UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

APPLEGATE HOLDING CO., AND

)

ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES )

)

Defendant.

)

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

CASE NO.

(~
5 : 04 CV 0 167

HONORABLE

DRAFT COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct

unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Bonnie Tracey ("Tracey")

who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("Commission") alleges that Applegate Holding Co., and Advance Employment

Services (collectively "Defendant") discriminated against Tracey by subjecting her, and

others similarly situated, to unwelcome and offensive religious based materials and

otherwise harassing her based on religion. The Defendants also subjected Tracey and other

similarly situated females to a hostile environment based on their sex, female.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331, 1337,

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and

(3) and 707(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f)(1) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6(e) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act

of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District

of Michigan, Southern Division.

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"),

is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation,

and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section

706(f)(1) and (3) and 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 2000e-6(e).

4. At all relevant times, Defendants, Applegate Holding Co., and Advance

Employment Services (the "Employer"), have continuously been an employer doing business

in the State of Michigan and the City of Webberville and Lansing, respectively, and have

continuously had at least 15 employees each.

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title

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

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bonnie Tracey filed

a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. Since at least March 2000, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Webberville, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-2(a). The Defendants unlawful employment practices included subjecting Tracey and

other similarly situated individuals to unwelcome and offensive religious based materials

which espouse, inter alia, the owner's religious views on the role of men and women.

8. The incidents of harassing treatment include, but are not limited to, the

following:

A. Defendant Applegate stapled articles to the employee's paychecks which discuss religion and the biblical role of women and men.
B. Making derogatory references about women in the work place and disseminating literature.
C. Making inquiries about employees' religious practices and strongly encouraging them to attend a certain church and company sponsored prayer meetings.
9. Tracey and other similarly situated employees complained about this offensive literature and Tracey reported complaints by other employees.
10. Despite the complaints, the Defendants refused to take prompt remedial action reasonably designed to end the harassment.
11. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraphs 8 and 9 above has been to deprive Tracey and others similarly situated of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their religion, and sex, female.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were and are intentional.
13. As the result of the unlawful employment practices, Tracey and others similarly situated have suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Tracey and others similarly situated.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in religious harassment and sex discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion and sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and persons of all religious faiths, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to provide training on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its prohibitions against harassment of its employees at its Applegate facility as well as its human resources department;. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Tracey and others similarly situated by providing compensation for past pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above in amounts to be proven at trial. E. Order Defendant Employerto make whole Tracey and others similarly situated by providing compensation for past non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above in amounts to be proven at trial. F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Tracey and others similarly situated punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraph 8 above, in amounts to be proven at trial. G. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay nominal damages. H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest, including the institution of a religious and sex discrimination policy and

complaint procedure, and mandatory religious and sex discrimination training for all

Defendant's management employees.

I.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

DATED: September 29,2004

JAMES N. LEE
Deputy General Counsel
aLL ----n~
ADELE RAPPORT (P 33)
Regional Attorney

ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney

TRINA MENGESHA (P59458) Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-3407

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

APPLEGATE HOLDINGS, LLC AND )

ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT OF

)

MT. PLEASANT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CASE NO. 5:04-CV-00167
HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLAN
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct

unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Bonnie Tracey (“Tracey”)

who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“Commission”) alleges that Applegate Holdings LLC, and Advance

Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) discriminated against Tracy by

subjecting her, and others similarly situated, to unwelcome and offensive religious based

materials and otherwise harassing her based on religion. The Defendants also subjected

Tracy and other similarly situated females to a hostile environment based on their sex,

female.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and

(3) and 707(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f)(1) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6(e) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act

of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 2000e-6(e).
4. At all relevant times, Defendants, Applegate Holdings LLC, and Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc. (the “Employer”), have continuously been an employer doing business in the State of Michigan and the City of Webberville and Lansing, respectively, and have continuously had at least 15 employees each.
5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bonnie Tracy filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least March 2000, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Webberville, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Defendants unlawful employment practices included subjecting Tracy and other similarly situated individuals to unwelcome and offensive religious based materials which espouse, inter alia, the owner’s religious views on the role of men and women.

8. The incidents of harassing treatment include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Defendant Applegate stapled articles to the employee’s paychecks which discuss religion and the biblical role of women and men.
B. Making derogatory references about women in the work place and disseminating literature.
C. Making inquiries about employees’ religious practices and strongly encouraging them to attend a certain church and company sponsored prayer meetings.
9. Tracy and other similarly situated employees complained about this offensive literature and Tracy reported complaints by other employees.
10. Despite the complaints, the Defendants refused to take prompt remedial action reasonably designed to end the harassment.
11. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraphs 8 and 9 above has been to deprive Tracy and others similarly situated of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their religion, and sex, female.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were and are intentional.
13. As the result of the unlawful employment practices, Tracy and others similarly situated have suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

Tracy and others similarly situated. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in religious harassment and sex discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion and sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and persons of all religious faiths, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to provide training on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its prohibitions against harassment of its employees at its Applegate facility as well as its human resources department;. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Tracy and others similarly situated by providing compensation for past pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above in amounts to be proven at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Tracy and others similarly situated by providing compensation for past non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above in amounts to be proven at trial. F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Tracy and others similarly situated punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraph 8 above, in amounts to be proven at trial. G. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay nominal damages.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest, including the institution of a religious and sex discrimination policy and complaint procedure, and mandatory religious and sex discrimination training for all Defendant’s management employees.
I. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES N. LEE Deputy General Counsel

DATED: December 14, 2004

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833) Regional Attorney
ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney
TRINA MENGESHA (P59458) Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-3407

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:04-CV-167 HON. RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN

APPLEGATE HOLDINGS, LLC and ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT OF MT. PLEASANT, INC.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER AND PARTIAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Opinion of today’s date;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.’s

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims of class member Patrick Bliesner are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims of class member Michael Mellon against

Defendant Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: May 19, 2005

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No. 5:04-CV-167

Plaintiff,

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

v.

APPLEGATE HOLDING CO. and ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES OF MT. PLEASANT, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

________________________________/

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“Commission”) and Defendants Applegate Holding Co. and Advance Employment

Services’ proposed Consent Decree. The Court observes that the proposed Consent Decree purports to

provide class-wide relief. Nevertheless, no class of plaintiffs was ever certified by this Court.

Furthermore, the proposed Consent Decree suggests that the Commission will determine which class

plaintiffs recover under the proposed Consent Decree and how much those persons receive without prior

class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Such an arrangement is irregular and

the Court is unable to locate any authority entitling the Commission to control a class remedy in such

a fashion.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission is ordered to SHOW CAUSE, in writing and within 21 DAYS of this Order,

why the proposed Consent Decree should not be rejected for the aforementioned irregularities.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: February 10, 2006

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs.
APPLEGATE HOLDINGS LLC, et al Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:04-CV-167

)

)

HONORABLE

)

RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN

)

)

) )

)

CONSENT DECREE

1. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"Commission") commenced this action on September 29,2004 in the United States District

Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that the Defendants, Applegate Holdings,

LLC ("Applegate") and Advance Employment ofMt. Pleasant ("Advance") discriminated against

Bonnie Tracy and other similarly situated individuals because of their religion and sex, and

subjected Tracy and others similarly situated to unwelcome and offensive religious based

materials, and otherwise harassing them based on religion. 2. As a result of settlement discussions, the Commission, Applegate and Advance

have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry of this

Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding

settlement in full disposition of any and all claims alleged or which could have been alleged in

the Complaint and Amended Complaint against Applegate and Advance or in the Charge of

Discrimination filed by Tracy, Charge No. 230-2004-00602. 1

STIPULATED FACTS 3. The Commission is the agency of the United States government authorized by the

ADA to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination based upon disability, to

bring civil actions to prohibit unlawful employment practices, and to seek relief for individuals

affected by such practices.

4.

Applegate is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the

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

Applegate continuously had at least 15 employees during the relevant period of time. 5. Advance is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the

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

had at least 15 employees during the relevant period of time. 6. The parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for

the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division) over the subject matter and parties to this

case for the purpose of entering this Decree, and if necessary, enforcing the provisions of this Decree.

7. Venue is appropriate in the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division). For

purposes ofthis Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only, Applegate and Advance

agree that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit against them have been fulfilled.

FINDINGS

8. Having examined the terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and based on

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

2

a.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subj ect matter of this action against Applegate

and Advance;

b.

The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are fair, reasonable and just. The

rights of Applegate, Advance, the Commission, and those for whom the

Commission seeks relief are adequately protected by this Decree; c. The Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title

VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interest of the parties and those for whom the Commission seeks relief
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-ADMISSION
9. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission, Applegate and Advance, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission by Applegate or Advance of any violation of Title VII or, any other

law, rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with equal employment opportunity. NON-DISCRIMINATION
10. Applegate, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them shall comply with the provisions of Title VII, 42 Us. C. §2000e et seq., with regard to religious and sex discrimination.
11. Advance, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them shall comply with the provisions of Title VII, 42 U S.C. §2000e et seq., with regard to religious and sex discrimination.

3

NON-RETALIATION
12. Applegate shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment, or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under Title VII because of the filing of Charge of Discrimination by Bonnie Tracy, which forms the basis for the present case, or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in connection with this case under Title VII.
13. Advance shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment, or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under Title VII because of the filing of Charge of Discrimination by Bonnie Tracy, which forms the basis for the present case, or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in connection with this case under Title VII.
MONETARY COMPENSATION 14. Defendant, Applegate, or its insurance carrier, will pay the total sum of One Hundred Thirty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($130,000.00) as compensatory damages to the class. The Commission will provide Applegate with a list of the class plaintiffs and the amounts to be paid to each individual, the sum of which will equal One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000.00). The amounts paid as compensatory damages shall not be subject to withholding taxes, but Applegate shall issue a Form 1099 to each claimant for tax purposes. The monetary damages referenced in this paragraph shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days following entry of the Decree, via certified Mail. Copies of the checks shall be sent to the Commission.
TRAINING AND/OR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 15. Applegate agrees that it will provide a mandatory training program to all
4

employees, management and supervisorypersonnel, and owners which will be conducted by an agreed upon organization. The trainer will be selected by Applegate with the EEOC's approval, but the EEOC will not unreasonably withhold its approval. Said training will focus on the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws, including discrimination based on religion and sex. This training will take place within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of entry of this decree. Employee shall also be trained on the entire harassment policy and will be provided with the number of individuals to whom they can complain about harassment. Defendant shall submit to the EEOC a list with names of all persons trained, and the date the training took place.
16. Advance agrees that it will provide a mandatory training program to all managers, supervisors and owners, which will be conducted by an agreed organization. Said training will focus on the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws, including discrimination based on religion and sex. The trainer will be selected by Advance with the EEOC's approval, but the EEOC will not unreasonably withhold its approval. This training will take place within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of entry of this decree. Defendant shall submit to the EEOC a list with the names of all persons trained, and the date the training took place.
OTHER EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 17. Advance agrees that it will not disseminate to employees any unsolicited material promulgating a religious viewpoint in a method or manner that requires an employee to read or review the material. This prohibition covers including material promulgating a religious viewpoint with work-related materials such as payroll checks, benefits information, or employment policies.
5

18. Advance shall devise its own anti-discrimination policy which sets forth a clear procedure for employees to make complaints of discrimination. The anti-discrimination policy will be distributed to all employees with the name and number of the independent investigator.
19. Advance shall develop an anti-discrimination policy which clearly states that Advance does not tolerate discrimination of any kind by its clients. This policy shall be distributed to each client contracted with Advance. The policy shall also set forth a procedure for employees to make complaints aboutdiscriminationdirectlyto a managementofficial at Advance. The policy shall also set forth a procedure for investigating complaints of discrimination. Advance shall also distribute the policy to all employees working for Advance's business clients such as Applegate Holdings.
20. Advance shall investigate any complaint of discrimination. In the event that discrimination occurred on the part of a client, Advance shall notify the client that it should immediately stop the discrimination.
POSTING OF NOTICE 21. Advance agrees that it shall post a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit A in a conspicuous location at all of its Michigan facilities where employee notices are posted. The notice shall be posted for two (2) years from the date the Consent Decree is entered by the Court. Should the posted notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Applegate agrees to post a readable copy of the notice as soon as practical thereafter. 22. Advance agrees that it shall post a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit B in a conspicuous location at all of its Michigan facilities where employee notices are posted. The notice shall be posted for two (2) years from the date the Consent Decree is entered by the Court. Should
6

the posted notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Advance agrees to post a

readable copy ofthe notice as soon as practical thereafter. DURATION

23.

This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for two (2) years from the date it is

entered, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of this Decree to

enforce compliance with the Decree.

REPORTING 24. Within four months after entry of this decree, the Defendants shall submit to the

Commission a report of the steps it has taken to comply with this decree. The Defendant's report

pursuant to this paragraph shall be submitted to: Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, Detroit

District Office, 477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 865, Patrick V . McNamara Building, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 25. The Court will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to

enforce this Decree. Upon motion of any party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of

reviewing any party's compliance with this Decree and/or ordering appropriate relief to determine

whether the parties have complied with the terms of this Decree. Prior to seeking review by the

Court, the parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute concerning compliance

with the Decree. Any party seeking court review of a matter shall be required to give ten (10) days

notice to the other parties before moving for such review. COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

26. Each party shall bear its own court costs and attorney fees.

7

MISCELLANEOUS

27.

If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found to be unlawful, only the specific

provision(s) in question shall be affected and the otherprovisions will remain in fall force and effect. 28. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the present and future owners,

officers, directors, employees, creditors, agents, trustees, administrators, successors, representatives,

and assigns of Applegate. 29. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the present and future owners,

officers, directors, employees, creditors, agents, trustees, administrators, successors, representatives, and assigns of Advance.

30. This Agreement constitutesthe entireagreementand commitmentsof theparties. Any

modifications to this Decree must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a writing signed by

Applegate, and the Commission. 31. When this Decree requires or permits the submission any documents by Applegate

and/or Visteon to the Commission, ifnot otherwise indicated in the Decree, they shall be mailed to

Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, Detroit District Office, Patrick V. McNamara Federal

Building, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, MI 48226.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

K<I~ Berke K4tchDrutchas Wagner DeNardis & Valitutti
Attorneys for Defendant Applegate One Woodward Ave., 10thFloor Detroit, MI48226

8

~~ ADELE RAPPO 1]
Regional Attorney
ROBERT K. DAWKINS Supervisory Trial Attorney
TRINA R. MENGESHA Senior Trial Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff
Detroit District Office Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226

ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT OF MT. PLEASANT
c~--
Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge 200 Calder Plaza Bldg. 250 Monroe Avenue, N.W. GrandRapids,MI 49503 Attorneys for Advance

9

EXHIBIT A NOTICE

This notice is being posted as part of the remedy agreed to by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Applegate Holdings, LLC pursuant to a Consent Decree, and to inform you of your rights guaranteed by the federal law under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"). Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion and retaliation with regard to any term or condition of employment including hiring, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, pay and fringe benefits or in retaliation for the opposition to unlawful employment practices.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and, if necessary, brings lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.

Applegate Holdings LLC supports and will comply with this federal law in all respects.

Dated:

APPLEGATE HOLDINGS, LLC

10

EXHIBIT B

This notice is being posted as part of the remedy agreed to by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant pursuant to a Consent Decree, and to inform you of your rights guaranteedby the federal law under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"). Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion and retaliation with regard to any term or condition of employmentincluding hiring, layoff,recall, promotion, discharge, pay and fringe benefits or in retaliation for the opposition to unlawful employment practices.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency which
investigates charges of unlawful employmenl discrimination and, if necessary, brings la\vsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.

Advance Employment ofMt. Pleasant supports and will comply with this federal law in all respects.

Dated:

ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT OF MT. PLEASANT

11

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Applegate Holdings, LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 1189601 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
APPLEGATE HOLDINGS, LLC and Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc., Defendants.
No. 5:04-CV-167. | May 19, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Adele Rapport, Trina R. Mengesha, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Karen B. Berkery, Kitch Drutchas Wagner Denardis & Valitutti, Detroit, MI, Charles F. Behler, Matthew Lindsey Wikander, Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC, Grand Rapids, MI, Rachel Brochert Roe, Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC, Traverse City, MI, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION
ENSLEN, J.
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant requests the Court to dismiss class members Michael Mellon and Patrick Bilesner. Defendant requests that all claims of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to comply with its statutory obligation to conciliate prior to filing this lawsuit. (Def.’s Mot. at 2.)
I. Background This suit arises out of a charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(e). On December 18, 2003, Bonnie Tracy filed charges against Defendants Applegate Holdings, LLC (“Applegate”) and Advance Employment (“Advance”) as joint employers. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 10.) On March 9, 2004, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants’ Attorney, Timothy Young, requesting additional information. (Def.’s Ex. 2.) Young responded to Plaintiff on behalf of both Defendants on March 25, 2004. (Id.)
On August 18, 2004, after a nine-month investigation, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants Advance and Applegate which outlined the findings of its investigation. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 1.) Defendant Applegate responded with a letter dated August 23 and 24, 2004.1 (Def.’s Br., Ex. 5.) The letter set forth additional information Defendants believed was pertinent to Plaintiff’s investigation and attempted to address the concerns expressed in Plaintiff’s preceding letter. (Id.)
On August 26, 2004, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants Advance and Applegate attempting to conciliate. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff attached a Determination of its investigation and a proposed Conciliation Agreement. (Id.) The proposed Conciliation Agreement requested the following relief: reinstatement of the charging party, back pay to the charging party in the amount of $65,000.00, credit of seniority to charging party as though there had been no break in service, $300,000.00 in damages, and restoration of any benefits charging party may have lost. The proposed Conciliation Agreement also requested the development and implementation of a policy of non-discrimination, training in EEO laws for all employees and managers, the removal of the obligation placed on employees to resolve all questions of employment discrimination through arbitration only, and the cessation of Defendants’ distribution of religious materials in the conduct of its business. In the August 26, 2004, letter, Plaintiff also requested Defendants, if they wished, to make a “specific counter offer, in writing” and
1

E.E.O.C. v. Applegate Holdings, LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
respond within five days. (Id.)
On September 1, 2004, attorney Young responded requesting additional time to respond because the principal for Applegate was out of the country and was expected to return on September 3, 2004. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 7.) The letter did not mention Defendant Advance. On September 17, 2004, Plaintiff sent Defendant Advance a letter stating its determination that efforts to conciliate have been unsuccessful and that no further efforts will be made. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 8.) This suit was filed on September 30, 2004.
II. Standard of Review *2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of specifying the basis on which summary judgment should be granted and identifying portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 800 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). Once this initial burden is met, the non-moving party has the burden of presenting specific facts, supported by the record, showing a genuine issue of material fact. Bill Call Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 48 F.3d 201, 205 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
III. Analysis
A. Notice Timely filing of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaint is a prerequisite to filing a suit pursuant to Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). “The purpose of the Title VII filing requirement is to give notice of potential Title VII liability to an alleged wrongdoer and to allow the EEOC to attempt to conciliate with the wrongdoer rather than go to court.” E.E.O.C. v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836, 839 (6th Cir.1994). In Wilson Metal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the “single filing rule,” which recognizes an exception to the EEOC filing requirement. Id. The Sixth Circuit held that “where a substantially related non-filed claim arises out of the same time frame as a timely filed claim, the complainant need not satisfy Title VII’s filing requirement to recover.” Id. at 840 (citing Ezell v. Mobile Housing Bd., 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir.1983)). In Howlett v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 49 F.3d 189 (6th Cir.1995), the Sixth Circuit further held that “a charge will be adequate to support piggybacking under the single filing rule if it contains sufficient information to notify prospective defendants of their potential liability and permit the EEOC to attempt informal conciliation of the claims before a lawsuit if filed.” Id. at 195. The Sixth Circuit continued by holding that whether the administrative charge will suffice depends “to a large degree on the type of work unit involved.” Id. It is more likely that the charge will suffice if the unit is of a “modest size.” Id. Here, Bonnie Tracy filed a charge against both Defendants Applegate and Advance alleging discrimination based on her sex and religion. (Def.’s Br., Ex. 10.) There is no indication from the pleadings as to the size of the work unit involved.
*3 Upon review, the Court finds it would be improper to dismiss the claims as to “others similarly situated” on the present record. The present record does not indicate the nature of the work unit and which employees were similarly situated to Bonnie Tracy at the time of the alleged discrimination. The Court does intend to limit testimony at trial to others similarly situated whose claims arose out of the same discriminatory treatment and during the same time period of Tracy’s charged discrimination. These determinations, though, must be reserved for later findings upon a more complete record.
B. Conciliation After determining that reasonable cause exists for a discrimination claim, the EEOC must attempt to conciliate the claim with the employer prior to bringing a suit against the employer in district court. “Only after the EEOC is unable to obtain an acceptable conciliation agreement from the employer may the agency file suit in court.” See EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1101 (6th Cir.1984) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (f)). The Sixth Circuit held in Keco that the district court should only determine whether the EEOC made a good faith attempt at conciliation, not whether the district court is satisfied with the substance of the attempts at conciliation. See Keco, 748 F.2d at 1102.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Applegate Holdings, LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff attempted to conciliate with Defendant Advance as to Bonnie Tracy. Plaintiff sent Defendant Advance a letter with attached determination and proposed Conciliation Agreement, to which Defendant Advance did not respond. The Sixth Circuit held that “once the employer rejects the conciliation attempts, the EEOC is free to file suit under Title VII.” Keco, 748 F.2d at 1102. The record and, in particular, attorney Young’s letter of September 1, 2004, does not indicate that Defendant Advance even responded to Plaintiff’s attempt to conciliate. Additionally, this suit was not filed until September 30, 2004, approximately a month after Plaintiff attempted conciliation and allowed Defendant Advance more than the additional time requested on behalf of Defendant Applegate to respond to Plaintiff’s conciliation attempt.
Defendant Advance also requests the Court to bar Plaintiff’s recovery of damages as to the class of individuals because Plaintiff failed to specifically attempt conciliation as to the class of individuals. It is unclear from the record whether conciliation was attempted on behalf of “others similarly situated.” Damages as to the class were not specifically outlined in the relief section of the proposed Conciliation Agreement. However, the agreement did provide that “the rigths of all unlocated persons entitled to specific relief as provided for under the terms of this Agreement are preserved.” (Agreement at 1.) Furthermore, Plaintiff is not required to name the specific class members if Defendant could have “reasonably surmised” who the class would include-in this case, female employees and employees who were not members of Terry Applegate’s church. See EEOC v. Dial Corp., 156 F.Supp.2d 926, 942 (N.D.Ill.2001). Therefore, the Court reserves determination of whether good faith conciliation was attempted by the Plaintiff on behalf of the “others similarly situated.”

C. Patrick Bliesner and Michael Mellon *4 Defendant Advance requests the Court to dismiss the claims of Patrick Bliesner and Michael Mellon. (Def.’s Br. at 7.) As to Patrick Bliesner, Plaintiff indicates it will not be pursuing a claim on his behalf. (Pl.’s Br. at 6.) Therefore, the Court will dismiss the claims of Patrick Bliesner.
As to Michael Mellon, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant Advance is not liable for damages to Mellon. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the claims of Michael Mellon as to Defendant Advance only. The Court reserves determination of Mellon’s claims against Defendant Applegate.

IV. Conclusion For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
An Order and Partial Judgment in accordance with this Opinion shall issue.

Footnotes

1

The Letter is dated August 23, 2004. However, the header on each page of the letter indicates that the letter was drafted August 24,

2004.

3

 
 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 1 of 8

CASESETTLED, CLOSED, VFM
United States District Court Western District of Michigan (Southern Division (5)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:04-cv-00167-RAE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Applegate Holding Co. et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/30/2004 Date Terminated: 04/10/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adele Rapport U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MI) 865 Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-6701 Email: adele.rapport@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trina R. Mengesha U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MI) 865 Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-4620 Email: trina.mengesha@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dale Price U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MI) 865 Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-7808 Email: dale.price@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. defendant

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 2 of 8

Applegate Holding Co. defendant Advance Employment Services
mediator Facilitative Mediator

represented by Karen B. Berkery Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook PC (Detroit) One Woodward Ave., Ste. 2400 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 965-7448 Email: berkk1@kitch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles F. Behler Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC (Grand Rapids) 200 Calder Plaza Bldg. 250 Monroe Ave., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2215 (616) 774-8000 Email: cbehler@shrr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lindsey Wikander Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC (Grand Rapids) 200 Calder Plaza Bldg. 250 Monroe Ave., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2215 (616) 774-8000 Email: mwikander@shrr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Brochert Roe Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC (Traverse City) 202 E State St., Ste. 100 P.O. Box 848 Traverse City, MI 49684-0848 (231) 486-4503 Email: rroe@shrr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jon G. March Miller Johnson PLC (Grand Rapids) 250 Monroe Ave., NW, Ste. 800 P.O. Box 306 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0306

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 3 of 8

Date Filed 09/30/2004
09/30/2004 11/02/2004
11/02/2004
11/02/2004 11/05/2004
11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004
11/09/2004 11/09/2004 11/16/2004

(616) 831-1729 Fax: (616) 988-1729 Email: marchj@millerjohnson.com LEAD ATTORNEY

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Advance Employment Services, Applegate Holding Co. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (lkd, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Advance Employment Services ; Applegate Holding Co. (lkd, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

2 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER for extension of time within which to file responsive pleadings by defendant Advance Employment Services, plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (acr, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)

3 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services re 2 proposed stipulation and order for extension of time (acr, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)

4 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services re 2 on 11/02/04 via first-class mail (bd, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)

5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Rachel B. Roe, Charles F. Behler on behalf of defendant Advance Employment Services (bd, ) (Entered: 11/08/2004)

6 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services re 5 via first-class mail on 11/03/04 (bd, ) (Entered: 11/08/2004)

7 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Karen B. Berkery on behalf of defendant Applegate Holding Co. (bd, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

8 ANSWER to complaint by Applegate Holding Co. (bd, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

9 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by defendant Applegate Holding Co. re 8 Answer (bd, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

10 AFFIDAVIT of service by defendant Applegate Holding Co. re 7, 8, 9 via personal service and via first-class mail on 11/05/04 (bd, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

11 ANSWER to complaint and Affirmative Defenses and Reliance on Jury Demand by Advance Employment Services (bd, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)

12 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services re 11 via first-class mail on 11/08/04 (bd, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)

13 ORDER setting Rule 16 scheduling conference for 12/7/2004 at 09:00 AM at 654 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 4 of 8

11/16/2004 11/16/2004 11/17/2004 12/02/2004 12/07/2004 12/10/2004
12/10/2004 12/14/2004 12/21/2004 12/23/2004 12/29/2004 12/30/2004

Ellen S. Carmody; status report due by 12/2/2004 ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
Copy of Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, 13 sent via U.S. Mail to Charles F. Behler and Karen B. Berkery (bd, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
14 ORDER granting STIPULATION 2 nunc pro tunc; defendant Advance Employment Services may answer by 11/9/2004; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order14 sent via U.S. Mail to Charles Behler and Karen Berkery (bd, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
15 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
16 MINUTES of Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Tape #C-G04 - #187) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cr) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: jury trial set for 2/2006 at 08:30 AM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; settlement conference set for 12/21/2005 at 02:00 PM at 654 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; final pretrial conference set for 1/26/2006 at 02:30 PM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified date of jury trial on 12/10/2004 (acr, ). (Entered: 12/10/2004)
Copy of Case Management Order 17 sent via U.S. Mail to Charles Behler and Karen Berkery (bd, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services for Initial Disclosures Under Rule 26 (a)(1) (acr, ) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
20 LETTER RETURNING DISCOVERY MATERIAL: Defendant, Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.'s Initial Disclosures Under Rule 26(a)(1) returned to Rachel Brochert Roe (acr, ) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
21 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Applegate Holding Co. re Initial Disclosures Under Rule 26(a)(1) (Berkery, Karen) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 12/30/2004)

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 5 of 8

12/30/2004 12/30/2004
12/30/2004 01/03/2005
01/06/2005 01/20/2005 01/24/2005 01/28/2005
01/28/2005 02/02/2005 02/03/2005 02/07/2005

23 ANSWER to complaint Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by Applegate Holding Co. (Berkery, Karen) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
24 (PLEASE DISREGARD THIS DOCKET ENTRY-replaced by docket #25) AFFIDAVIT of service by defendant Applegate Holding Co. re 23 Answer to Amended Complaint (Berkery, Karen) Modified text on 1/3/2005 to reflect this entry should be disregarded (bd, ). (Entered: 12/30/2004)
25 (Corrected) AFFIDAVIT of service by defendant Applegate Holding Co. re 23 (This document replaces docket #24) (Berkery, Karen) Modified text on 1/3/2005 to reflect corrected entry (bd, ). (Entered: 12/30/2004)
26 ORDER referring case to VOLUNTARY FACILITATIVE MEDIATION: Facilitative Mediator rep by Jon G. March added; plaintiff VFM fee to be submitted by 1/18/2005; defendant VFM fee to be submitted by 1/18/2005 ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
27 ANSWER to amended complaint Affirmative Defenses and Reliance on Jury Demand byAdvance Employment Services (Behler, Charles) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
VFM FEE RECEIVED in the amount of $25.00, check number 277230 for payment of Defendant Applegate Holding Co.'s VFM fee (ADR Administrator, mjs) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
VFM FEE RECEIVED in the amount of $25.00, check number 139 for payment of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's VFM fee (ADR Administrator, mjs) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
28 MOTION for summary judgment on all Claims of the Joined Class Members for Failure to Comply with Title VII, and Additionally, to Dismiss all of Plaintiff's Claims for Failure by the EEOC to Conciliate, Failure to Investigate in Good Faith and Find Probable Cause, and Failure to Conciliate on Behalf of Class Members by defendant Advance Employment Services; (Behler, Charles) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
29 BRIEF in support of 28 filed by Advance Employment Services (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10) (Behler, Charles) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
VFM FEE RECEIVED in the amount of $25.00, check number 305807 for payment of Defendant Advance Employment Services' VFM fee (ADR Administrator, mjs) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
30 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Advance Employment Services for First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff via first-class mail (bd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
31 CLERK'S LETTER to attorney Charles F. Behler regarding e-filing requirement and paper filing 30 (bd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 6 of 8

02/07/2005 02/07/2005 02/11/2005 02/22/2005 02/24/2005 02/25/2005
02/25/2005 03/10/2005 05/19/2005 05/19/2005
05/23/2005

32 ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Timothy Young in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 29 (Exhibit 4) ; submitted for filing by defendant Advance Employment Services (bd, ) Modified text on 2/7/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/07/2005)
33 ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Ed Culberson in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 29 (Exhibit 1) ; submitted for filing by defendant Advance Employment Services (bd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
34 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Applegate Holding Co. Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatories (Berkery, Karen) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
35 STIPULATION titled "Stipulated Order" by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) Modified title of document on 2/23/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/22/2005)
36 ORDER granting STIPULATION 35, plaintiff shall file a response brief to defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before February 25, 2005; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
37 RESPONSE in opposition re 28 to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Attachment 2 # 3 Attachment 1 # 4 Exhibit B # 5 Exhibit C # 6 Exhibit C (continued) # 7 Exhibit D # 8 Exhibit D (continued) # 9 Exhibit E # 10 Exhibit F # 11 Exhibit G) (Mengesha, Trina) Modified to reflect description of ttachments/exhibits pursuant to telephone call with filing attorney on 3/10/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/25/2005)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
39 REPLY to response to motion re 28 Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition filed by Advance Employment Services (Behler, Charles) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
40 OPINION; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
41 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 defendant Advance Employment of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, all claims of class member Patrick Bliesner are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; all claims of class member Michael Mellon against Defendant Advance Employment are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
42 ORDER regarding 12/21/2005 settlement conference; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 7 of 8

06/29/2005 06/29/2005 08/08/2005 08/08/2005
10/26/2005 10/28/2005 10/31/2005 12/20/2005 01/09/2006 02/10/2006
03/02/2006 04/10/2006

43 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER to amend scheduling order by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and defendants Advance Employment Services and Applegate Holding Co. (Mengesha, Trina) Modified text on 7/1/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/29/2005)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for joint stipulated order (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
45 ORDER granting STIPULATION 43 to amend scheduling order; an amended case management order will issue; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
46 FIRST AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: jury trial set for July 2006 trial term at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; final pretrial conference set for 6/22/2006 at 03:30 PM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) Modified text on 8/8/2005 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/08/2005)
47 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Price, Dale) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
48 ORDER granting STIPULATION 47 TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER; no hearing dates are changed; further requests for extension will not be favored; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order48 sent via U.S. Mail to Adele Rapport, Trina Mengesha, Dale Price, Karen Berkery, Charles Behler, Matthew Wikander, Rachel Roe (bd, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
49 ORDER requiring dismissal papers to be submitted by 1/20/2006; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, mdr) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
50 PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE signed by all parties by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and defendants Advance Employment Services and Applegate Holding Co (Price, Dale) Modified to correct filers on 1/10/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 01/09/2006)
51 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to show cause in writing within 21 days why proposed Consent Decree should not rejected for referenced irregularities; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
52 RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause 51 by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mengesha, Trina) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
53 ORDER granting and adopting 50 consent decree; signed by Senior

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Docket Report

Page 8 of 8

04/10/2006

Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
54 CONSENT DECREE; with Exhibits A & B ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (bd, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/21/2007 10:55:03

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 5:04-cv-00167-RAE

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635356549910441-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007