UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex reI., THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ____ _ AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGES, a st~te agency,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. _ _ _ __

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf ofthe United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").
2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. Defendant Langston University, ex reI., the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges ("Defendant") is a governmental agency created pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
4. Defendant is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(a) and an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. Defendant has subjected Barbara Craig, Ph.D., a Professor employed by the Defendant, to discrimination on the basis of her race, white, in violation of Section 703(a) of

· Title vn, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:

(a) Paying her lower wages than it has paid to similarly situated African and

African-American employees; and,

(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the

discriminatory treatment of Dr. Barbara Craig.

6. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")

received a timely charge (Charge No. 310 2004 03285) filed by Dr. Barbara Craig in April 2004

._- - .. - .-

-- - .

-

- --

-

alleging, inter alia, that management officials of Langston University discriminated against her

on the basis of race by paying her below scale for her position and by giving preferential

treatment in decisions of salary and salary increases to African-American and African employees.
Pursuant to Section 706 of Title vn, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge,

found reasonable cause to believe that Dr. Barbara Craig's allegation of disparate pay was true,

attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the charge,

and subsequently referred the matter to the United States Department of Justice.

7. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have

occurred.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the Court grant the following relief:

(a) Enjoin Defendant from subjecting individuals to discriminatory salary

decisions based on race, including but not limited to: (1) requiring Defendant to modify its

compensation practices and procedures to prevent future discrimination; and (2) requiring

Defendant to provide training to its officials and employees involved in determining faculty

salaries at Langston University.

-2-

(b) Award sufficient remedial relief to make charging party Barbara Craig

whole for the loss she has suffered as a result of the discrimination alleged in this Complaint; and

(c) Award compensatory damages to charging party Dr. Barbara Craig to fully

compensate her for the injuries caused by Defendant's discriminatory conduct, pursuant to and

within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §

1981a;and

(d) Award such additional relief as justice may require, together with

- ..

-- . -- . -_."

-_.. - --

_.. - -

Plaintiffs costs and disbursements in this action.

WANJ.KIM Assistant Attorney General
BY:~~
DAVID V.PAUvIER Chief, Employment Litigation Section
~.~ ~ts DiViSi~~
CHRISTINE M. ROTH CHARLES E. LEGGOTT United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHB 950 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-0548 (202) 514-1005 (fax)

-3-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 


LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel., THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGES, a state agency,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE This action was brought by the United States against the Langston University, ex rel.,
Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges ("Board") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. $2000e, et seq., as amended. The Board is a governmental agency created pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma that governs several public institutions of higher education in Oklahoma including Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma. In its complaint, the United States alleges
that Langston University discriminated against Barbara Craig, Ph.D., a Professor employed by the University in its Department of English on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-2(a).
The parties, desiring to settle appropriately this action, agree to the jurisdiction of this

Court over them and to the subject matter of t h s action, and hereby waive the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties, desiring to avoid protracted and unnecessary litigation, also accept this Consent Decree ("Decree") as final on the issues resolved. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall not constitute an admission, adjudication or finding on the merits of this action, and the Board denies that any unlawhl discrimination has occurred.
In resolution of this action, the parties hereby AGREE and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS the following: I. PARTIES AND DEFINITIONS
1. The parties to this Decree are the United States, by the U.S. Department of Justice ("United States"), and Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges.
2. The Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, its current, former and future agents, employees, officials, designees and successors in interest are referred to hereinafter as "the Board."
3. Barbara Craig, Ph.D., is referred to hereinafter as "Dr. Craig." 4. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is referred to hereinafter as the "EEOC."
5. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e, et seq., is
referred to hereinafter as "Title VII." 6. "Date of entry of this Decree" shall refer to the date on which the Cowt signs the
Decree as an order of the Court.

7. "Faculty member" refers to persons employed by Langston University in the position of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Professor and as instructors, but not clerical, administrative and support personnel. 11. SPECIFIC RELIEF
8. Without admitting the allegations of the United States, and in settlement of the United States' claim for relief, as well as in settlement of the claims of Dr. Craig if she accepts the relief provided to her by this Decree, Langston University:
A. Will increase Dr. Craig's salary to $52,777.92 per annum. This salary will remain in effect until her current employment contract expires on May 18,2006. Such salary increase will be effective as of February 1,2006.
B. Will offer Dr. Craig a total monetary award in the amount of $30,426.00, of which $27,926.00 will be attributed to backpay and interest, and $2,500.00 will be attributed to compensatory damages.
C. Agrees that if the position of Chair of the English Department at Langston University becomes available in the future, and Dr. Craig applies for that position, she will be given fair, objective, non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory consideration.
9. Within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of this Decree, Langston University shall notify Dr. Craig of its terms by mailing to her, by certified letter, return receipt requested, a copy of the letter as set forth in Appendix A. The letter shall inform Dr. Craig of the provisions of t h s Decree and advise her that in order to accept the relief offered to her, she must return the executed Individual Relief and Release of Claim form at Appendix Byto counsel for the Board within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer letter unless good cause, as determined exclusively

by the United States, exists for failure to do so. A copy of the Individual Relief and Release of Claims form and of this Decree shall be enclosed with the letter. If Dr. Craig declines the relief offered by Langston University and the Board, Langston University and the Board nevertheless will have satisfied their obligations to the United States pursuant to this Decree, and the United States will not seek additional relief on her behalf.
10. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the executed Individual Relief and Release of Claims form, Langston University shall increase Dr. Craig's salary to a rate of $52,977.92 per annum as provided in paragraph 8(A). If formal approval by the Board is necessary to effectuate such salary change, Langston University will place an appropriate item on the Board's agenda for its March 3,2006 regularly scheduled meeting for formal Board approval.
11. Langston University shall pay the full amount of the total monetary amount specified in paragraph 8 (B) to Dr. Craig within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the executed Individual Relief and Release of Claims fonn. Langston University shall include any necessary and appropriate tax, wage and withholding forms to reflect the monetary amounts paid to Dr. Craig.
12. Langston University and the Board shall notify the United States as soon as the payment to Dr. Craig has been made. Langston University shall promptly forward to the United States a copy of the canceled check or other appropriate documentation indicating that payment has been made. 111. GENERAL RELIEF
13. Langston University, by and through its officials, agents, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with Langston University in the performance of employment or personnel functions, shall not engage in any act or practice that discriminates against any
-4-

employee or applicant for employment because of that employee's or applicant's race in violation

of Title VII. Langston University specifically states that it shall not in any way take the race of

any employee, including faculty members, into account when making compensation decisions.

14. Langston University, by and through its officials, agents, employees and all persons

in active concert or participation with Langston University in the performance of employment or

personnel functions, shall not retaliate against or in any respect adversely affect the terms and

1

conditions of any person because that person has opposed any practice or policy made unlawful

I

by Title VII; filed a discrimination complaint, either formal or informal, with the Board or

Langston University; filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or the Oklahoma Human

Rights Commission; or testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation,
i
proceeding or hearing under Title VII, including this case or this Decree.

IV. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

15. Withn sixty (60) days after the date of entry of this Decree, Langston University

shall institute and permanently maintain a system of compensation for the English Department

faculty at Langston University that is based on identified, objective factors and is free from

considerations of race.

16. Within thirty (30) days after the date of this Decree, the Board shall submit a draft of

a document setting forth the procedures described in paragraph 14 to the United States for

review, comment and approval. The United States shall provide a response withn thirty (30)

days, and any disputes regarding the United States' approval shall be subject to the dispute

resolution mechanism in paragraph 23.

17. Langston University shall insure that all individuals involved in setting the

compensation of Langston University faculty members receive a copy of the policy and procedures implemented pursuant to this Decree at least fourteen (14) days prior to the commencement of decision-making related to the compensation of Langston University faculty members. V. TRAINING
18. No later than ninety (90) days after the date of entry and approval of t h s Decree, all Langston University managers and supervisory employees will be provided with training with respect to Title VIIYsprohibition against racial discriminationin employment. Langston University will select, with the concurrence of the United States, a qualified individual or group to conduct the training outlined in this paragraph. The United States' concurrence will not be unreasonably withheld. The United States will review and approve any proposed training prior to its administration. VI. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
19. Langston University shall retain during the term of this Decree all documents, in paper or electronic form (including electronic mail), that may come its possession and that are necessary to monitor the implementation of this Decree. Such records shall include but are not be limited to employment contracts, payroll data and documents relating to any formal or informal complaints of employment discrimination involving Langston University regardless of
1 

whether made to a local, state or federal agency or through Langston University's or the Board's internal grievance process.
20. The United States may review compliancewith t h s Decree at any time. As part of that review, Langston University will provide copies of any documents relevant to its compliance

with this Decree upon the request of the United States, including but not limited to the

documents described in paragraph 18.

VII. NOTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES

21. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States will be

sent to the following address if sent by U.S. mail:

Chef Employment Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division - -United StZteSDepartmenfof Justice
950 PennsylvaniaAve., NW - PHI3 4500
Washington D.C. 20530

----

-----

Documents sent by overnight delivery service should be sent to the following address;

Chief 
 Employment Litigation Section 
 Civil Rights Division 
 United States Department of Justice 
 601 D Street, NW 
 Washington D.C. 20004 


22. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the Board will be sent to

the attention of:

Michael Scott Fern, Esq. 
 Office of Legal Counsel 
 220 Student Union 
 Oklahoma State University 
 Stillwater, OK 74078 


VIII. JUIUSDICTION OF THE COURT

23. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of the matters covered by this Consent Decree for

a period of two (2) years from the date of entry and approval of this Decree. This Decree will

expire without further order of this Court one year fiom the date of entry and approval.

24. If a dispute arises concerning compliance with this Decree, the parties will engage in

good faith efforts to resolve the issue before seelung action of the Court. If the parties are unable

expeditiously to resolve the issue, any party may move the Court for resolution, provided that

written notice is first provided to the other party.

DONE and ORDERED this

day of

,200-.

Agreed and Consented to: On behalf of Plaintiff United States:
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On behalf of Defendant Langston University, ex rel., The Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges:
President, Langston University

CHRISTINE M. ROTH CHARLES E. LEGGOTT United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHI3 950 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-0548

APPENDIX A

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dr. Barbara Craig 1914 Rolling Creek Road Edmond, OK 73934

Re: United States v. The Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University

and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Case No.

(W.D. Okla.)

.-

-.-

. ----- -.

--

--- --- ..---. -. ..

.--.

--

Dear Dr. Craig:

The United States, by the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Board of Regents for the

Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges ("Board") have entered

into a Consent Decree settling the case United States of America v The Board of Regents for the

Oklahoma State University and Amicultural and Mechanical Colleges, Case No.

(W.D.

Okla.). A copy of the Consent Decree, whch was approved and entered by the Court on ,is

enclosed.

Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Board is offering to do the following:

1. Pay you a total monetary award of $

,of which $

attributed to backpay and $2,500.00 is attributed to compensatory damages.

will be

2. Agree that if the position of Chair of the English Department at Langston University becomes available in the fkture and you apply for that position, you will be given fair, objective, non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory consideration.

In order to accept the Board's offer, you must execute the enclosed Individual Relief and Relief of Claims form and retum it, withn thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, to the Board's counsel at:

Michael Scott Fern, Esq. 
 Associate General Counsel 
 Office of Legal Counsel 
 220 Student Union 
 Oklahoma State University 
 Stillwater, OK 74078 


The University will pay the monetary amount offered to you within tt.llrty (30) days of its receipt of your executed release.

If you decline the relief offered by the University, the University nevertheless will have satisfied its obligation to the United States pursuant to the Consent Decree, and the United States will not seek additional relief on your behalf.

If you have any questions concerning the Consent Decree or the Boards offer to you, you may contact the followingDepartment of Justice attorney in Waslvngton D.C.:

Charles E. Leggott 
 United States Department of Justice 
 Civil Rights Division 
 -Employment Litigatiox-SEtiTn--
PHI3 - Room 4028
Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-0548.

-- -- -. - ----

-

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Michael Scott Fern Attorney for Defendant

I

APPENDIX B

I

INDIVIDUAL RELIEF AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

I

My name is Barbara Craig.

I do -
 I do not -


I

accept the monetary relief that is being offered to me under the Consent Decree in United

I

States of America v. Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State

University and Agricultural and Mechanical Collenes, Case No.

(W.D. Okla.).

I

-- --

- ---- - -

---

-- -

--- .

Date:

Signature:

IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE RELIEF, OR ANY PART OF THE RELIEF

OFFERED TO YOU, YOU MUST COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS FORM, HAVE IT

NOTARIZED AND POST -MARKED BY

[Date]. A pre-addressed envelope is

enclosed which you may use to return this form. You must return this form to the address on the

envelope within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter unless you show good cause for not

meeting this deadline. The envelope enclosing this form must be postmarked by

[date]. If you have any questions about how to complete the form, you may contact Charles E.

Leggott at the United States Department of Justice at (202) 514-0548.

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

For and in considerationof the acceptance of the relief, or any part of it, offered to me by

Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges pursuant to the provisions of the Consent Decree entered

by [JUDGE] on

,200- in United States v. Lannston University, ex rel., the

Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges,

I, Barbara Craig, hereby release and forever discharge the State of Oklahoma, the Board of

Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Langston

University, and all their current and future officials, employees and agents, of and fiom all legal

and equitable claims, demands, obligations, damages and costs arising out of the Complaint filed

in the above-captioned civil action, any related claims under state law, and EEOC Charge No.

310-2004-03285, or which arise out of said action and or said EEOC charge, accruing prior to the

date of this release.

I understand that the relief to be given to me, including the payment of any monetary amount, does not constitute an admission by Langston University and the Board of regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges of the validity of any claim raised by me or on my behalf, nor does it constitute a finding of any wrongdoing or violation of any applicable federal law or regulation.
This Release constitutes the entire agreement between Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges and me, without exception or exclusion.
I acknowledgethat a copy of the Consent Decree in this action has been made available to me for my review.
I-HAVERE74DTHISFIXELEASE AND UNDERSTANDTHE CONTENTS THEREOF-- ---- --
AND I EXECUTE THIS RELEASE OF MY OWN FREE ACT AND DEED.

Date:

Barbara Craig

Subscribed and sworn to before me this -day of

,200-.

My commission expires:

Notary Public

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel.,

)

THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE )

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

)

AND AGRICULTURAL AND

)

MECHANICAL COLLEGES, a state

)

agency,

)

)

Defendant, )

)

and,

)

)

BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.,

)

)

Additional Party Plaintiff )

and Intervenor,

)

Case No. CIV-06-00185-R

INTERVENOR’S COMPLAINT

Intervenor and Plaintiff Barbara J. Craig, Ph.D., (“ Craig”) brings this action seeking redress

for violations of rights guaranteed to her by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq .,

as amended (“ Title VII”), and the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Aw ards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988

(“ 1988”). For her claims against Defendant Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Oklahoma

for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Craig alleges and

states as follow s:

TH E PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a w hite female w ho at all times herein mentioned did and now does reside

in the City of Edmond, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 2 of 7
2. Defendant The State of Oklahoma, ex rel., The Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, w as at all times herein mentioned and now is a constitutional agency of the State of Oklahoma w hose principal place of doing business is located in the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and among the Oklahoma public institutions of higher education that are governed by Defendant is Langston University located in Langston, Logan County, State of Oklahoma.
3 . Plaintiff United States of America (“ USA”) brought the original action to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . (“ Title VII”).
J U RISD ICTION AND VENU E 4. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., as amended, specifically, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(m); and 28, U.S.C. §§13 3 1 and 13 43 . 5. Venue is proper in the Western District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3 ) and 28 U.S.C. § 13 91.
APPLICAB LE F ACTS 6. Craig is a w hite female w ho has been employed by Defendant at Langston University since 1989 as a faculty member in its English Department. 7. Craig has a Ph.D. degree and is an experienced and w ell-q ualified English professor w ho is tenured and currently holds the academic rank of Full Professor. Before being employed by Defendant, Craig had experience as a Chair of the English Department at another university and has been honored as the most outstanding faculty in the College of Arts & Sciences. 8. Langston University is a historic African-American university and its w orkforce at
-2-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 3 of 7
its Langston, Oklahoma campus has been and now is predominantly comprised of AfricanAmericans.
9. Defendant is a “ person” w ithin the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an “ employer” w ithin the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
10. Despite Craig’s outstanding q ualifications and academic experience, in the Fall 2003 , Defendant did not appoint Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English.
11. Defendant failed to advertise the position of Chair of the Department of English and made the appointment of a lesser q ualified African-American to Chair from outside the English Department.
12. Although Craig w as not appointed as Chair of the English Department, Defendant req uested Plaintiff to perform the majority of the Chair’s duties and responsibilities.
13 . Since Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a faculty member, Defendant has appointed six (6) Chairs in its English Department and each appointee has been an AfricanAmerican, or African, and all six (6) w ere “ appointed” rather than hired through a legitimate advertised open search process, and all six (6) had less experience in English departments and/or had lesser credentials than Craig.
14. In September 2003 , Defendant arbitrarily and w ithout justification removed Craig from the office space that she had occupied for fourteen (14) years as a faculty member.
15. Defendant for months w ithheld w ithout justification or good cause Craig’s compensation earned for summer teaching responsibilities.
16. At all times during her employment by Defendant, Craig w as paid a lesser compensation than w ere African-Americans and African-Americans w ere at all times given preferential treatment by Defendant in decisions of salary, salary increases, and job promotions.
-3 -

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 4 of 7
17. Craig reported her discrimination to Defendant’s Administration in September 2003 and Defendant’s Administration took no corrective action and instead engaged in retaliation against Craig.
18. Craig filed her charges of racial discrimination and retaliation w ith the Eq ual Employment Opportunity Commission (“ EEOC”) in April 2004, a true and correct copy of w hich said charge is attached hereto as Exhibit “ 1” and incorporated by reference herein.
19. Thereafter, on January 4, 2005, the EEOC, Dallas District Office, issued its Determination finding that there w as reasonable cause to believe that there w as a violation of the statute in Craig being denied appointment to the position of Chair to the Department of English and Craig being paid below the scale for her position.
20. Plaintiff USA in its Complaint alleged that Craig has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race, w hite, in violation of 703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(a), among other things, by:
(a) Paying her low er w ages than it has paid to similarly-situated African and African-American employees; and,
(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Craig.
21. Craig rejected the Consent Decree that w as entered into betw een Plaintiff and Defendant and w as advised that Plaintiff w ill not seek any additional relief on her behalf.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – ON ACCOUNT OF RACE
22. Craig incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though set forth in full.
-4-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 5 of 7
23 . Craig’s race, w hite, w as a significant factor in Defendant’s decisions to pay Craig low er w ages than it paid to similarly-situated African and African-American employees, and by Defendant failing and refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Craig, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq .
24. As a direct result of the aforesaid racial discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional and mental distress, harm to her professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, economic loss, and loss of enjoyment of life.
25. All conditions precedent to filing a suit have been performed or have occurred. 26. Defendant is the unusual employer w ithin the meaning of Title VII in that in the Langston University w orkforce African-Americans are the majority race rather than a minority, and Langston University has alw ays had predominantly African-American academic administrators including presidents because of its beginning and history as a segregated institution of higher education under the then existing so-called separate but eq ual doctrine. WHEREFORE, Craig prays for judgment against Defendant as follow s: (1) That Defendant be ordered to make Craig w hole by providing all remedies
authoriz ed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), including but not limited to, promotion of Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English; (2) That Defendant be ordered to pay to Craig compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a in the amount determined by the jury at the time of trial; (3 ) That Defendant be ordered to pay Craig’s costs including expert w itness fees and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and, (4) For such and further make-w hole relief and other relief as this Court deems
-5-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 6 of 7
just, eq uitable and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — VIOLATION OF TITLE VII, RETALIATION FOR FILING A CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION 27. Craig incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 26 as though set forth in full. 28. Craig’s filing of a Charge of Discrimination in September 2003 w as a significant factor in Defendant’s continued discrimination against Craig, i.e., the removal of Craig from her office space that she had occupied for 14 years, removal from important committees, i.e., Education, Academic Policy, Honors, etc., and removal from teaching a special course Craig taught for many years w ith great success, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 in particular. 29. As a direct result of Defendant’s retaliation as aforesaid, Craig has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional and mental distress, harm to her professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, economic loss and loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, Craig prays judgment against Defendant as follow s: (1) That Defendant be ordered to make Craig w hole by providing all remedies authoriz ed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), including but not limited to, promotion of Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English; (2) That Defendant be ordered to pay to Craig compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a in the amount determined by the jury at the time of trial; (3 ) That Defendant be ordered to pay Craig’s costs including expert w itness fees and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and, (4) For such and further make-w hole relief and other relief as this Court deems
-6-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 9 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 7 of 7

just, eq uitable and proper.

WARD & GLASS, L.L.P.
s/Stanley M. Ward Stanley M. Ward, OBA# 93 51 Woodrow K. Glass, OBA# 15690 Scott F. Brockman, OBA# 19416 A. Craig Tomlin, OBA# 17497 One Corporate Center, Suite 3 50 2600 John Saxon Blvd. Norman, Oklahoma 73 071 (405) 3 60-9700 (405) 3 60-7902 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR INTEVENOR BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 14th day of April, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing w as electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing w as electronically sent to the follow ing counsel of record:
Wan J. Kim, Asst. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division David J. Palmer, Chief, Employment Litigation Section Christine M. Roth Charles E. Leggott United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHB 950 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 2053 0
Michael Scott Fern Associate General Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 220 Student Union Oklahoma State University Stillw ater, Oklahoma 74078
s/Stanley M. Ward Stanley M. Ward

-7-

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel.,

)

THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE )

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY )

AND AGRICULTURAL AND

)

MECHANICAL COLLEGES, a state

)

agency,

)

)

Defendant, )

)

and,

)

)

BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.,

)

)

Additional Party Plaintiff )

and Intervenor,

)

Case No. CIV-06-00185-R

INTERVENOR’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Intervenor and Plaintiff Barbara J. Craig, Ph.D., (“Craig”) brings this action seeking redress

for violations of rights guaranteed to her by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.,

as amended (“Title VII”), and the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988

(“1988”). For her claims against Defendant Langston University, ex rel., the Board of Oklahoma

for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Craig alleges and states

as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a white female who at all times herein mentioned did and now does reside

in the City of Edmond, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 2 of 9
2. Defendant The State of Oklahoma, ex rel., The Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, was at all times herein mentioned and now is a constitutional agency of the State of Oklahoma whose principal place of doing business is located in the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and among the Oklahoma public institutions of higher education that are governed by Defendant is Langston University located in Langston, Logan County, State of Oklahoma.
3. Plaintiff United States of America (“USA”) brought the original action to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, specifically, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(m); and 28, U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. 5. Venue is proper in the Western District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
APPLICABLE FACTS 6. Craig is a white female who has been employed by Defendant at Langston University since 1989 as a faculty member in its English Department. 7. Craig has a Ph.D. degree and is an experienced and well-qualified English professor who is tenured and currently holds the academic rank of Full Professor. Before being employed by Defendant, Craig had experience as a Chair of the English Department at another university and has been honored as the most outstanding faculty in the College of Arts & Sciences.
-2-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 3 of 9
8. Langston University is a historic African-American university and its workforce at its Langston, Oklahoma campus has been and now is predominantly comprised of African-Americans.
9. Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
10. Despite Craig’s outstanding qualifications and academic experience, in the Fall 2003, Defendant did not appoint Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English.
11. Defendant failed to advertise the position of Chair of the Department of English and made the appointment of a lesser qualified African-American to Chair from outside the English Department.
12. Although Craig was not appointed as Chair of the English Department, Defendant requested Plaintiff to perform the majority of the Chair’s duties and responsibilities.
13. Since Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a faculty member, Defendant has appointed six (6) Chairs in its English Department and each appointee has been an African-American, or African, and all six (6) were “appointed” rather than hired through a legitimate advertised open search process, and all six (6) had less experience in English departments and/or had lesser credentials than Craig.
14. InSeptember 2003, Defendant arbitrarily and without justification removed Craig from the office space that she had occupied for fourteen (14) years as a faculty member.
15. Defendant for months withheld without justification or good cause Craig’s compensation earned for summer teaching responsibilities.
16. At all times during her employment by Defendant, Craig was paid a lesser compensation than were African-Americans and African-Americans were at all times given
-3-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 4 of 9
preferential treatment by Defendant in decisions of salary, salary increases, and job promotions. 17. Craig reported her discrimination to Defendant’s Administration in September 2003
and Defendant’s Administration took no corrective action and instead engaged in retaliation against Craig.
18. Craig filed her charges of racial discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in April2004, a true and correct copy of which said charge is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated by reference herein.
19. Thereafter, on January 4, 2005, the EEOC, Dallas District Office, issued its Determination finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that there was a violation of the statute in Craig being denied appointment to the position of Chair to the Department of English and Craig being paid below the scale for her position.
20. Plaintiff USA in its Complaint alleged that Craig has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race, white, in violation of 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(a), among other things, by:
(a) Paying her lower wages than it has paid to similarly-situated African and African-American employees; and,
(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Craig.
21. Craig rejected the Consent Decree that was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant and was advised that Plaintiff will not seek any additional relief on her behalf.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII – ON ACCOUNT OF RACE
-4-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 5 of 9
22. Craig incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though set forth in full.
23. Craig’s race, white, was a significant factor in Defendant’s decisions to pay Craig lower wages than it paid to similarly-situated African and African-American employees, and by Defendant failing and refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Craig, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
24. As a direct result of the aforesaid racial discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional and mental distress, harm to her professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, economic loss, and loss of enjoyment of life.
25. All conditions precedent to filing a suit have been performed or have occurred. 26. Defendant is the unusual employer within the meaning of Title VII in that in the Langston University workforce African-Americans are the majority race rather than a minority, and Langston University has always had predominantly African-American academic administrators including presidents because of its beginning and history as a segregated institution of higher education under the then existing so-called separate but equal doctrine. WHEREFORE, Craig prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: (1) That Defendant be ordered to make Craig whole by providing all remedies
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), including but not limited to, promotion of Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English; (2) That Defendant be ordered to pay to Craig compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a in the amount determined by the jury at the time of trial;
-5-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 6 of 9
(3) That Defendant be ordered to pay Craig’s costs including expert witness fees and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and,
(4) For such and further make-whole relief and other relief as this Court deems just, equitable and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — VIOLATION OF TITLE VII, RETALIATION FOR FILING A CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
27. Craig incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 26 as though set forth in full.
28. Craig’s filing of a Charge of Discrimination in September 2003 was a significant factor in Defendant’s continued discrimination against Craig, i.e., the removal of Craig from her office space that she had occupied for 14 years, removal from important committees, i.e., Education, Academic Policy, Honors, etc., and removal from teaching a special course Craig taught for many years with great success, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 in particular.
29. As a direct result of Defendant’s retaliation as aforesaid, Craig has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional and mental distress, harm to her professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, economic loss and loss of enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Craig prays judgment against Defendant as follows: (1) That Defendant be ordered to make Craig whole by providing all remedies
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), including but not limited to, promotion of Craig to the position of Chair of the Department of English; (2) That Defendant be ordered to pay to Craig compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a in the amount determined by the jury at the time of trial;
-6-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 7 of 9
(3) That Defendant be ordered to pay Craig’s costs including expert witness fees and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and,
(4) For such and further make-whole relief and other relief as this Court deems just, equitable and proper.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — VIOLATION OF TITLE VII, RETALIATION 30. Craig incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though set forth in full. 31. Craig’s filing of a Charge of Discrimination in September 2003, as well as the instant lawsuit, which was originally filed on April 14, 2006, was a significant factor in Defendant’s continued discrimination against Craig, i.e., objectionable and offensive treatment by the President, Vice-Presidents and the Office of Human Resources, a prolonged and bureaucratic delay in obtaining the approval of the donation of Craig’s medical leave to her husband, and that Craig’s salary and the salary schedules of the English Department were deliberately omitted from the budges for fiscal years 2003-2007, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 in particular. 32. Because of the continued discrimination and retaliation she was experiencing, Craig filed another charge of discrimination with the EEOC for retaliation on March 1, 2007, a true and correct copy of which said charge is attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated by reference herein. 33. As a direct result of Defendant’s retaliation as aforesaid, Craig has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional and mental distress, harm to her professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, economic loss and loss of enjoyment of life.
-7-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 8 of 9
WHEREFORE, Craig prays judgment against Defendant as follows: (1) That Defendant be ordered to make Craig whole by providing all remedies
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g); (2) That Defendant be ordered to pay to Craig compensatory damages pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a in the amount determined by the jury at the time of trial; (3) That Defendant be ordered to pay Craig’s costs including expert witness fees
and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and, (4) For such and further make-whole relief and other relief as this Court deems
just, equitable and proper. WARD & GLASS, L.L.P. s/Scott F. Brockman Stanley M. Ward, OBA#9351 Woodrow K. Glass, OBA#15690 Scott F. Brockman, OBA#19416 One Corporate Center, Suite 350 2600 John Saxon Blvd. Norman, Oklahoma 73071 (405) 360-9700 (405) 360-7902 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR INTEVENOR BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED
-8-

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 43 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this 16th day of April, 2007, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing was electronically sent to the following counsel of record:

Wan J. Kim, Asst. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division David J. Palmer, Chief, Employment Litigation Section Christine M. Roth Charles E. Leggott United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHB 950 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Michael Scott Fern Associate General Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 220 Student Union Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078

David W. Lee Ambre C. Gooch COMINGDEER LEE AND GOOCH 6011 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73118

s/Scott F. Brockman Scott F. Brockman

-9-

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 74 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel., THE )

BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE

)

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY AND )

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL )

COLLEGES, a state agency,

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and,

)

)

BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.,

)

)

Additional Party Plaintiff

)

and Intervenor.

)

Case No. CIV-06-185-R

INTERVENING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CLARIFY AND/OR STRIKE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING ORDER

Additionally Party Plaintiff and Intervenor Barbara Craig (“Craig”) subm its the

following motion to clarify and/or strike the settlement agreement, and further

moves this Court to extend the time on the administrative closing order to resolve

these issues. In support of her motion, Craig states as follows:

1. On September 11, 2007, this case was set for a settlement conference

before Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo. The parties appeared, and an apparent

settlement was reached. However, following the settlement conference it was

discovered that Craig had received incorrect information that she relied upon in

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 74 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 5
settling the matter. 2. As part of the negotiations in this matter, Craig inquired about the
unused leave she had accumulated throughout her tenure at Langston University. Specifically, she was inquiring into if and how she could utilize the extra leave she had acquired to enhance her retirement benefits.
3. It was relayed from Defendant Langston University to Craig through Magistrate Judge Argo that Craig had maxed out in her leave and that she would be unable to utilize that leave to increase her retirement benefits. Based upon this representation, Craig agreed to one of the terms of the settlement agreement, namely that her leave would be transferred to her husband who had used all of his available leave because of a serious illness.
4. Craig also relied upon this representation and the monetary repercussions it would have upon her and her husband to agree to the amount of the settlement which would be paid in one lump sum.
5. Following the settlement conference, Craig contacted the Teachers’ Retirement System for Oklahoma and was notified that she could indeed utilize her accumulated leave to obtain another year of service and increase her retirement benefits.
6. Additionally, Craig expressed concerns about whether her husband would be able to be placed on long-term disability if he was to resign as a result of the settlement agreement. Langston told Craig at that time that her husband was not
2

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 74 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 3 of 5
even eligible for long-term disability coverage because of his age. 7. Craig indicated at the conference that she was agreeing to the terms
subject to an opportunity to look into the long-term disability coverage for her husband. She has since discovered, pursuant to a conversation with the long-term disability insurance carrier, that her husband is eligible for long-term disability, that his age was not a barrier to coverage, and that he would have to be an active employee to receive coverage. In other words, Langston was incorrect in its representations, and the resignation as part of the settlement adversely affects Craig’s husband’s coverage.
8. Had Craig been given the correct information at the time of the settlement conference, she would not have agreed to the settlement as it currently stands.
9. Furthermore, after the settlement was believed to have been reached on September 11, 2007, this Court entered an administrative closing order for forty-five (45) days. [Docket No. 72]. This time frame expires on October 26, 2007, and at that time the case will be dismissed with prejudice. Because of the developments as set forth herein, Craig requests that the administrative closing order be extended for an additional sixty (60) days until all issues can be resolved and the parties can enter into a formal settlement agreement.
10. Craig brings this motion to clarify the terms of the settlement agreement based upon the misrepresentation set forth herein, and asks this Court to strike the
3

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 74 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 4 of 5
settlement agreement since this representation led to Craig’s consent to the agreement by mistake. She further states as follows:
Argument and Authorities It is clear that under Oklahoma law, apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through mistake. 15 O.S. § 53. The factual circumstances of this suit show that the mistaken representation at the settlement conference was a mistake of fact. This is a mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consists in an “unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract” or “[b]elief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed.” See 15 O.S. § 63. In the present situation, Langston either forgot the applicable provisions on unused leave or believed that the representation was true, when it, in fact, was not. Whatever the reason for the mistake, Craig relied upon it and asks that the settlement agreement be stricken or rescinded. A party to a contract may rescind the agreement “[i]f the consent of the party rescinding...was given by mistake...” 15 O.S. § 233. Based upon the incorrect representation by Langston, Craig entered into the settlement agreement as it currently stands by mistake. She asks this Court to strike the settlement agreement for this reason. WHEREFORE, Intervening Plaintiff Barbara Craig respectfully requests that this Court strike the settlement agreement entered on September 11, 2007, because
4

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 74 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 5 of 5
of the mistake of fact upon which Craig relied in agreeing to the settlement. Dated this 19th day of October, 2007.
Respectfully submitted, WARD & GLASS, L.L.P.
s/Scott F. Brockman Stanley M. Ward, OBA #9351 Woodrow K. Glass, OBA #15690 Scott F. Brockman, OBA #19416 Attorneys at Law 2600 John Saxon Blvd., Suite 350 Norman, OK 73071 (405) 360-9700 (405) 360-7902 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING This is to certify that on this 19th day of October, 2007, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing was electronically sent to the following counsel of record: David W. Lee Ambre C. Gooch COMINGDEER, LEE & GOOCH 6011 N. Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7425
S/Scott F. Brockman Scott F. Brockman
5

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel., THE )

BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE

)

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY AND)

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL )

COLLEGES, a state agency,

)

)

Defendant, )

)

and,

)

)

BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.,

)

)

Additional Party Plaintiff )

and Intervenor.

)

Case No. CIV-06-185-R

DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND BRIEF TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT
Defendant (“Langston”)1 in the above-styled case files Motion and Brief to Enforce

Settlement in this case on the basis that the parties reached a settlement of this case at a

lengthy Settlement C onference conducted by t he H onorable M agistrate-Judge D oyle W .

Argo on February 26, 2008 which the Plaintiff is now refusing to abide by. The history of

the process that reached the settlement on February 26, 2008 is as follows.

1. On September 11, 2007, there was a settlement conference before Magistrate

Judge Doyle W. Argo. The parties appeared, and an apparent settlement was reached. After

1Langston University, the decision-maker in this case, is governed by the Board of Regents. Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 3412.

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 11
the settlement was believed to have been reached on September 11, 2007, this Court entered an administrative closing order for forty-five (45) days. (Doc. 72).
2. Following the settlement conference, Plaintiff/Intervenor Craig filed a motion to clarify and/or modify the settlement agreement. (Doc. 74).
3. On December 12, 2007, this Court entered an Order granting a request for an extension of the administrative closing order deadline sixty (60) days or until January 31, 2008. (Doc. 82). T he O rder also held in abeyance the m otion to clarify and i nvited the parties to file a motion for settlement conference if they chose to do so.
4. On D ecember 2 6, 2 007, P laintiff/Intervenor Craig fil ed a m otion for a settlement conference (Doc. 83), and that request was granted by this Court on January 16, 2008. (Doc. 85). A settlement conference was scheduled for February 26, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo. (Doc. 86).
5. On February 26, 2008, the parties attended a second settlement conference before Magistrate-Judge Doyle W. Argo, and, as mentioned previously, a settlement was reached. Attach. A. (Doc. 89).
6. The settlement, and its terms, were announced by Magistrate-Judge Doyle W. Argo at the conclusion of the settlement conference on February 26, 2008. See Attachment A, attached. (Doc. 89).
7. Defendant Langston has b een ad vised by Plaintiff’s attorneys that Plaintiff Barbara Craig now does not agree to certain aspects of the settlement that were agreed to by her and Langston on February 26, 2008.
2

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 11
8. Defendant L angston cont ends t hat t he s ettlement i n t his cas e s hould be enforced in a manner consistent with Attachment B, the Sworn Declaration of Michael Scott Fern, Associate General Counsel for OSU, who was present during the settlement conference on F ebruary 2 6, 2 008 and who w as p resent w hen the s ettlement and it s term s w ere announced.
9. Defendant Langston believes that Magistrate-Judge Argo will agree with the material terms of the settlement set forth in Mr. Fern’s Sworn Declaration, and respectfully requests that this Court inquire of Magistrate-Judge Argo of his opinion in this regard.
10. Defendant r espectfully r equests t he C ourt t o cons ider A ttachments A and Attachment B and Exhibits 1-6 attached to it, when considering this Motion.
ARGUMENT Langston contends that a settlement of all issues in this case was in fact reached on February 26, 2008. Magistrate-Judge Argo was present when the settlement was reached, and he went over with all parties in detail and while they were all together in one room all terms of the settlement. O n February 29, 2008, M agistrate-Judge Argo entered an O rder stating that the case had been settled. (Doc. 89). See Attachment A, attached. The Plaintiff C raig and he r attorneys and J oAnn H aysbert, President of L angston University, and Board of Regents’ Associate General Counsel Scott Fern were each present at the February 26, 2008 Settlement Conference, where the parties reached a settlement. Mr. Mr. Fern has submitted a Sworn Declaration which sets forth what Defendant contends are the terms of the settlement agreement of this case. (Attach. B). Defendant requests that the
3

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 4 of 11
Court inquire of Judge Argo about the settlement agreement in this case, who has complete knowledge a bout t he t erms of t he s ettlement and t he di scussions and pr oceedings t hat resulted in it.
Defendant Langston requests that the Court enter an Order enforcing the settlement agreement in accordance w ith the Sw orn D eclaration of M r. F ern and the statements of Magistrate-Judgment Argo. Referred to in Mr. Fern’s Declaration in ¶ 21, and attached to his Declaration as Exhibit 3, is a letter Mr. Fern wrote Mr. Ward, Plaintiff’s attorney, dated March 2 5, 2 008. A ttached to the M arch 2 5, 2 008 let ter of M r. F ern’s i s a d raft of a Settlement Agreement, which Langston contends accurately reflects the settlement that the parties entered into on February 26, 2008. Accordingly, Defendant Langston requests the Court issue an order requiring Plaintiff to execute that Settlement Agreement.
There is a legally binding settlement agreement between the parties and Defendant Langston respectfully requests the Court to enforce that agreement. A trial court has the power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by t he litigants. U nited States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993). See also Gates Corp. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 4 Fed. Appx. 676, 682 (10th Cir.2001) (noting that the district court has the power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it). The trial court’s enforcement o f a se ttlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hardage, 982 F.2d at 1495. In Hardage, after the case was remanded, in United States v. Hardage, No. CIV-86-1401-W, 1994 WL
4

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 5 of 11
159410 (W.D.1994), the district court held a hearing on the motion to enforce settlement agreement. In the proceedings after the remand, the district court enforced the settlement agreement after hearing testimony. This enforcement of the settlement agreement by the Honorable Lee R. West of the Western District of Oklahoma was then upheld by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Hardage, 53 F.3d 343 (10th Cir. 1995).
“Issues involving the formation and construction of a purported settlement agreement are resolved by applying state contract law,” United States v. McCall, 235 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir.2000), citing Carr v. Runyan, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996). But see Snider v. Circle K Corp., 923 F.2d 1404, 1407-08 (10th Cir.1991) (“Although Title VII settlement agreements are contracts, they are inextricably linked to Title VII,” thus trial court erred in allowing jury to decide breach of settlement agreement claim, since Title VII actions triable only to the court). See also Gates Corp. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 4 Fed. Appx. 676, 682 (10th Cir.2001) (“Issues involving the formation and construction of a purported settlement agreement are resolved by applying state contract law,” citing United States v. McCall, supra, “even when there are federal causes of action in the underlying litigation,” citing United Com. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.1992).
In Sheng v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc., 117 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 1997), the court held that an agreement settling the employee’s Title VII claims against the employer was an enforceable contract, despite the fact that there were continuing discussions on matters such as the tax treatment of the payment and other particulars, such as the wording of clauses
5

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 6 of 11
regarding confidentiality, disclaimers and the release of liability. The court noted that an enforceable settlement requires the parties to reach only agreement on the essential terms of the deal. I d. “Settlement agreements that do not expressly resolve ancillary issues can, nevertheless, be enforceable.” Id. The court held that an enforceable contract was formed, and that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on the settlement agreement. In Berne v. Boschulte, 296 F. Supp. 2d 625, 628-29 (D.V.I. 2004), the court granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement holding that the corporate officers were required to com ply w ith t he s ettlement agr eement cal ling f or t hem t o s ell t heir shares t o t he corporation’s president even t hough the settlement agreement did not specify a t ime for performance or said that time was of the essence.
“A contract is not void for uncertainty even though it does not enter into all the details with respect to its subject-matter, if, according to its terms, it is sufficiently definite so that it can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty what the parties intended to agree to.” Webb v. Moran, 1939 OK 369, 96 P.2d 308, 312. It is well settled that s ettlement agreements may be oral. See Russell v. Bd of Cnty Com’rs of Carter County, 2000 OK CIV APP 21, 1 P.3d 442, 443; Phillips Pet. Co. v. Buster, 241 F.2d 178, 184 (10th Cir. 1957); Reid v. Graybeal, 437 F. Supp. 24, 27 (W.D. Okla.1977) (fact that settlement agreement is oral does not affect validity); Sheng, 117 F.3d at 1083 (settlement agreements that have not yet expressly resolved ancillary issues are enforceable); Spraggins v. Reed, No. CIV-041384, 2006 WL 1304958 (D. N. M. 2006) (noting that an oral agreement is enforceable).
6

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 7 of 11
“The fact that the parties left some details for counsel to work out during later negotiations cannot be used to abrogate an otherwise valid agreement.” Sheng, 117 F.3d at 1083.
In Watson v. Marinovich, No. CIV-98-2380, 1999 WL 450950 at *2 (D. Kan. 1999), the c ourt su stained th e p laintiffs’ m otion to e nforce th e se ttlement w here th e d efendants attempted to withdraw from the settlement and had proposed a different form of release and settlement agreement than the one that the defendants had tendered. The court noted that the defendants had com municated an offer to settle on two material terms and noted that the Kansas Supreme Court had upheld a similar settlement agreement where the only terms of the offer were the amount of money and dismissal. Id. at *3. The court found that a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce would serve no identifiable purpose. Id. at *4.
In Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory v. Farnsworth & Chambers Company, Inc., 251 F.2d 77 10th Cir. 1958), the court held that an oral agreement between a general contractor and a subcontractor for additional compensation was enforceable, and reversed the district court’s ruling that it was not. The court noted that an agreement which compromises a bonafide dispute concerning duties and obligations under a existing contract, is supported by valid consideration and is enforceable. Id. at 79.
In In re A nderson, N o. 04- 29079, 2006 W L 4846387 ( D. U tah 2006) , t he cou rt enforced the material terms of the oral settlement agreement. The court cited the case of Russell v. Board of County Commissioners 2000 OK CIV APP 21, 1 P.3d 442, in noting that the court’s review of Oklahoma law demonstrated no appreciable difference with respect to
7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 8 of 11
the enforcement of oral settlement agreements. Id. at n.9. In Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 664-66 (7th Cir. 1995), the court, citing United
States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491 (10th Cir. 1993), the court held that the district court did not ab use its d iscretion in e nforcing a se ttlement ag reement ev en th ough th e d efendants contended that the parties never agreed on whether the plaintiffs promised to drop pending claims would take the form of mutual releases or mutual covenants not to sue.
As was noted previously, the Tenth Circuit reviews the district court’s decision to enforce such an agreement for an abuse of discretion. Shoels v. Klebold, 375 F.3d 1054, 1060 (10th Cir. 2004). In Shoels, the court upheld a settlement agreement involving the Columbine C olorado murder case. The court noted t hat a trial court has t he pow er to summarily enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants where the litigation is pending before it. I d. I ssues involving the formation and cons truction of a pur ported settlement agreement are resolved by applying state contract law. Id. at 1060.
In M alave v. C arney H ospital, 170 F. 3d 217, 220 ( 1st C ir. 1999), the cou rt cited Hardage, and not ed t hat a t rial cour t has the power t o s ummarily enf orce a s ettlement agreement entered into it by litigants while the litigation is pe nding before it. The court noted that when a district court proposes to summarily to enforce a settlement, it must first ascertain whether or not a binding agreement in fact existed. Id. In Malave, the court held that th ere w ere to o m any u nanswered q uestions a s to th e e xistence o f th e a greement; therefore, the court ought not to have granted the motion to enforce without taking evidence
8

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 9 of 11
in resolving disputed issues of material fact. Id. at 222-23. In United Commercial Insurance Service, Inc. v. Paymaster Corporation, 962 F.3d
853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), the court noted that the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally. This is true even though the underlying cause of action is federal. Id. The court noted t hat a s ettlement agr eement i s t reated as any ot her cont ract f or pur poses of interpretation. Id. The court noted that where factual questions are not readily ascertainable from the declarations of witnesses or questions of credibility predominate, the district court should hear oral testimony. Id. at 858. However, in this case, the admission by one of the parties left the primary issue before the court to be a legal question and what factual issues that exi sted w ere undi sputed, and l ittle purpose w ould be s erved by r ule r equiring or al testimony. Id. The court upheld the district court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement.
Defendant al so req uests the C ourt to o rder a h earing in this matter i f t he C ourt believes that this is necessary.
CONCLUSION Defendant L angston r espectfully r equests t hat t he C ourt enf orce t he s ettlement agreement reached between the parties before Magistrate-Judge Argo on February 26, 2008. Langston requests the Court to order the parties to execute the written agreement referred to in the letter of Mr. Fern referred in Attachment B, ¶ 21, Exhibit 3. And, if the Court deems it necessary, Langston also requests a hearing on this matter before the Court.
9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 10 of 11
Respectfully submitted,
/s/David W. Lee David W. Lee, OBA #5333 Ambre C. Gooch, OBA #16586
LEE & GOOCH, P.C. 6011 N. Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7425 (405) 848-1983/Fax: (405) 848-4978 Email address: leelawok@swbell.net
Michael Scott Fern Oklahoma State University Student Union Building, Room 220 Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-6494/Fax: (405) 744-7998
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I her eby ce rtify t hat o n A pril 22, 2008, I el ectronically t ransmitted t he at tached document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF S ystem for filing. Ba sed on the records currently on f ile, t he C lerk of C ourt w ill t ransmit a N otice of Electronic Fi ling t o t he following ECF registrants:
Stanley M. Ward Woodrow K. Glass Scott F. Brockman Ward & Glass, L.L.P. 1821 E. Imhoff Road, Suite 102 Norman, OK 73071
10

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94 Filed 04/22/08 Page 11 of 11 Wan J. Kim, Asst. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division David J. Palmer, Chief, Employment Litigation Section Christine M. Roth Charles E. Leggott United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHB 950 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20530 /s/David W. Lee David W. Lee
11

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 4 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 5 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 6 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 7 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 8 of 9

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 94-2 Filed 04/22/08 Page 9 of 9

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY, ex rel., THE )

BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE

)

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY AND )

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL )

COLLEGES, a state agency,

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and,

)

)

BARBARA J. CRAIG, Ph.D.,

)

)

Additional Party Plaintiff

)

and Intervenor.

)

Case No. CIV-06-185-R

INTERVENING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND BRIEF TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

Additional Party Plaintiff and Intervenor Barbara J. Craig, Ph.D. (“Craig”)

submits the following response to the Motion and Brief to Enforce Settlement and

Request for Hearing filed by Defendant Langston University, ex rel., the Board of

Regents for the Oklahoma State Mechanical and Agricultural Colleges (“Langston”),

and states as follows:

1. The procedural history of this matter as set forth in Paragraphs 1-6 is

correct. Craig would add that it has been essentially admitted that there were facts

discussed at the first settlement conference which Craig relied upon in settling the

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 8
matter that were incorrect and that a second settlement conference was necessary to resolve those issues.
2. The assertion that Craig “now does not agree to certain aspects of the settlement that were agreed to by her and Langston on February 26, 2008” [Paragraph 7 of Langston’s Brief] or that “Plaintiff is now refusing to abide by” the settlement reached at the settlement conference [Opening Paragraph of Langston’s Brief] is incorrect. Langston is attempting to insert additional terms into the formal settlement agreement that were not agreed upon at the settlement conference, and Craig is only refusing to sign the altered agreement offered by Langston. Without any doubt, the settlement agreement offered by Langston inserts language and a term that was not part of the February 26, 2008, agreement.
3. Although Langston touches upon it in its brief in numbered Paragraph 6, the most important aspect in deciding this motion are the terms of the settlement announced by Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo at the conclusion of the settlement conference on February 26, 2008. Those terms are spelled out in Mr. Fern’s affidavit and notes, but not in the body of the brief. The terms agreed to are as follows and are consistent with Craig’s counsel’s notes on the terms, attached hereto as Exhibit “1”:
a. Langston will pay $183,240 in full and withhold taxes on $30,426;
b. Craig will finish the year at her current salary;
2

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 8
c. Langston will pay a 6 month sabbatical from August 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, at full pay with usual benefits other than sick leave and Craig will resign effective December 31, 2008;
d. Langston will zero out Craig’s sick leave as of March 1, 2008 and give her five (5) days of sick leave for the remainder of the academic year, which she will use or lose. Craig can receive five (5) more sick days if necessary with valid doctor’s statement.
e. Craig has sixteen (16) hours of annual leave remaining which she must use or lose for the remainder of the academic year. She will accrue sixteen (16) hours of annual leave during her sabbatical for which she will be paid upon her resignation on December 31, 2008.
f. Langston will pay Dr. Philip Schapiro, Craig’s husband and a faculty member at Langston, the balance of his six (6) months of pay at 60% which should be two (2) more months to go through April 2008;
g. Regarding the issue with American Fidelity and Dr. Schapiro, Langston will provide necessary documents and speak to the company regarding short-term and long-term disability;
h. Dr. Schapiro will resign effective April 30, 2008; I. Craig will dismiss her pending EEOC claim;
3

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 8
j. A dismissal with prejudice will be filed, all documents and the three (3) checks will be completed within thirty (30) days, and each party is to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the execution of these provisions.
4. There should be no mistake that Craig agreed to these terms at the conclusion of the settlement conference and that she agrees to those terms today. The reason she has not signed the settlement documents is principally because Langston is attempting to secure a release of all claims for Dr. Schapiro, something that was not agreed to in the settlement conference. As is evident by Exhibit “2” hereto, the settlement agreement proposed by Langston makes Philip Schapiro a party to the settlement agreement, which was not agreed to. Craig has agreed to, on Dr. Schapiro’s behalf, his resignation, but there are no other specific terms of the agreement reached which makes Dr. Schapiro a party to the “Settlement Agreement and Full and Final Release of All Claims” submitted by Langston. It is important to remember that Dr. Schapiro has no lawsuit against Langston and was not a party to the settlement conference.
5. After the settlement conference, Craig discovered that Langston has not properly withheld money from Dr. Schapiro's salary for TIAA-CREF, which has resulted in unexpected and unnecessary income tax consequences for Craig and Schapiro. This revelation was disclosed to Langston’s counsel through a letter from Craig’s counsel on March 20, 2008. See Exhibit “3”, Letter from Ward to Fern, dated
4

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 8
3/20/08. The response from Langston’s counsel, by letter dated March 25, 2008, was simply that any such problems will be resolved by the settlement agreement, since both Craig and Dr. Schapiro have agreed to release all claims. See Exhibit “4”, Letter from Fern to Ward, dated 3/25/08. Craig submitted a revised Settlement Agreement with letter spelling out her position on April 3, 2008. See Exhibit “5”, Letter from Ward to Fern, dated 4/3/08 with Revised Settlement Agreement.
6. As can clearly be seen by the terms listed above, there are no terms asking for Dr. Schapiro to dismiss any claims against Langston or that he release any past or future claims against Langston. Craig also believes it would be helpful to inquire of Judge Argo about the settlement agreement, but since it appears that the parties are not disagreeing on the terms, such inquiry may have little effect. Craig also requests that an Order be entered, but that the Order only enforce those terms agreed to and no others.
7. Craig respectfully disagrees with Fern’s statements in his affidavit. She does not recall that “[t]hroughout the negotiations relating to this case on February 26, 2008, the parties also discussed pending legal claims and issues related to Dr. Schapiro as part of the Settlement.” Fern Affidavit, ¶ 12. Obviously issues with Dr. Schapiro’s resignation and disability were discussed, but Craig does not recall any discussions about Dr. Schapiro releasing any and all claims against Langston, nor was there any discussion about Dr. Schapiro’s earlier charge of discrimination. Additionally, Mr. Fern states that he “orally insisted during both Settlement
5

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 6 of 8
Conferences that any settlement of Dr. Craig’s pending civil action would also include a settlement of any other legal claims that Dr. Craig or Dr. Schapiro might be able to assert...” Fern Affidavit, ¶ 15. Craig is unaware of any of these oral comments, but even assuming they were made, any such oral claims were clearly not included as terms of the final settlement agreement.
8. Despite Langston’s efforts to categorize the issue of Dr. Schapiro’s release of all claims an “ancillary” matter, the requested release of a non-party’s claims is not comparable to the wording of particular clauses in the agreement. This is a fundamental term of the settlement agreement and it appears from both parties’ notes on the agreement that Dr. Schapiro’s release was not a term of the settlement. Craig agrees that the parties reached an agreement and that the terms spelled out in the notes, as listed above, were the terms of the contract between the parties. Any oral discussions about a release of all claims by Dr. Schapiro cannot be included the agreement between the parties. This Court is well aware that a contract is ambiguous only when the terms are susceptible to more than one reasonable reading. See K&K Food Servs., Inc., v. S&H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, 3 P.3d 705, 708. There is no ambiguity here as both parties agree on the terms. Therefore, since the settlement agreement is also complete in itself, the parol evidence rule bars evidence tending to vary, contradict, enlarge, or narrow the terms of the agreement. Ollie v. Rainbolt, 1983 OK 79, 669 P.2d 275, 269. According to the parol evidence rule, any oral discussions or early negotiations are merged into the agreement and become superseded by the
6

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 7 of 8
terms of the writing. 15 O.S. § 137; Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 1993 OK 131, 863 P.2d 1176, 1180.
9. Langston is simply attempting to modify, vary and enlarge the terms of the agreement. The best evidence of Craig’s position is that the parties specifically contemplated a pending EEOC charge for Craig and made it a term of the agreement that such a claim be dismissed. On the other hand, there is no term requiring Dr. Schapiro to release any pending EEOC charges. Interesting, Craig believes that Dr. Schapiro’s charge, based upon discrimination and retaliation, is not pending with the EEOC and that he has no viable claims at this time against Langston at any stage of the process with EEOC. Langston had the opportunity to ask that Dr. Schapiro execute a full and final release of all claims as part of the settlement, but did not do so. Any alleged oral discussions of this release cannot modify or vary the terms of the agreement.
10. Craig does not object to a request for hearing if this Court deems one necessary, and she stands ready to honor the settlement agreement that was achieved at the February 26, 2008 settlement conference.
WHEREFORE, Barbara Craig, Ph.D., respectfully requests that this Court enforce the settlement as specifically reached by the parties, which does not include any terms for a full release from Dr. Philip Schapiro, who is not a party to this action. The only issue to be decided is whether the parties specifically agreed as part of the settlement of this matter for Dr. Schapiro to sign to a full release of all claims. Craig
7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95 Filed 04/29/08 Page 8 of 8

contends that neither party has such a term in its notes, and because this involves

an individual not a party to this action, such a term has to be specifically included in

the agreement. Since it was not, it cannot be a term of the settlement agreement, and

this Court should order the parties to sign the Revised Settlement Agreement

removing that term submitted by Craig and her counsel. Dated this 29th day of April, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

WARD & GLASS, L.L.P.

s/Scott F. Brockman Stanley M. Ward, OBA #9351 Woodrow K. Glass, OBA #15690 Scott F. Brockman, OBA #19416 Scott K. Thomas, OBA #21842 Attorneys at Law 1821 E. Imhoff Rd., Suite 102 Norman, OK 73071 (405) 360-9700 (405) 360-7902 (fax)

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This is to certify that on this 29th day of April, 2008, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing was electronically sent to the following counsel of record:

David W. Lee Ambre C. Gooch COMINGDEER, LEE & GOOCH 6011 N. Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7425

S/Scott F. Brockman Scott F. Brockman

8

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 6 of 7

Case 5:06-cv-00185-R Document 95-2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 7 of 7

 
 Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 1 of 8
BACHARACH,CLOSED,REOPEN,_SR
U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma[LIVE] (Oklahoma City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:06−cv−00185−R

United States of America v. Langston University Assigned to: Honorable David L. Russell Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Date Terminated: 09/11/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Charles E Leggott US Dept of Justice Empl Litigation−601−DC Civil Rights Division − Employment Litigation Section 601 D St NW Office 4615 Washington, DC 20004 202−514−0548 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: CHARLES.LEGGOTT@USDOJ.GOV TERMINATED: 02/02/2007

Christine M Roth US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Sec 601 D Street NW Office 4615 Washington, DC 20004 202−514−2375 Fax: 202−514−1105 Email: christine.roth@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Palmer US Dept of Justice Empl Litigation−601−DC Civil Rights Division − Employment Litigation Section 601 D St NW Office 4615 Washington, DC 20004 202−514−0548 TERMINATED: 05/15/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig

represented by A Craig Tomlin Law Office of A Craig Tomlin 116 E Sheridan Ave Suite 207 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 405−272−3003 Fax: 405−605−8381 Email: craig@wardglasslaw.com TERMINATED: 03/21/2007

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 2 of 8
Scott F Brockman Ward &Glass LLP 1821 E Imhoff Rd Suite 102 Norman, OK 73071 405−360−9700 Fax: 405−360−7902 Email: scott@wardglasslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stanley M Ward Ward &Glass LLP 1821 E Imhoff Rd Suite 102 Norman, OK 73071 405−360−9700 Fax: 405−360−7902 Email: rstermer@wardglasslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Woodrow K Glass Ward &Glass LLP 1821 E Imhoff Rd Suite 102 Norman, OK 73071 405−360−9700 Fax: 405−360−7902 Email: woody@wardglasslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Langston University ex rel The Board of Regents for the Oklahoma State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, a State agency

represented by Ambre C Gooch Collins Zorn &Wagner PC 429 NE 50th St 2nd Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73105−1815 405−524−2070 Fax: 405−524−2078 Email: gooch@czwglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David W Lee Lee Law Center PC 6011 N Robinson Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73118−7425 405−848−1983 Fax: 405−848−4978 Email: david@leelawcenter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/22/2006 02/23/2006 02/24/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Langston University, filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kw, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
2 GENERAL ORDER 04−02 (April 15, 2004) Mandatory Electronic Case Filing (kw, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
3 JOINT MOTION for Settlement and Entry of Consent Decree by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree between the United States and Langston University)(Leggott, Charles) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 3 of 8

02/27/2006 02/27/2006 02/27/2006
03/23/2006 04/10/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/21/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/15/2006 07/13/2006 07/14/2006
09/06/2006
09/25/2006

4 ORDER granting 3 Motion for Settlement and to enter consent decree. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 2/27/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
5 ORDER − Consent Decree (more fully set out) . Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 2/27/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
6 ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING ORDER: This action is administratively terminated without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen for entry of any stipulation or order. If not reopened within 2 years to obtain final determination, action is deemed dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 2/27/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
7 FIRST MOTION to Intervene by Barbara J. Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Complaint# 2 Exhibit 1 −− Charge of Discrimination)(Ward, Stanley) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Intervene. Complaint should be filed w/i 10 days . Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 4/10/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
9 FIRST INTERVENOR COMPLAINT, filed by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Charge of Discrimination)(Ward, Stanley) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
10 ENTRY of Appearance by Stanley M Ward on behalf of Barbara J Craig (Ward, Stanley) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
11 ENTRY of Appearance by Woodrow K Glass on behalf of Barbara J Craig (Glass, Woodrow) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
12 ENTRY of Appearance by Scott F Brockman on behalf of Barbara J Craig (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
13 ENTRY of Appearance by A Craig Tomlin on behalf of Barbara J Craig (Tomlin, A) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
14 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Intervenor's Complaint served on Michael Scott Fern, Attorney for Langston on April 17, 2006, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Ward, Stanley) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
15 ENTRY of Appearance by David W Lee on behalf of Langston University (Lee, David) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
16 ENTRY of Appearance by Ambre C Gooch on behalf of Langston University (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
17 Answer to Plaintiff's Intervenor's Complaint by Langston University.(Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
18 NOTICE of Hearing:Status/Scheduling Conference set for 7/14/2006 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Honorable David L. Russell. (ns, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
19 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig, Plaintiff United States of America, Defendant Langston University. (Tomlin, A) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pla witness list due 2/1/07; Pla exhibit list due 2/1/07; Dft witness list due 10 days t/a; Dft exhibit list due 10 days t/a; Motions in limine due 4/1/07; Jury instructions due 4/1/07; Voir dire requests due 4/1/07; Trial briefs due 4/1/07; Discovery due by 3/15/2007. Jury Trial set for 4/9/2007 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom #302 before Honorable David L. Russell. Motions due by 2/1/2007. Pretrial Report due by 4/1/2007.. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 7/14/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
21 MOTION for Discovery to Serve Add'l Requests for Admissions to Defendant Langston with Brief in Support by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Barbara Craig's Requests for Admissions to Defendant Langston University)(Tomlin, A) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
22 RESPONSE to Motion re 21 MOTION for Discovery to Serve Add'l Requests for Admissions to Defendant Langston with Brief in Support filed by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 4 of 8

10/02/2006
01/24/2007 01/24/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007
03/16/2007 03/16/2007
03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/21/2007
03/29/2007
03/29/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/03/2007 04/09/2007

23 ORDER granting 21 Plaintiff's Motion for leave to serve 54 proposed requests for admission on Defendant . Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 10/2/06. (ns, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
24 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Dispositive Motion by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion until 2/12/07. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 1/24/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
26 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time of All Remaining Deadlines by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
27 Exhibit List of Expert by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Glass, Woodrow) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
28 NOTICE (other) by United States of America Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance (Roth, Christine) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
29 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time of All Deadlines. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 2/2/07. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery due by 4/29/2007.Motions due by 3/18/2007.Jury Trial set for 7/9/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom #302 before Honorable David L. Russell.Pretrial Report due by 5/16/2007. Pretrial filings due 5/16/07. Plaintiff witness/exhibit lists and reports due 3/18/07. Defendant witness/exhibit lists and reports due 10 days thereafter. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
30 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time for Parties to Submit Dispositive Motions by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
31 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by April 17, 2007. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 3/16/07. (kw, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 4/17/2007. (kw, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
32 Witness List by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
33 Exhibit List by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
34 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Barbara J Craig. (Tomlin, A) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
35 ORDER granting 34 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney A Craig Tomlin terminated. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 3/21/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
36 Witness List of Expert Witness by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Expert Report)(Glass, Woodrow) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
37 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT − RULE 26 by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Expert Report# 2 Exhibit 2, Expert's CV)(Glass, Woodrow) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
38 Witness List − Final by Defendant Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
39 Exhibit List − Final by Defendant Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
40 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Plaintiff by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
41 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Intervenor Complaint and for New Scheduling Order by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 5 of 8

04/10/2007 04/10/2007
04/16/2007 04/23/2007 06/05/2007 06/12/2007 06/14/2007 06/18/2007 06/25/2007 06/25/2007
06/26/2007 06/26/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/31/2007

42 ORDER granting 41 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Deadlines. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 4/10/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery due by 7/28/2007.,Motions due by 6/16/2007.,Jury Trial set for 10/9/2007 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom #302 before Honorable David L. Russell.,Pretrial Report due by 8/14/2007. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
43 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Langston University, filed by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Charge of Discrimination# 2 Exhibit 2, Charge of Discrimination)(Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
44 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Langston University.(Lee, David) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
45 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Plaintiff Barbara J. Craig by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
46 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Dispositive Motions by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion. Accordingly, dispositive motions shall be filed by June 25, 2007. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 6/14/07. (fp, ) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
48 Exhibit List Amended by Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
49 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
50 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Langston University. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Affidavit of Jean Bell Manning, Ed.D.# 2 Exhibit 1 to Attach. A − Sections 723.00, 724.00, and 800.00 of the Faculty Handbook# 3 Exhibit 2 to Attach. A − Position Announcement for the Job of Associate/Full Professor &Chairperson−Department of English and Foreign Languages# 4 Exhibit 3 to Attach. A − Dr. Clarks Curriculum Vitae# 5 Attachment B − Affidavit of JoAnn Richardson−Clark# 6 Exhibit 1 to Attach. B − Dr. Clarks Curriculum Vitae# 7 Attachment C − EEOC Charge of Discrimination filed by Plaintiff# 8 Attachment D − Other EEOC documents relating to that Charge# 9 Attachment E − Selected pages of Plaintiffs deposition)(Lee, David) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
51 Witness List − Amended Final Witness List by Defendant Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
52 Exhibit List − Amended Final Exhibit List by Defendant Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
53 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
54 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to Dft's mtn for SJ by 7/31/07. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 7/16/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Manning Deposition# 2 Exhibit 2, Montgomery Deposition# 3 Exhibit 3, Craig Deposition# 4 Exhibit 4, Request for Salary Payroll Action Form# 5 Exhibit 5, Request for Salary Payroll Action Form# 6 Exhibit 6, English Salary Tables# 7 Exhibit 7, Full Time Faculty Salary Tables# 8 Exhibit 8, Pay Plan FY 2003−2004# 9 Exhibit 9, Pay Plan FY 2004−2005# 10 Exhibit 10, Grievance Committee Final Report# 11 Exhibit 11, Letter to# 12 Exhibit 12, Position Announcement dated April 10, 2002# 13 Exhibit 13, Faculty Performance Appraisal# 14 Exhibit 14, Letter to Dr. Holloway from Rosemary Harkins−Carter dated 2/98# 15 Exhibit 15, Charge of Discrimination dated April 2004# 16 Exhibit 16, Affidavit of Craig# 17 Exhibit 17, Memo to Craig from Holloway dated 7/13/2004# 18 Exhibit 18, Charge of Discrimination dated March

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 6 of 8

08/03/2007 08/08/2007 08/09/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007 08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/22/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007
09/10/2007

1, 2007)(Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
56 NOTICE of Hearing:Docket Call set for 10/3/2007 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom #302 before Honorable David L. Russell.,Jury Trial set for 10/9/2007 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom #302 before Honorable David L. Russell. (ns, ) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
57 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment.Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2007 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom #401 before Honorable David L. Russell.. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 8/8/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
58 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCESettlement Conference set for 9/11/2007 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo. Statements due by noon 9/6/07. Signed by Judge Doyle W. Argo on 8/9/07. (sr, ) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
59 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Pretrial Filings by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial filings. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 8/13/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
61 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, of One Day by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment Responses due by 8/14/2007. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 8/14/07. (kw, ) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
63 MOTION to Strike 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, Inadmissible Evidence by Langston University. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment F − Selected deposition testimony of Kathryn B. Corbett and Exhibit 1 to deposition# 2 Attachment G − Selected deposition testimony of Joanna Howard)(Lee, David) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
64 REPLY by Defendant Langston University re 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, filed by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
65 NOTICE (other) by Langston University Pursuant to Court's Order of August 8, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Dr. Clyde Montgomery)(Lee, David) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
66 RESPONSE to Motion re 63 MOTION to Strike 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, Inadmissible Evidence MOTION to Strike 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, Inadmissible Evidence filed by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Depo of Joanna Howard)(Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
67 SUPPLEMENT re 55 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, in accordance with Court's August 8, 2007 Order by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 19 − Letter to Dallas EEOC from Craig)(Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
68 Courtroom Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David L. Russell : Motion Hearing held on 8/22/2007 re 49 on Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral arguments heard and considered. Matter taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Alana LaGrow.) (ns, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
69 MOTION for Order for Relief From Local Rule 16.2 and Notice of Conflict by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
70 ORDER Plaintiff is granted relief from the requirements of LCvR 16.2, in that counsel who is not lead counsel, but who is familiar with the case and can fully participate in the settlement conference, is allowed to attend the settlement conference in place of lead counsel.granting 69 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Doyle W. Argo on 9/6/07. (sr, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
71 ORDER denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 63 Motion to Strike (more fully set out). Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 9/10/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 7 of 8

09/11/2007
09/12/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/26/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/28/2007
11/29/2007 12/05/2007 12/06/2007
12/26/2007 01/15/2008 01/16/2008 01/17/2008
01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/29/2008

72 ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING ORDER: This action is administratively terminated without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen for entry of any stipulation or order. If not reopened within 45 days to obtain final determination, action is deemed dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 9/11/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
73 ENTER ORDER The settlement conference was held on September 11, 2007, before Magistrate Judge Doyle Argo. Woody Glass appeared as lead trial counsel for Plaintiff and David Lee appeared as lead trial counsel for Defendant.The case settled. re 58 Order Setting Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Doyle W. Argo on 9/12/07. (sr, ) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
74 MOTION to Clarify and/or Modify Settlement Agreement by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
75 MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Administrative Closing Order by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
76 ORDER granting 75 Motion for Extension of Adminstrative Closing Order. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 10/26/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
77 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 74 MOTION to Clarify and/or Modify Settlement Agreement and Brief in Support by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
78 ORDER granting 77 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Mtn to Clarify. Response due by 11/28/2007. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 11/13/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Intervening Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify and/or Strike Settlement Agreement and Motion for Extension of Administrative Closing Order by Langston University. (Gooch, Ambre) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
80 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Intervenig Plaintiffs Mtn to clarify. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 11/29/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
81 RESPONSE to Motion re 74 MOTION to Clarify and/or Modify Settlement Agreement filed by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
82 ORDER holding in abeyance ruling on 74 Motion to Clarify and grants Intervening Plaintiff's motion for an extension of administrataive closing order until January 31, 2008. Parties may file an application to set case for a settlement conference if they feel it would be of assistance. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 12/6/07. (ns, ) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
83 MOTION for Order for Application to Set Matter for Settlement Conference by Barbara J Craig. (Ward, Stanley) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
84 RESPONSE re 83 MOTION for Order for Application to Set Matter for Settlement Conference filed by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
85 ORDER granting 83 Motion to set matter for a settlement conference. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 1/16/08. (ns, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
86 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Settlement Conference set for 2/26/2008 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo. Statements due by noon 2/21/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo on 1/17/08. (sr, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
87 SECOND MOTION for Extension of Time of the Administrative Closing Order by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
88 ORDER granting 87 Motion for Extension of Administrative Closing. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/1/08. (ns, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
89 ENTER ORDER A settlement conference was held on February 26, 2008, before Magistrate Judge Doyle Argo. Stan Ward appeared as lead trial counsel for Plaintiff and David Lee appeared as lead trial counsel for Defendant.The case

Case: 5:06-cv-185 As of: 07/18/2014 01:17 PM CDT 8 of 8

04/01/2008 04/02/2008 04/15/2008 04/16/2008 04/22/2008
04/29/2008
04/30/2008 05/07/2008

settled. re 86 Order Setting Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo on 2/29/08. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
90 THIRD MOTION for Extension of Time Of Administrative Closing Order by Barbara J Craig. (Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
91 ORDER granting 90 Motion for Extension of Administrative Closing Order. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 4/2/08. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
92 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time (Fourth Joint) to Extend Administrative Closing Order by Langston University. (Lee, David) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
93 ORDER granting 92 Motion for Extension of Administrative Closing Order. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 4/16/08. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
94 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Request for a Hearing Before the Court and Brief in Support by Langston University. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Enter Order (Doc. 89) dated February 29, 2008, # 2 Attachment B − Declaration of Michael Scott Fern, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Attach. B − Handwritten notes of Michael Scott Fern dated February 26, 2008, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Attach. B − Letter to Michael Scott Fern from Stanley M. Ward dated March 14, 2008, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Attach. B − Letter to Stanley M. Ward from Michael Scott Fern dated March 25, 2008 with enclosure, # 6 Exhibit 4 to Attach. B − Warrant No. 103633005 to Ward &Glass, LLP, # 7 Exhibit 5 to Attach. B − Warrant No. 103631818 to Barbara Craig, # 8 Exhibit 6 to Attach. B − Warrant No. 080553985 to Barbara J. Craig)(Lee, David) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
95 RESPONSE to Motion re 94 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Request for a Hearing Before the Court and Brief in Support filed by Barbara J Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Craig's Counsel's notes on settlement, # 2 Exhibit 2, Settlement Agreement Proposed by Defendant, # 3 Exhibit 3, Letter from Ward to Fern, dated 3/20/08, # 4 Exhibit 4, Letter from Fern to Ward, dated 3/25/08, # 5 Exhibit 5, Letter from Ward to Stan, dated 4/3/08 with revised Settlement Agreement)(Brockman, Scott) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
96 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion. Hearing set for 5/7/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom #501 on Defendant's motion to enforce settlement before Honorable David L. Russell.. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 4/30/08. (ns, ) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
97 Courtroom Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable David L. Russell: Motion Hearing held on 5/7/2008 re 94 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Langston University. After hearing arguments the parties were able to agree on settlement making motion moot. (Court Reporter Alana LaGrow.) (ns, ) (Entered: 05/07/2008)