-

-

-. . . .. " ~

~, ".

" ,,' ,;" ~ ;" ; .7,'2

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.
ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.

) )

COMPL~t\._ nOWD

)

JURY T

rJtS

)

Defendant

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq), ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct continuing unlawful employment practices on the basis of Race, Black, and to make whole Kenneth S. Taylor and other similarly situated individuals affected by Defendant's unlawful practices.
Since on or about December 15, 1999, Defendant has denied Kenneth S. Taylor

-

.-

and similarly situated employees, equal employment opportunities based on race, Black.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (1) and (3) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Royal Chemical Company, (the "Employer") has continuously been an Ohio corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and city of Macedonia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), (g) and (h).
2

-

-

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days priorto institution ofthis lawsuit, Kenneth S. Taylorfiled a charge with the Commission alleging violations otTitle VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this suit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least on or about December 15, 1999 Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Macedonia, Ohio facility, in violation of Section 703 ofTilie VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2.
a) Defendant knew or should have known of a racially hostile environment in its workplace at the Macedonia, Ohio facility. b) Defendant failed to take preventive measures to prevent the racially hostile work environment at its Macedonia, Ohio facility. c) Defendant failed to take prompt and effective action to address and to eradicate the racially hostile work environment. d) Defendant subjected Kenneth S. Taylor and similarly situated individuals, to different terms and conditions of employment due to impermissible racial considerations. 8. The effect of the practices complained of above, has been to deprive Kenneth S. Taylor and similarly situated individuals of employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race, Black. 9. The unlawful practices complained of above were intentional.
3

-

-

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were taken with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Kenneth S. Taylor and similarly situated individuals.

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 discriminating against individuals due to considerations of their race. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons of all races and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment. C. Order Defendant Employerto make whole Kenneth S. Taylorand all similarly situated individuals, by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, backpay and front pay in amounts to be proven at trial. D. Order Defendant Employerto make whole Kenneth S. Taylor and all similarly situated persons, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be proven at trial. E. Order Defendant Employerto make whole Kenneth S. Taylor and all similarly situated persons by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses in amounts to be proven at trial.
4

-

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Kenneth S. Taylor and all similarly situated individuals, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described herein above, in amounts to be determined a trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions offact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,
NICHOLAS INZEO DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL (ACTING)
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

~
C. Larry Watson Regional Attorney Registration No. 0031443

ft,~D ~AJf Jf1 D. Sargent 0

r4.v.;, \

Supervisory Trial Attorney

Registration No. 0021028

5

-

wit £ '1l1M'A

6.v- @iJ1t

Donna Williams-Alexander

Trial Attorney

Registration No. 0037838

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland District Office 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454 (216) 522-7454 (216) 522-7430 (fax)

6

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, et al

)

)

PLAINTIFF

)

)

v.

)

)

)

)

)

ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.

)

)

)

DEFENDANT

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.5:02CV2501 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MAGISTRATE PERELMAN
CONSENT DECREE

This action was commenced on December 20, 2002 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") filed a Complaint alleging that Royal Chemical Company, LTD., ("Royal") had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

-----------~----

amended, ("Title VII"), by engaging in race discrimination, (hostile environment harassment). Defendant denies the material allegations raised by the Complaint.
The parties have now conferred and resolved their differences and agree that this litigation should be resolved by the issuance of a consent decree.
IT IS THEREFORE, the finding of this Court as follows: 1) This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(l) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Section 1981A; 2) The provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will be carried out by the implementation of this Consent Decree; 3) This Consent Decree is intended to and does resolve all matters in controversy between the parties.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: I. The term of this Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of entry by the Court. 2. Nothing contained in this Consent Decree shall be construed to be an admission by the Defendant that it has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 3. Defendant shall pay non-pecuniary compensatory damages in the total amount of $125,00.00 to be divided between Kenneth Taylor, Donald J. Robinson, Gerald Boiner, Brandon 1. Clarke, Alonzo Render and Philip 1. Gahring. Defendant's obligation to pay Messrs. Robinson, Boiner, Clarke, Render and Gahring shall not inure until December 30, 2004. Defendant's financial obligation to Kenneth Taylor shall be completed upon July 15, 2004.
2

4. Defendant is hereby ENJOINED from subjecting any employee to harassment due to that person's race or any other illegal basis. 5. Within ten (10) days after the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post in conspicuous locations throughout all of its facilities, where notices to employees and applicants are customarily posted, the Notice attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". Said Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree. 6. No later than thirty (30) days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall create, adopt and promulgate a written non-harassment policy describing racial harassment, and providing a complaint system for the reporting of suspected harassment. Said policy shall be posted in a conspicuous location in Defendant's facility for the duration of the Decree. 7. No later than sixty (60) days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall have all of its employees and managers trained by an appropriately knowledgeable professional in the laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Said training shall be mandatory for all employees of the Defendant. After such training is completed, Defendant will provide to the Commission a list of the names of all attendees as well as the name of the trainer(s) and a summary of the material covered in the training sessIOn. 8. For the duration ofthis Decree, Royal shall report on a quarterly basis to the Commission, whether or not any complaints of racial harassment have been made. Said report shall include the name of the person complaining, the nature ofthe complaint, and a description of Royal's response to the complaint. 9. For the term of this Decree, the Commission shall have, with reasonable notice to the
3

Defendant, entry at Respondent's facility and access to witnesses and documents for purposes of ascertaining compliance with this Decree. 10. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall preclude the Commission from bringing suit to enforce the tenus of this Consent Decree. 11. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of compliance with this Consent Decree and the entry of such further orders as may be necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Consent Decree. 12. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED this JG r-- day of ~,;-rv'k2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
4

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between the U. S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Royal Chemical Company, LTD. in the matter of

EEOC v. Royal Chemical Company LTD., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern

Division, Case No. 5:02CV2501. In this litigation, the EEOC alleged that Royal Chemical had

engaged in unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, by engaging in racial harassment. Royal Chemical Company denied the allegations

contained in the EEOC's complaint.

On

the Honorable Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. of the U. S. District Court for the

Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, entered a Consent Decree which settled the

aforementioned litigation without any admission of liability by Royal Chemical Company LTD.

This is to inform you that all employees have the right to a working environment that is free

from harassment based on their race. You are also advised that employees have the right to be free

from retaliation for engaging in their right to complain about unlawful discrimination and to oppose

discrimination andlor to assist anyone else who believes that they have been discriminated against

in employment.

Royal Chemical Company LTD. is committed to complying with and enforcing all of the

laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended.

Any employee with any questions concerning the federal laws against discrimination is

encouraged to speak with any Royal Chemical Company manager or to caIl the Cleveland District

Office of the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland, Ohio (216) 522-200 I

Royal Chemical Company

5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
vs. ROYAL CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 5:01-CV2893

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER

)

)

)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

)

CONSOLIDATE

)

)

)

)

Kenneth Taylor, Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, initially filed the action against

Royal Chemical Co. Ltd. (“Royal”) in this case pro se. Then, on or about March 13, 2002, the

undersigned entered a Notice of Appearance as Mr. Taylor’s counsel, and also filed a Motion to

File a First Amended Complaint, which was granted.

The bases for Mr. Taylor’s federal claims are found in four separate charges filed with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Mr. Taylor is the charging party in

each the four charges, numbered 220A10284, 220A10872, 220A00762 and 220A01184. The

EEOC issued right to sue letters on the first two charges. On the latter two charges, however,

rather than issue a right to sue letters, the EEOC filed its own suit in EEOC v. Royal Chemical

Co., Ltd., Case 02CV2501 on December 20, 2002. (Mr. Taylor’s case pending before Judge

Oliver includes pendant state claims based on all four charges pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §

4112.99.) That case was assigned to the docket of the Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr. The

essence of the claims pending before this Court and pending before Judge Dowd are the same.

Northern District of Ohio Local Rule 3.1 (b)(3), Reassignment, Related Cases, reads as

follows:

A case may be re-assigned as related to an earlier assigned case with the concurrence of both the transferee and the transferor District Judges, with or without a motion by counsel.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (a), Consolidation, reads as follows: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Therefore, Mr. Taylor now moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (a) and Northern District of Ohio Local Rule 3.1 (b)(3) to reassign and to consolidate Case No. 02CV2501 with the earlier filed Case No. 5:01CV2893, and to have both cases assigned to the earlier District Judge, Judge Solomon Oliver. This motion is unopposed by counsel for both Royal and the EEOC, per prior and recent conversations between Mr. Taylor’s counsel and counsel for Royal, Mr. Kenneth Stark, Esq. and counsel for the EEOC, Ms. Donna WilliamsAlexander, Esq. Counsel in both of these cases have their offices in the Greater Cleveland area. Plaintiff attaches a Memorandum in Support to be made a part of this motion, setting forth more fully the facts and grounds for this Motion, as well as a proposed order.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Dennis J. Niermann Dennis J. Niermann, Esq. (0007988) Dennis J. Niermann Co., LPA 4070 Mayfield Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44121-3031 Phone: (216) 297-1040 Fax: (216) 291-9622 E-mail: niermann@sex-harassment.info Website: www.sex-harassment.info
Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
vs. ROYAL CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 5:01-CV2893

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

)

CONSOLIDATE

)

)

)

)

The two cases under consideration for consolidation contain common issues of fact and law. The factual issues in both cases are intertwined as to whether Royal discriminated against Mr. Taylor with regard to the terms and conditions of his employment based on race, claims of disparate treatment, racially hostile work environment, disparate training and promotion opportunities, retaliation, and discriminatory discharge based on race/retaliation.
Legal issues in both cases are also common, because both cases were brought pursuant to Title VII. In addition, Mr. Taylor’s pendent state claims also involve legal issues common to claims raised by the EEOC pursuant to Title VII, because the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “...federal case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 2000(e) et seq., Title 42, U. S. Code, is generally applicable to cases involving alleged violations of R. C. Chapter 4112.” Plumbers & Steamfitters v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, et al., 66 Ohio St. 2d 192, 196; 421 N.E.2d 128.
The Court may order consolidation of actions pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when common issues of law or fact are involved. Consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration. Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 729 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1984). It is within the Court's discretion to decide whether or not to order consolidation. U.S.E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990).

Page 3 of 6

However, the courts have viewed consolidation with favor. Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1970); Masterson v. Atherton, 223 F. Supp. 407 (D.C. Conn. 1963), aff'd, 328 F.2d 106 (2nd Cir. 1964). Consolidation provides the Court with the opportunity to expedite trials and avoid inconsistent adjudication of similar issues. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985). Consolidation also acts to conserve time and effort for the Court and parties involved in the litigation. Cruz v. Robert Abbey, Inc., 778 F. Supp. 605 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Amer. Resources, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 759 (D.Del. 1991).
Both cases arise out of the same conduct and incidents alleged to have occurred. Moreover, both cases will use the same witnesses, exhibits and documents. The parties to both cases have agreed that the taking of depositions shall not be duplicated and that each deposition may be used in both cases. These circumstances indicate an appropriateness for consolidation. Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Am.Resources, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 759 (D. Del. 1991).
The legal issues in both actions are whether Mr. Taylor was discriminated and/or retaliated against in violation of Title VII, and if so, what are the remedies to which Mr. Taylor is entitled. Both cases include a jury demand. Even if some issues were slightly different, the fact that all issues are not identical should not defeat the motion for consolidation. Actions may be consolidated even though they present individual issues in addition to common issues. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985).
Consolidation may be denied if it would result in prejudice to the parties, if it would cause undue delay, or if consolidation would not result in a savings of time or expense. American Employers' Ins. Co. v. King Resources Co., 545 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir. 1976); Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Flintkote Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 73 F.R.D. 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). None of these factors is operative here. No prejudice will result from consolidation as the common issues of law and fact are central to both cases, and each witness will testify in the trial of the other's lawsuit.
Page 4 of 6

As to discovery, while Mr. Taylor and Royal have engaged in some paper discovery (Interrogatories and Request for Documents), no depositions have yet been taken, so Mr. Taylor, Royal and the EEOC will, with reassignment and consolidation, be able to all attend the depositions taken by other parties. Therefore, no undue delay will arise from consolidation. Avoiding the cost of two separate trials will result in a savings of time and expense for all parties involved. Judicial economy also dictates that the cases be consolidated, since they can easily be tried in one trial, rather than two. In addition, all counsel in both cases have their offices in the Greater Cleveland area, and the granting of this motion would eliminate round trip driving time from Cleveland to Akron on counsel in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Chemical Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 02CV2501 case.
Accordingly, Mr. Taylor respectfully requests that this Court, with the concurrence of Judge Dowd, issue an order consolidating Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Chemical Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 02CV2501 with the above-captioned action.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Dennis J. Niermann Dennis J. Niermann, Esq. (0007988) Dennis J. Niermann Co., LPA 4070 Mayfield Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44121-3031 Phone: (216) 297-1040 Fax: (216) 291-9622 E-mail: niermann@sex-harassment.info Website: www.sex-harassment.info
Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the foregoing was electronically served on Defendant’s counsel via the electronic filing system, and upon counsel for the EEOC by sending same via regular U.S. Mail, this 23rd day of January, 2003 to: Donna Williams-Alexander, Esq. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office 850 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454
s/ Dennis J. Niermann DENNIS J. NIERMANN
Page 6 of 6

 
 3/10/2003-Motion is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
vs. ROYAL CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 5:01-CV2893

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER

)

)

)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

)

CONSOLIDATE

)

)

)

)

Kenneth Taylor, Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, initially filed the action against

Royal Chemical Co. Ltd. (“Royal”) in this case pro se. Then, on or about March 13, 2002, the

undersigned entered a Notice of Appearance as Mr. Taylor’s counsel, and also filed a Motion to

File a First Amended Complaint, which was granted.

The bases for Mr. Taylor’s federal claims are found in four separate charges filed with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Mr. Taylor is the charging party in

each the four charges, numbered 220A10284, 220A10872, 220A00762 and 220A01184. The

EEOC issued right to sue letters on the first two charges. On the latter two charges, however,

rather than issue a right to sue letters, the EEOC filed its own suit in EEOC v. Royal Chemical

Co., Ltd., Case 02CV2501 on December 20, 2002. (Mr. Taylor’s case pending before Judge

Oliver includes pendant state claims based on all four charges pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §

4112.99.) That case was assigned to the docket of the Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr. The

essence of the claims pending before this Court and pending before Judge Dowd are the same.

Northern District of Ohio Local Rule 3.1 (b)(3), Reassignment, Related Cases, reads as

follows:

A case may be re-assigned as related to an earlier assigned case with the concurrence of both the transferee and the transferor District Judges, with or without a motion by counsel.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (a), Consolidation, reads as follows: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Therefore, Mr. Taylor now moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (a) and Northern District of Ohio Local Rule 3.1 (b)(3) to reassign and to consolidate Case No. 02CV2501 with the earlier filed Case No. 5:01CV2893, and to have both cases assigned to the earlier District Judge, Judge Solomon Oliver. This motion is unopposed by counsel for both Royal and the EEOC, per prior and recent conversations between Mr. Taylor’s counsel and counsel for Royal, Mr. Kenneth Stark, Esq. and counsel for the EEOC, Ms. Donna WilliamsAlexander, Esq. Counsel in both of these cases have their offices in the Greater Cleveland area. Plaintiff attaches a Memorandum in Support to be made a part of this motion, setting forth more fully the facts and grounds for this Motion, as well as a proposed order.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Dennis J. Niermann Dennis J. Niermann, Esq. (0007988) Dennis J. Niermann Co., LPA 4070 Mayfield Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44121-3031 Phone: (216) 297-1040 Fax: (216) 291-9622 E-mail: niermann@sex-harassment.info Website: www.sex-harassment.info
Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
vs. ROYAL CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 5:01-CV2893

)

)

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

)

CONSOLIDATE

)

)

)

)

The two cases under consideration for consolidation contain common issues of fact and law. The factual issues in both cases are intertwined as to whether Royal discriminated against Mr. Taylor with regard to the terms and conditions of his employment based on race, claims of disparate treatment, racially hostile work environment, disparate training and promotion opportunities, retaliation, and discriminatory discharge based on race/retaliation.
Legal issues in both cases are also common, because both cases were brought pursuant to Title VII. In addition, Mr. Taylor’s pendent state claims also involve legal issues common to claims raised by the EEOC pursuant to Title VII, because the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “...federal case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 2000(e) et seq., Title 42, U. S. Code, is generally applicable to cases involving alleged violations of R. C. Chapter 4112.” Plumbers & Steamfitters v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, et al., 66 Ohio St. 2d 192, 196; 421 N.E.2d 128.
The Court may order consolidation of actions pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when common issues of law or fact are involved. Consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration. Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 729 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1984). It is within the Court's discretion to decide whether or not to order consolidation. U.S.E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990).

Page 3 of 6

However, the courts have viewed consolidation with favor. Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1970); Masterson v. Atherton, 223 F. Supp. 407 (D.C. Conn. 1963), aff'd, 328 F.2d 106 (2nd Cir. 1964). Consolidation provides the Court with the opportunity to expedite trials and avoid inconsistent adjudication of similar issues. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985). Consolidation also acts to conserve time and effort for the Court and parties involved in the litigation. Cruz v. Robert Abbey, Inc., 778 F. Supp. 605 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Amer. Resources, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 759 (D.Del. 1991).
Both cases arise out of the same conduct and incidents alleged to have occurred. Moreover, both cases will use the same witnesses, exhibits and documents. The parties to both cases have agreed that the taking of depositions shall not be duplicated and that each deposition may be used in both cases. These circumstances indicate an appropriateness for consolidation. Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Am.Resources, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 759 (D. Del. 1991).
The legal issues in both actions are whether Mr. Taylor was discriminated and/or retaliated against in violation of Title VII, and if so, what are the remedies to which Mr. Taylor is entitled. Both cases include a jury demand. Even if some issues were slightly different, the fact that all issues are not identical should not defeat the motion for consolidation. Actions may be consolidated even though they present individual issues in addition to common issues. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985).
Consolidation may be denied if it would result in prejudice to the parties, if it would cause undue delay, or if consolidation would not result in a savings of time or expense. American Employers' Ins. Co. v. King Resources Co., 545 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir. 1976); Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Flintkote Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 73 F.R.D. 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). None of these factors is operative here. No prejudice will result from consolidation as the common issues of law and fact are central to both cases, and each witness will testify in the trial of the other's lawsuit.
Page 4 of 6

As to discovery, while Mr. Taylor and Royal have engaged in some paper discovery (Interrogatories and Request for Documents), no depositions have yet been taken, so Mr. Taylor, Royal and the EEOC will, with reassignment and consolidation, be able to all attend the depositions taken by other parties. Therefore, no undue delay will arise from consolidation. Avoiding the cost of two separate trials will result in a savings of time and expense for all parties involved. Judicial economy also dictates that the cases be consolidated, since they can easily be tried in one trial, rather than two. In addition, all counsel in both cases have their offices in the Greater Cleveland area, and the granting of this motion would eliminate round trip driving time from Cleveland to Akron on counsel in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Chemical Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 02CV2501 case.
Accordingly, Mr. Taylor respectfully requests that this Court, with the concurrence of Judge Dowd, issue an order consolidating Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Chemical Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 02CV2501 with the above-captioned action.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Dennis J. Niermann Dennis J. Niermann, Esq. (0007988) Dennis J. Niermann Co., LPA 4070 Mayfield Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44121-3031 Phone: (216) 297-1040 Fax: (216) 291-9622 E-mail: niermann@sex-harassment.info Website: www.sex-harassment.info
Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the foregoing was electronically served on Defendant’s counsel via the electronic filing system, and upon counsel for the EEOC by sending same via regular U.S. Mail, this 23rd day of January, 2003 to: Donna Williams-Alexander, Esq. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office 850 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454
s/ Dennis J. Niermann DENNIS J. NIERMANN
Page 6 of 6

 
 Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

Cat03, Limbert, Standard, Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Akron) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:02-cv-02501-SO

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Chemical Date Filed: 12/20/2002

Company, Ltd.

Date Terminated: 04/30/2004

Assigned to: Hon. Solomon Oliver, Jr

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C. Larry Watson U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Cleveland 3001 AJC Federal Bldg. 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7455 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: larry.watson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna L. Williams-Alexander U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Cleveland 3001 AJC Federal Bldg. 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7454 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: Donna.Williams-Alexander@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John D. Sargent INVALID - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 850 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113-1454 216-522-7438 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: John.Sargent@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

V. Defendant Royal Chemical Company, Ltd.
Interested Party Kenneth S. Taylor Consolidated Plaintiff from Related Action
Mediator John T. Billick Mediator TERMINATED: 09/11/2003
Mediator Attorney-at-Law Gregory P. Szuter Mediator TERMINATED: 12/17/2003

represented by Kenneth B Stark Littler Mendelson - Cleveland 20th Floor 1100 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216-696-7600 Fax: 216-696-2038 Email: kstark@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia S. Conti Ste. F 760 Beta Drive Mayfield Heights, OH 44143 216-973-3370 Fax: 440-995-0022 Email: patriciasconti@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis J. Niermann 4070 Mayfield Road Cleveland, OH 44121-3031 216-297-1040 Fax: 216-381-0250 Email: niermann@en.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John T. Billick Littler Mendelson - Cleveland 20th Floor 1100 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216-696-7600 Fax: 216-696-2038 Email: jbillick@littler.com TERMINATED: 09/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory P. Szuter 730 Ohio Savings Plaza 1801 East Ninth Street

2 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

Cleveland, OH 44114 216-861-0503 Fax: 216-696-6653 Email: gpsz@aol.com TERMINATED: 12/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/20/2002
12/20/2002 12/20/2002 02/03/2003
02/18/2003 02/18/2003
03/13/2003 03/20/2003
03/24/2003 03/27/2003

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint with jury demand (1 waiver and Magistrate Consent Forms issued) against Royal Chemical Company, Ltd.. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(B, BA) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
2 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge Limbert (B, BA) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
3 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System (B, BA) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
4 Order reassigning case as related to Case No. 5:01CV2893, pending on the docket of Judge Oliver. Judge David D. Dowd removed from case, Judge Solomon Oliver added to case. Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. (M, D) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
5 Answer to Complaint (Related Doc # 1) filed by all defendants. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
6 Motion to dismiss Claims of Other Similarly Situated Individuals with brief in support filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Charge of Discrimination# 2 Charge of Discrimination# 3 Charge of Discrimination# 4 Charge of Discrimination# 5 Determination# 6 Determination# 7 Determination# 8 Dismissal and Notice of Rights# 9 Conciliation Letter# 10 Notice of Right to Sue# 11 Conciliation Letter# 12 Unreported Case - EEOC v. Mallinckrodt)(Stark, Kenneth) Modified text of docket entry on 2/19/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 02/18/2003)
7 Notice of Magistrate Consent form (D, M) (Entered: 03/13/2003)
8 Memorandum in Opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss claims of similarly situated individuals (Related Motion(s) 6) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B)(Williams-Alexander, Donna) Modified text of docket entry on 3/21/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 03/20/2003)
9 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order with case management conference to be held on 4/3/2003 at 02:30 PM at Chambers 17A (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 03/24/2003)
10 Joint Report of Parties' Planning Meeting under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (f) and L.R. 16.3 (b) filed by all plaintiffs. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) Modified text of docket entry on 3/28/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 03/27/2003)

3 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

03/27/2003 04/01/2003 04/14/2003
04/17/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 05/06/2003 05/07/2003
08/28/2003 09/10/2003 09/11/2003 09/12/2003

11 Unopposed Motion to attend CMC telephonically filed by Kenneth S. Taylor. (Niermann, Dennis) Modified text of docket entry on 3/28/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 03/27/2003)
12 Marginal Order Granting Motion to attend by telephone (Related Doc # 11) Counsel shall phone chambers at the appropriate time. (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 04/01/2003)
13 Case Management Conference Plan/Order. A case management conference was held on 4/3/2003 at 02:30 P.M. Discovery due by 10/9/2003, Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 5/30/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 11/14/2003. This case is assigned to the standard track and is referred to mediation to be conducted as soon as possible after 7/15/2003. This case is ordered into the court's electronic filing system. The Motion of Defendant to Dismiss the EEOC's claim for similarly-situated individuals (Related document6) is granted in part and denied in part; the lawsuit shall be limited to all of the individual claims of discimination by Mr. Taylor as well as his hostile environment claim and any other potential claims by other individuals related to and growing out of the hostile environment claim. (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 04/14/2003)
14 List of potential neutrals sent to parties Neutral selection due by 4/28/2003, (Related document(s)13) (S, J) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
15 Agreed Mediation Ranking Information Sheet filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Williams-Alexander, Donna) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
16 Notice sent to first potential neutral, re: conflict request Neutral Conflict Response due by 5/1/2003, (Related document(s)15) (S, J) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
17 Notice received from the first potential neutral, re: conflict. Neutral available: Yes (Related document(s)16) (D, P). Modified on 5/7/2003 (D, P). (Entered: 05/06/2003)
18 Notice of designation of neutral-Mediator advised to schedule mediation conference no earlier than 7/15/2003 and to conclude by 8/14/2003. Report of Mediator to be filed manually with the ADR Administrator no later than 8/25/2003. Report of Mediator form attached to the Notice of Designation. Mediator to schedule mediation conference and provide written notice to counsel/parties and the ADR Administrator as to the date, time and location of the mediation conference. Mediation process to be completed by 8/25/2003. Designated neutral: John T. Billick (Related document(s)17). (D, P) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
19 Notice of ADR Administrator - letter to Mediator requesting Report of Mediator (Related document(s)18). (D, P) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
20 Letter filed by John T Billick. (Billick, John) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
21 Notice sent to potential neutral, re: conflict request. Neutral Conflict Response due by 9/15/2003 (D, P). (Entered: 09/11/2003)
22 Notice received from potential neutral, re: conflict. Neutral available: Yes (Related document(s)21). (D, P) (Entered: 09/12/2003)

4 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

09/12/2003
09/24/2003 09/26/2003 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/17/2003 10/17/2003 10/17/2003 10/17/2003 10/17/2003

23 Notice of designation of neutral - Mediator advised to schedule mediation conference on or before 10/14/2003. Report of Mediator to be filed manually not later than 10/24/2003. REPORT OF MEDIATOR FORM ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF DESIGNATION. Mediator to schedule mediation conference and file electronic notice setting forth the date, time and location of the mediation conference Mediation process to be completed by 10/24/2003. Designated neutral: Gregory P. Szuter (Related document(s)22). (D, P) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
25 Schedules Mediation conference & schedules Report of Mediator deadline filed by Gregory P. Szuter with Mediation conf to be held on 9/30/2003 at 09:30 AM at office of mediator, 730 Ohio Savings Plaza, 1801 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. Mediation Report due by 10/10/2003 (Related document(s) 23( S, J) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
24 Joint Motion for extension of discovery and dispositive motion cutoff date for a minimum period of ninety days filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. and Kenneth S. Taylor. (Conti, Patricia) Modified text of docket entry on 9/29/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 09/26/2003)
26 Marginal Order granting Motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 24)Discovery due by 12/15/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 3/15/2004. This case is referred to mediation to take place as soon as possible after 12/15/2003. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 10/7/2003. (D, M) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
27 Rescheduling mediation deadlines. Mediation conference to be scheduled no earlier than 12/15/2003 and concluded by 1/16/2004. Report of Mediator to be filed manually no later than 1/26/2004. Mediation process to be completed by 1/26/2004 (Related document(s)26, 25, 23). (D, P) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
28 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Brandon L. Clarke by process server on 10/10/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
29 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Donald J. Robinson by process server on 10/9/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
30 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Frederick R. Frantz by process server on 10/10/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
31 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Alonzo Render by process server on 10/10/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
32 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Gerald Boiner by process server on 10/10/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

5 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

10/17/2003 12/01/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 02/23/2004 02/24/2004 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
03/04/2004 03/10/2004 04/28/2004 04/29/2004

33 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Philip L. Gahring by process server on 10/10/2003 (this subpoena was issued on behalf of defendant) filed by Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(B, B) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
34 Subpoena Returned Executed; served upon Mark Stump and Joseph Neneikis by personal service on 11/30/2003 (this subpoea was issued on behalf of plaintiff) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (B, B) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
35 Final Mediation Report filed manually with ADR Administrator. Disp. Code:8. Future ADR: None Recommended. Related document(s)23. (S, J) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
36 Notice of ADR Administrator. A mediation conference was held on 12/17/2003 and as a result the process is complete. Case is returned to chambers for further settlement negotiations & case processing. Related document(s)35. (S, J) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
37 Order referring case to Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman to conduct a settlement conference as soon as his schedule will allow. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 2/23/2004. (D, M) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
38 Joint Motion for extension of dispositive motion cutoff date filed by all defendants. (Conti, Patricia) Modified text of docket entry on 2/25/2004 (B, B). (E-mail sent to attorneys re: signature on 2/25/2004) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
39 Marginal Order granting joint motion for extension of dispositive motion cut-off until April 15, 2004. (Related Doc # 38). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 2/26/2004.(D, M) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
40 Notice of Settlement Confrence and Pretrial - Settlement conference is set for Wednesday, 3/10/04 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge David Perelman in Chambers 11A. Counsel and all clients must be present. Further, a pretrial for counsel only is set for Wednesday, 3/3/04 at 1:30 p.m.before Magistrate Judge Perelman. Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman, (G, S) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
41 Minutes of proceedings.Pretrial conference held on 3/3/04 before Judge David S. Perelman. Mediation going forward. (C, E) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
42 Minutes of proceedings. Settlement conference held on 3/10/04 before Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman. Case settled, consent entry within 45 days. (C, E) Modified text of docket entry on 3/11/2004 (B, B). (Entered: 03/10/2004)
43 Unsigned Joint Motion for a 30 day extension of time until 5/26/2004 to file consent decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) Modified text of docket entry on 4/29/2004 (B, B). (Entered: 04/28/2004)
44 Joint Motion for a 30 day extension of time until 5/26/2004 to file consent decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Williams-Alexander, Donna) Modified text of docket entry on 4/29/2004 (B, B). (Document re-filed with signatures, please see Document #43) (Entered: 04/29/2004)

6 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?447275881553608-L_3...

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
09/08/2004 09/17/2004 09/17/2004

45 Marginal Order granting the joint motion for extension of time until 5/26/2004 to file consent decree (Related Doc # 44). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 4/30/2004.(D, M) Modified text of docket entry on 4/30/2004 (B, B). (Entered: 04/30/2004)
Order (non-document) granting the joint motion for extension of time until 5/26/2004 to file consent decree (Related Doc # 43). See ECF pleading #45. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 4/30/2004.(D, M) Modified text of docket entry on 4/30/2004 (B, B). (Entered: 04/30/2004)
46 Order of Case Dismissal. This court has been advised by counsel that this action has been settled and that the parties will be submitting a dismissal entry to the court. It is ordered that this action is hereby closed. The court retains jurisdiction to vacate this Order to reopen the action upon cause shown that settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 4/30/2004. (D, M) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
47 Joint Motion of the parties to approve and enter consent decree. (D, M) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
Order (non-document) granting joint Motion for order to enter consent decree (Related Doc # 47). Entered by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 9/16/2004. (D, M) Modified text 9/17/2004 (C, K A). (Entered: 09/17/2004)
48 Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 9/17/2004. (D, M) (Entered: 09/17/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 17:09:21

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

eeoc 5:02-cv-02501-SO 0.32

7 of 7

6/4/2007 4:10 PM

 
 CMECF, Cat03, Consolidated, Referred, Standard, Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Akron) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:01−cv−02893−SO

Taylor v. Royal Chemical Co. LTD, Assigned to: Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/26/2001 Date Terminated: 04/30/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kenneth S. Taylor

represented by Dennis J. Niermann 4070 Mayfield Road Cleveland, OH 44121−3031 216−297−1040 Fax: 216−381−0250 Email: niermann@en.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Royal Chemical Co. LTD,
Mediator John T. Billick Mediator TERMINATED: 09/11/2003
Mediator Attorney−at−Law Gregory P. Szuter Mediator TERMINATED: 12/17/2003

represented by Kenneth B Stark Littler Mendelson − Cleveland 20th Floor 1100 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−696−7600 Fax: 216−696−2038 Email: kstark@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia S. Conti Ste. F 760 Beta Drive Mayfield Heights, OH 44143 216−973−3370 Fax: 440−995−0022 Email: patriciasconti@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John T. Billick Littler Mendelson − Cleveland 20th Floor 1100 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−696−7600 Fax: 216−696−2038 Email: jbillick@littler.com TERMINATED: 09/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory P. Szuter Ste. 1710 1801 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 216−861−0503

Date Filed 12/26/2001
12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/26/2001 01/16/2002 01/16/2002 01/21/2002 03/12/2002 03/13/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/07/2002
05/13/2002 05/20/2002 05/28/2002
10/17/2002

Fax: 216−696−6653 Email: gpsz@aol.com TERMINATED: 12/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
# Docket Text
1 Complaint (1 summons and Magistrate Consent Forms issued) against Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. Filed by pro se Kenneth S. Taylor. Filing fee paid; receipt number 630650. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Questionnaire# 2 Exhibit 2: Correspondence# 3 Exhibit 3: Letter# 4 Civil Cover Sheet # 5 FL 103 letter)(S, T) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
2 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman. (S, T) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
3 Case Information Statement ; Track Assignment Requested: No designation; filed by pro se Kenneth S. Taylor. (S, T) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
4 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System (S, T) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
5 Answer to Complaint (Related Doc # 1 ) filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
6 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
7 Amended Answer filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/21/2002)
8 Attorney Appearance by Dennis J. Niermann filed by on behalf of pro se Kenneth S. Taylor. (Niermann, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
9 Motion to amend complaint Instanter filed by pro se Kenneth S. Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading First Amended Complaint)(Niermann, Dennis) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
10 Marginal Order granting Motion to amend complaint (Related Doc # 9 ) (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 05/06/2002)
11 Amended complaint filed against Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. Filed by Kenneth S. Taylor. (D, M) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
12 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order with case management conference to be held on 5/20/2002 at 03:30 P.M. at Chambers 300 (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 05/07/2002)
13 Report of Parties Planning Meeting filed by all parties. (Niermann, Dennis) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
14 Answer to Amended Complaint (Related Doc # 11 ) filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
15 Case Management Conference held on 5/20/2002 at 03:30 P.M. before Magistrate Perelman. Report of parties planning meeting adopted as Case Management Order. Discovery due by 11/15/2002, Dispositive Motions due by 12/16/2002. This case is assigned to the standard track. (D, M) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
16 Joint Motion for extension of time (Discovery and Dispositive Motion Cutoff Dates) filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Stark, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/17/2002)

10/25/2002 01/23/2003 02/11/2003 03/10/2003 03/11/2003
04/14/2003 04/17/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 05/06/2003 05/07/2003
08/28/2003 09/10/2003 09/11/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003

17 Marginal Order granting motion for extension deadlines (Related Doc # 16 ) Discovery due by 2/13/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 3/14/2003. (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 10/25/2002)
18 Unopposed Motion to consolidate cases filed by Kenneth S. Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Niermann, Dennis) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
19 Joint Motion for extension of time (Discovery and Dispositive Motion Cutoff Dates) filed by all parties. (Conti, Patricia) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
20 Marginal Order Granting Motion to consolidate cases (Related Doc # 18 ) (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 03/10/2003)
21 Marginal Order Granting Motion for extension of time for a period of 90 days at this time (Related Doc # 19 ) Discovery due by 5/13/2003 and Dispositive Motions due by 6/13/2003. After case management conference is held in 1:02cv2501, the court will determine if schedules are to be concurrent. (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 03/11/2003)
22 Case Management Conference Plan/Order. Discovery due by 10/9/2003, Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 5/30/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 11/14/2003. (D, M)Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr. (Entered: 04/14/2003)
23 List of potential neutrals sent to parties Neutral selection due by 4/28/2003, (S, J) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
24 Agreed Mediation Ranking Information Sheet filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,, Kenneth S. Taylor (Related document(s) 23 ) (S, J) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
25 Notice sent to first potential neutral, re: conflict request Neutral Conflict Response due by 5/1/2003, (Related document(s) 24 ) (S, J) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
26 Notice received from the first potential neutral, re: conflict. Neutral available: Yes (Related document(s) 25 ) (D, P). Modified on 5/7/2003 (D, P). (Entered: 05/06/2003)
27 Notice of designation of neutral−Mediator advised to schedule mediation conference no earlier than 7/15/2003 and to conclude by 8/14/2003. Report of Mediator to be filed manually with the ADR Administrator no later than 8/25/2003. Report of Mediator form attached to the Notice of Designation. Mediator to schedule mediation conference and provide written notice to counsel/parties and the ADR Administrator as to the date, time and location of the mediation conference. Mediation process to be completed by 8/25/2003. Designated neutral: John T. Billick (Related document(s) 26 ). (D, P) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
28 Notice of ADR Administrator−letter to Mediator requesting Report of Mediator (Related document(s) 27 ). (D, P) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
29 Letter filed by John T Billick. (Billick, John) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
30 Notice sent to potential neutral, re: conflict request. Neutral Conflict Response due by 9/15/2003 (D, P). (Entered: 09/11/2003)
31 Notice received from potential neutral, re: conflict. Neutral available: Yes(Related document(s) 30 ). (D, P) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
32 Notice of designation of neutral − Mediator advised to schedule mediation conference on or before 10/14/2003. Report of Mediator to be filed manually no later than 10/24/2003. REPORT OF MEDIATOR FORM ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF DESIGNATION. Mediator to schedule mediation conference and file electronic notice

09/24/2003
09/26/2003 10/07/2003
10/08/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003 02/23/2004 02/24/2004 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
03/04/2004 03/10/2004 04/30/2004

setting forth the date, time and location of the mediation conference. Mediation process to be completed by 10/24/2003. Designated neutral: Gregory P. Szuter (Related document(s) 31 ). (D, P) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
34 Schedules Mediation conference &schedules Report of Mediator deadline filed by Gregory P. Szuter with Mediation conf to be held on 9/30/2003 at 09:30 AM at office of mediator, 730 Ohio Savings Plaza, 1801 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. Mediation Report due by 10/10/2003 (Related document(s) 32 ( S, J) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
33 Joint Motion for extension of time (Discovery and Dispositive Motion Cutoff Dates) filed by Royal Chemical Co. LTD,. (Conti, Patricia) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
35 Marginal Order granting Motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 33 ) Discovery due by 12/15/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 3/15/2004. This case is referred to mediation to take place as soon as possible after 12/15/2003. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 10/7/2003. (D, M) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
36 Rescheduling mediation deadlines. Mediation conference to be scheduled no earlier than 12/15/2003 and concluded by 1/16/2004. Report of Mediator to be filed manually no later than 1/26/2004. Mediation process to be completed by 1/26/2004 (Related document(s) 35 , 34 , 32 ). (D, P) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
37 Final Mediation Report filed manually with ADR Administrator. Disp. Code:8. Future ADR: None Recommended. Related document(s) 36 . (S, J) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
38 Notice of ADR Administrator. A mediation conference was held on 12/17/2003 and as a result the process is complete. Case is returned to chambers for further settlement negotiations &case processing. Related document(s) 37 . (S, J) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
39 Order referring case to Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman to conduct a settlement conference as soon as his schedule will allow. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 2/23/2004. (D, M) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
40 Joint Motion for extension of time dispositive motion cutoff date filed by all defendants. (Conti, Patricia) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
41 Marginal Order granting joint motion for extension of dispositive motion cut−off until April 15, 2004 (Related Doc # 40 ). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 2/26/2004. (D, M) Modified on 2/26/2004 (D, M). (Entered: 02/26/2004)
42 Notice of Settlement Conference and Pretrial − A settlement conference is set for Wednesday, 03/10/04 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge David Perelman in Chambers 11A. Counsel and all clients are to be present. Further, a pretrial for counsel only is set for Wednesday, 3/3/04 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Perelman. Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman (G, S) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
43 Minutes of proceedings. Pretrial conference held on 3/3/04 before Judge David S. Perelman. Mediation going forward (C, E) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
44 Minutes of proceedings. Settlement conference held on 3/10/04 before Judge David S. Perelman. Case settled, entry due in about 30 days. (C, E) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
45 Order of Case Dismissal. This court has been advised by counsel that this action has been settled and that the parties will be submitting a dismissal entry to the court. It is ordered that this action is hereby closed. The court retains jurisdiction to vacate this Order to reopen the action upon cause shown that settlement has not been completed and

further litigation is necessary. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. on 4/30/2004. (D, M) (Entered: 04/30/2004)