by Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, and Jennifer Hallman 46 . FURTHER ORDERED denying the motions to strike claims or alternatively for declaratory judgment 81 , 85 . Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 5/1/08.(KMG) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
150 NOTICE of Deposition of Joshua Hatch, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
151 NOTICE of Deposition of Wendy Brandt (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
152 MOTION for Reconsideration Re: Intervention by Falonia Edenburgs, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Mark Ector. (Kirtley, Patricia) Modified on 5/7/2008 DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c) ATTORNEY NOTICED, NO FOLLOW UP REQUIRED.(KMG). (Entered: 05/06/2008)
153 Notice re of Service of Tenth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
154 RESPONSE to Motion re 152 MOTION for Reconsideration Re: Intervention filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
155 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS directing the Defendant to file a response to the Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration by close of business on May 14, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
156 NOTICE of Deposition of Tracy Bonjean (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
157 NOTICE of Deposition of Kolby Chase, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
158 NOTICE of Deposition of John Durling, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
159 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark Peterson, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
160 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Mueller, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
161 Notice re Service of Seventh Request for Production, Second Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
162 NOTICE of Deposition of Kevin Greenhalgh, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
163 NOTICE of Deposition of Kevin Lewis, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
164 NOTICE of Deposition of Todd Nelson, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
165 NOTICE of Deposition of Bert Ouderkirk, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
166 NOTICE of Deposition of Nathan Reese, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
167 NOTICE of Deposition of Brent Slade, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
168 NOTICE of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein (2nd Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 14 of 24

05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008
05/08/2008
05/09/2008
05/09/2008 05/09/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008
05/12/2008

169 NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Wright, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
170 NOTICE of Deposition of Sara Wydo, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
171 Second MOTION for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Expedited Ruling by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
172 Notice re of Errata re Docket 171 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 171 Second MOTION for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Expedited Ruling (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order re Motion at Docket 171)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
173 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS directing the Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery by close of business on Monday, May 12, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
174 NOTICE of Deposition of Todd Nelson (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
175 Notice re of Service of Eleventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
176 NOTICE of Deposition of Richard Lucero, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
177 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Magpayo (Second Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
178 NOTICE of Deposition of Francine Muscianisi, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
179 NOTICE of Deposition of Shelly Thompson/Chambers, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
180 NOTICE of Deposition of Dana Hutchison (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
181 NOTICE of Deposition of Robert Calvillo, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
182 NOTICE of Deposition of Britt Chandler, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
183 NOTICE of Deposition of Dora Lee Cox, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
184 NOTICE of Deposition of Phil Draper (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
185 NOTICE of Deposition of Falonia Edenburg, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
186 NOTICE of Deposition of Jennifer Hallman, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
187 NOTICE of Deposition of Letecia Harrison, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
188 Minute Order: There being good cause, the Court ORDERS extending the deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery to close of business on May 13, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
189 Notice re of Service of 12th Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/12/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 15 of 24

05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/13/2008
05/13/2008 05/13/2008
05/14/2008
05/14/2008
05/14/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008

190 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Fifth Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
191 NOTICE of Deposition of Kolby Chase, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
192 NOTICE of Deposition of John Durling, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
193 RESPONSE to Motion re 171 Second MOTION for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Expedited Ruling filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
194 Notice re of Service of 13th Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
195 MOTION for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and MOTION to Stay of Proceedings During Interlocutory Appeal Process by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Hayden, William) Modified on 5/15/2008 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM (Motion for Certificate of Appealability) TO (Motion − Miscellaneous) (KMG). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
196 REPLY in Support re 171 Second MOTION for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Expedited Ruling filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
197 Minute Order: The Court ORDERS directing the Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's Motion for Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Stay of Proceedings 195 by close of business on Friday, May 16, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
198 RESPONSE in Opposition re 152 MOTION for Reconsideration Re: Intervention filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Hayden, William) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
199 NOTICE of Deposition of Falonia Edenburg (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
200 NOTICE of Deposition of Francine Muscianisi (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
201 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Magpayo (Third Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
202 NOTICE of Deposition of Shelly Chambers−Thompson (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
203 NOTICE of Deposition of Jennifer Hallman (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
204 NOTICE of Deposition of Dana Hutchison (Second Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
205 MOTION for Protective Order by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and Exhibits A−B, # 2 Exhibit C, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit C Part 2, # 4 Exhibit D−E)(Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
206 Notice re of Deposition of Sam Biggs (First Amended) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
207 Notice re of Deposition of Brian Mueller (First Amended) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 16 of 24

05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/20/2008
05/21/2008 05/27/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008

208 Notice re of Deposition of Todd Nelson (Second Amended) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
209 Notice re of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein (Third Amended) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
210 NOTICE of Deposition of Third−Party Witness Justin (J.R.) Langston Pursuant to Subpoena Commanding Personal Appearance, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
211 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of Apollo Group, Inc. (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
212 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of University of Phoenix (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
213 RESPONSE in Opposition re 195 MOTION for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1292(b) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
214 NOTICE of Deposition of Todd Nelson (Third Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
215 Notice re of Service of 14th Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
216 REPLY in Support re 195 MOTION for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Motion for Stay of Proceedings During Interlocutory Appeal Process filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
217 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 5/20/08. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied. (Dkt. #152) (Order will follow). The Court finds that the Defendants have presented sufficient grounds that the Courts May 2, 2008 Order presents (1) a controlling question of law (2) for which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion (3) and that immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Accordingly, the Motion for Certification is granted. (Dkt. #195). The Motion for Stay of Proceedings is granted in part and denied in part. (Id.) The Court is not persuaded that the discovery currently sought is relevant without regard to the ultimate number of plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the appropriate scope of discovery for the Plaintiffs whose status will be unaffected by any potential ruling from the Ninth Circuit. The discovery related to the remaining Plaintiffs is stayed pending the Ninth Circuits ruling. The Second Motion for Extension of Time is granted, but the Court orders that discovery shall be extended only 45 days, closing on July 14, 2008. (Dkt. #171). The parties are further ordered to meet and confer regarding the Defendants Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #205). The Court believes that the subject of the protective order appropriately falls within the scope of the discovery dispute guidelines, and orders the parties to proceed accordingly. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
218 ORDER re 152 IT IS ORDERED denying the MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 05/21/08. (MHM) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
219 NOTICE of Deposition of Third−Party Witness Justin (J.R.) Langston Pursuant to Subpoena Commanding Personal Appearance (First Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
220 NOTICE of Deposition of Shelly Chambers−Thompson (Second Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
221 NOTICE of Deposition of Francine Muscianisi (Second Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 05/30/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 17 of 24

05/30/2008
05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008
06/02/2008
06/05/2008
06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/06/2008 06/11/2008 06/11/2008 06/11/2008

222 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of Apollo Group, Inc. (Second Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
223 NOTICE of Deposition of Jared Wallentine (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
224 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Mueller (Second Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
225 NOTICE of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein (Fourth Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
226 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark Peterson (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
227 NOTICE of Deposition of William Wecker (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
228 Notice re Notice of Service of Plaintiff Intervener's Initial Disclosure Statement by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
229 MOTION for Extension of Time EEOC to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
230 ORDER granting the EEOC's 229 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for EEOC to Respond to Dfts' Motion for Protective Order Dkt. No. 205 . The response deadline is extended from June 5, 2008 to June 19, 2008. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 6/4/08.(KMG) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
231 NOTICE of Deposition of Brent Slade (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
232 NOTICE of Deposition of Bert Ouderkirk (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
233 NOTICE of Deposition of Sarah Wydo (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
234 NOTICE of Deposition of Diane Thompson (First Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
235 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of Apollo Group, Inc. (Third Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
236 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of University of Phoenix (Third Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
237 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Admissions by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
238 Notice re of Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Admission by University of Phoenix, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
239 Notice re of Service of 15th Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
240 NOTICE of Deposition of Lou Bellson (Second Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
241 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Sixth Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 18 of 24

06/11/2008 06/11/2008 06/11/2008 06/12/2008
06/13/2008
06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/18/2008
06/19/2008 06/19/2008

242 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Seventh Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
243 Notice re Service of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
244 Notice re Service of Discovery by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
245 Notice re Service of Eighth Request for Production of Documents, Third Set of Interrogatories, Second Request for Admissions to Defendants, and First Supplemental Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
246 Notice re Notice of Service of Interveners' Second Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories and Second Set of Request for Production of Documents by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
247 Notice re Service of Defendants' Fourth Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories to EEOC by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
248 Notice re Service of Defendants' Fifth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to EEOC by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
249 Notice re Service of Defendants' First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories to Plaintiff Interveners by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
250 Notice re Service of Defendants' Initial Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Interveners by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
251 Notice re of Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
252 NOTICE of Deposition of Francine Muscianisi (Third Amended), filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
253 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
254 Notice re Service of Defendants' Seventh Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
255 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on June 19, 2008. The Court has received the parties submissions regarding the current discovery dispute. In light of the facts set forth by each party, the Court cannot conclude that counsel are complying with their meet and confer obligations in resolving their issues. The Court urges counsel for both parties to put forth their best efforts in resolving the dispute cooperatively, as required by the Courts Rules of Practice.To assist the parties, the Court makes the following Orders:1) Discovery will be extended in the case by one additional week, closing July 21, 2008. 2) The parties must set dates certain for the remaining depositions within one week of this Order.3) The 30(b)(6) depositions will be limited to five hours per deponent.[This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 19 of 24

06/20/2008
06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008 07/03/2008
07/07/2008 07/07/2008 07/08/2008

256 ORDER granting 253 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS ORDERED granting the parties Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for EEOC to Respond to Defendants Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 205]. The response deadline is extended from June 19, 2008 to July 3, 2008. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 6/19/08.(KSP) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
257 NOTICE of Deposition of Kurt Slobodzian, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
258 Notice re of Service of EEOC's Third Request for Admission and Ninth Request for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
259 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
260 NOTICE of Deposition of Bently Brunson, filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
261 NOTICE of Deposition of Lou Bellson (Third Amended Notice), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
262 NOTICE of Deposition of William Wecker (Second Amended Notice), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
263 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Mueller, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
264 Notice re of Service by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
265 Notice re of Filing Proposed Order re: Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
266 NOTICE of Deposition of Diane Thompson (Second Amended Deposition), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
267 NOTICE of Deposition of Richard F. Tonowski, Ph.D., filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
268 Notice re Service of Defendants' Eighth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
269 NOTICE of Deposition of Apollo Group, Inc. and University of Phoenix, Inc. (Fourth Amended Notice), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
270 NOTICE of Deposition of Aaron Wettstein (Fifth Amended Notice), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
271 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Motion for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
272 NOTICE of Deposition of Univerity of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc. (pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
273 RESPONSE in Opposition re 259 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
274 ORDER granting 271 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS ORDERED granting the parties' Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for EEOC to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 205]. The response

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 20 of 24

07/08/2008 07/08/2008 07/09/2008 07/10/2008
07/11/2008 07/15/2008 07/16/2008 07/17/2008 07/18/2008
07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008

deadline is extended from July 3, 2008 to July 11, 2008. The parties are warned in the future to file a request for extension in advance of the date the pleading is due and not on the date the pleading is due. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 07/07/08.(MHM) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
275 NOTICE of Deposition of John Couillard, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
276 NOTICE of Deposition of Laura Palmer Noone, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
277 Notice re Service of Defendants' First Supplemental Response to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Admissions by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
278 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 7/10/08. The Court is in receipt of the materials submitted by the parties regarding the current discovery dispute. Under the broad standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discoverable material includes information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. After reviewing the parties submissions, the Court finds that the Defendants provided sufficient justification to overcome the Plaintiffs argument that the Defendants are not entitled to depose former investigator Bentley Brunson. Counsel for the Plaintiffs is free to object to any questions that improperly seek privileged information. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Defendants may proceed with the deposition. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
279 STIPULATION re 205 MOTION for Protective Order by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
280 RESPONSE to Motion re 259 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
281 REPLY in Support re 259 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit July 16, 2008 E−mail)(Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
282 PROTECTIVE ORDER pursuant to the parties 279 Stipulation re 205 MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/17/08. (NOTE: See Order for full details)(KMG) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
283 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 7/18/08. The Court has reviewed the Interveners Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, the Defendants and Plaintiffs Responses and the Interveners Reply. (Dkt. #259, 273, 280 and 281). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that discovery for the Interveners shall be extended by one month, closing on August 21, 2008. Further, the Court extends the current dispositive motion deadline for all parties to October 6, 2008. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
284 MOTION for Extension of Time for Discovery, by Four Days, to Allow EEOC and Defendants To Complete Their Current Schedule of Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
285 ORDER granting 284 Motion for Extension of Time Discovery due by 7/25/2008.Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/18/08.(KSP) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
286 Notice re Service of Response to Inverveners' Third Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
287 Notice re Service of Response to Inverveners' First Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 21 of 24

07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008
07/21/2008 07/21/2008 07/21/2008
07/22/2008 07/22/2008 07/30/2008 07/31/2008

288 Notice re Service of Response to Inverveners' Second Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
289 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Third Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
290 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Admissions by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
291 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Third Request for Admissions by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
292 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Fourth Request for Admissions by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
293 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Eighth Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
294 Notice re Service of Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Ninth Request for Production of Documents by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
295 MOTION for STIPULATION FOR TIME TO MEET AND CONFER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, JOINT MOTION REGARDING THE SAME by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
296 Notice re of Service of Defendant's 9th Supplemental Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
297 Notice re of Service of Plaintiff Interveners' Response to Defendant's First Request For Production of Documents and First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
298 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 7/21/08. The Court is in receipt of the parties stipulated motion for time to meet and confer on discovery disputes. After numerous extensions of the discovery deadlines, the Court has determined that all discovery will close on July 25, 2008. Accordingly, the Motion is denied 295 . [This is a TEXT ONLY entry. There is no.pdf document attached.] (KSP) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
299 Notice re Service of Response to Interveners' First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
300 Notice re Service of Response to Interveners' Second Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
301 STIPULATION Pursuant to Court Order by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Foster, Brian) (Entered: 07/30/2008)
302 ORDER granting 301 Stipulation : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:1.Extending to August 8, 2008, the date for the EEOC and Defendants to submit any discovery disputes they may have to the Court; and2.Extending to September 8, 2008, the deadline for discovery on Interveners claims.Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/31/08. (KSP) (Entered: 07/31/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 22 of 24

08/01/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008 08/13/2008 08/13/2008 08/14/2008
08/15/2008
08/18/2008 08/19/2008 08/22/2008 08/26/2008 08/27/2008 08/27/2008
08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 09/02/2008

303 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Hampton, filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
304 NOTICE of Deposition of Wendy Brandt, filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
305 MOTION for Leave to File More than One Dispositive Motion by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
306 NOTICE of Deposition of Kevin Lewis, filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
307 NOTICE of Deposition of Erin Graff, filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
308 Minute Order: The Court is in receipt of the numerous discovery disputes submitted in the case. In order to expedite the processing of these disputes, the Court orders the parties to appear (in person if possible, otherwise telephonically) for a Discovery Dispute Hearing on Tuesday, August 19 at 10:00 a.m. The parties need not file responses in advance of the hearing. The Court will also take up the Defendants motion for leave to file more than one dispositive motion at that time. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
309 ORDER of 9th Circuit − Petitioners' motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition for permission to appeal is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply, received on 6/20/08. The petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied re appeal case number 08−80089 (SAT) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
310 MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: Scheduling Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
311 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 8/19/08. (See.pdf)(KSP) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
312 MEMORANDUM re: Anticipated Costs and Time Relating to Supplemental Discovery by Defendants University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
313 MEMORANDUM re: Regarding Pattern or Practice re 311 Status Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
314 NOTICE of Deposition of Lou Bellson, filed by Darry Thornton, Francine Muscianisi, Shelley Thompson. (Kirtley, Patricia) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
315 Minute Order: The Court has received and reviewed the Memorandum re: Anticipated Costs and Time Relating to Supplemental Discovery. The Court directs the Plaintiffs/Intervenors to respond by the close of business on September 3, 2008. The deadline for producing the supplemental discovery is stayed pending the Court's review of the Plaintiffs'/Intervenors' Response.[This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
316 Notice re Service of Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statements by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
317 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 8/19/2008 before Judge Mary H. Murguia. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
318 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. for proceedings held on 8/19/2008 before Judge Mary H. Murguia. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
319 MOTION for PAGE EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM REGARDING COSTS AND TIME FOR DISCOVERY by

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 23 of 24

09/02/2008 09/02/2008
09/03/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008 09/08/2008 09/09/2008 09/16/2008
09/16/2008 09/17/2008 09/19/2008
09/23/2008 09/23/2008 09/23/2008

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
320 RESPONSE re 312 Memorandum Regarding Costs and Time for Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−4)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
321 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 9/2/08. The Court has received and reviewed the Plaintiffs Motion for Page Extension. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED granting the Plaintiffs motion 319 . Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an eight page response. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
322 MEMORANDUM re: Pattern or Practice by Defendants University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
323 Notice re Service of Defendants' Tenth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
324 Notice re Service of Defendants' Eleventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
325 Reply re 320 Response to Memorandum re Anticipated Costs and Time Relating to Supplemental Discovery by Defendants University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
326 Reply re 313 Memorandum Regarding Pattern or Practice by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
327 Notice re Service of Defendants' Twelfth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
328 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Hearing re Discovery Dispute held on 8/19/08 before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn A Sanchez. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/7/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/17/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
329 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
330 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
331 ORDER granting 330 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, permitting Sandra J Padegimas to withdraw as counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in this matter. Mary Jo O'Neill, Sally C Shanley, Katherine J Kruse and Lucila G Rosas shall remain as counsel of record for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/18/08.(REW, ) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
332 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with the construction of this case as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/19/08. (SAT) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
333 MOTION to Strike re Defendant's Reply to Their Memorandum Re: Anticipated Costs and Time for Disocvery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruse, Katherine) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
334 Notice re Service of Defendants' Thirteenth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/23/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02303-MHM As of: 05/18/2014 10:38 PM MST 24 of 24

09/25/2008 09/25/2008 09/26/2008
09/29/2008
10/10/2008 10/29/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
11/07/2008
11/07/2008 11/07/2008

335 STIPULATION for Entry of Protective Order by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
336 Notice re Service of Defendants' Fourteenth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Woodard, Joshua) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
337 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 9/26/08. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Dkt.# 333). Plaintiffs have 10 days from the date of this Order to file. The Court directs the parties to confer regarding Plaintiffs' request to make Declarants or other Information Technology officials available. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply (Dkt.# 333).(KSP)[This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (Entered: 09/26/2008)
338 PROTECTIVE ORDER pursuant to the 335 Stipulation: Dfts have and/or will produce documents relating to their advertisement campaigns. The parties have agreed that this information constitutes confidential or sensitive information ("Confidential Information"). These materials will be stamped "Confidential" by Dfts. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/26/08. (Note: See Order for full details)(KMG) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
339 NOTICE of Settlement by University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc. (Foster, Brian) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
340 Joint SEALED MOTION to Seal Document re Attachment A to Consent Decree by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Shelley Thompson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
341 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Shelley Thompson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
342 SEALED LODGED Proposed Attachment A to Consent Decree re: 340 Joint SEALED MOTION to Seal Document re Attachment A to Consent Decree. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Shelley Thompson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Group, Inc.. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
343 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 11/7/08. The Court having considered the Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment 341 , IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and adopting the Consent Judgment as the Order of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Consent Judgment and close this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Motion to Seal Exhibit A 340 . (KSP)[This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (Entered: 11/07/2008)
344 CONSENT DECREE (JUDGMENT)...See Document for Full Details. Approved in Open Court 11/7/08 by Judge Mary H. Murguia (MAP) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
345 SEALED EXHIBIT re 344 filed by Darry Thornton, Falonia Edenburgs, Francine Muscianisi, Alysia Polk, Morseller Ector, Mark Ector, Jennifer Hallman, Shelley Thompson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Apollo Group, Inc. (MAP) (Entered: 11/10/2008)