[Names and addresses of Counsel listed on signature page]

JAi'l ;) 1998

ff.';'ELED
JAN 141998 IJiJiRiCiHLiCEERRHKNADuiR~DT~W:~"iRWICITEC/O{UINRTG
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

. VICKI BUTLER, SUSAN ELLIS, FELICIA )

FUNDERBURK, JACQUELINE GENERO, )

SHERYLE JONES, KIMBERLY.

)

STODDARD, and CHERYL WILLIAMS, on)

behalf of themselves and all others similarly )

situated, and JAMIE WILSON, an individual,)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

HOME DEPOT, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

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

CONSOLIDATED CASE:

)

)

TERESA FRANK, KATHERINE TOMA, )

and KATHLEEN YORK, ort behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

)

)

HOME DEPOT, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

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

Case No. C 94A335 SI CLASS ACTION CONSENT DECREE
Case No. C 95-2182 SI CLASS ACTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. DEFINlTIONS ........................................................ ; 1 IV. LITIGATION BACKGROUND ................. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 V. JURlSDICTION:......... ...................... ... .... .... .... ... . .... 9 VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE ............... 10 VII. SETTLEMENT CLASS ................................................. 10 VIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS ................................................. 12
A Release of Claims by Settlement Class ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 B. Release of Claims By Plaintiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 C. No Tolling of Sexual HarassmentClaims .............................. 13 D. No Bar to Future Claims ........................................... 13 IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ........................................ 13 A Calculation of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 B. No Admission of Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 14 C. Modification and Severability ofthe Consent Decree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 D. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree ............................... 15 E. Deadlines ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 X. GENERAL EQUITABLE PROVISIONS _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 A. GeneralInjunctive Provisions ........... ;........................... 15 B. Standard for Judicial Enforcement by Contempt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 C. Prevention of Sexual Harassment .................................... 18 D. Home Depot's Internal Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance. . . . . . . . . . .. 19
1. Designation of Compliance OfficiaL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 2. Duties of the Compliance Official. . ... _.. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 3. Internal Complaint Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 4. Disciplinary Policy.. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

709.HDG

- 1-
Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 S!

c E. Communication of Consent Decree Requirements and EEO Practices to Officers and Associates ............................................ 24

_XL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES .................................. 24

XII. TRAINING AND EDUCATION .......................................... 27

A. Summary Leaflet ................................................ , 27

B. Training of Division and Regional Management Regarding the Consent Decree ......................................................... 28

C. Training of District Managers and Store Managers Regarding the Consent Decree ......................................................... 28

D. Additional Training of Assistant Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

E. Department Snpervisors ........................................... , 29

F. Diversity Training for Hourly Associates .............................. 30

G. Training ofIIumanResources Personnel Regarding the Consent Decree ...... 30

H. Product Knowledge C'PK") Training ................................. , 31

1. Access to Product Knowledge Self-Study Courses. ................ 31 2. Basic Product Knowledge Training for Cashiers. .................. 31 3. Dissemination ofInformation About Product Knowledge Classes. .... 32 4. Provision of Product Knowledge Classes........................ , 32
5. Record-Keeping. ........................................... 32

XIII. JOB PREFERENCE PROCESS/ABOVE-STORE POSITIONSIEVALUATIONS/COMPENSATION ............................ 32

A. Home Depot's Job Preference Process for Selecting Store Management and Non Management Positions ........................................ ' 32

1.

Standard ~or ~stablishing a Job Preference Process................ , 32

2. Commurucations........................................... , 33

3. The Internal Job Preference Process for Home Depot Associates. ..... 33

B. Job Preference Process for-External Applicants ......................... 35

1. Store Applicants. . ...... :................................... 35 2. External Applicants For Management Jobs. ...................... 36

C. - Selection Standards and Minimum Qualifications ....................... 37

D. Benchmarks .................................... , ............... ' 39

1. General Principles.. , ....................................... ' 39 2. Benchmark Positions in Home Depot's West Coast Division Stores. '.' 40

E. Above-Store-Level Positions ....................................... , 42

F. Evaluation and Incentive Programs. .................................. 42

709.HDG

- iiConsent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c:'-·-.'·.'.·}

G. Standards Concerning the Establislunent of Compensation Rates ........... 42
1. Considerations Used to Determine Associate Pay Levels. ........... 42 2. Determining Pay Levels. ..................................... 43 3. Analysis of Compensation Paid to Sales Associates................ 43
XIV. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING .................................... 45
A. Documents to Be Preserved for the Duration of the Decrec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
B. Documents to Be Maintained for Two Years ........................... 46
C. Access to Documents ............................. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
D. Reporting Schedule ................................................ 47
E.Contents of the Semi-Annual Progress Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
XV. MONETARY RELIEF, NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE ................. 49
A. Monetary Settlement Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
1. Creation of Monetary Settlement Fund........................... 49 2. Allocation of the Fund. ...................................... 50 3. Awards to Rejected Applicant Cla~s Members..................... 52 4. Awards to Employee Class Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 5. Claims of Deceased Class Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 6. Allocation of Monetary Relief and Tax Treatment. ................. 55
B. Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
1. Class Action Settlement Notice. ............................... 56
C. Objections and Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
1. Objections. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 2. Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 3. Rescissions of Opt Outs and Withdrllwals of Objections. . . . . . . . . . . .. 59
D . Opt-Out Credits ........................... . . . . . . . . . ............ ;. 59
E. Claims Determination Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
1. Claims Administrator. ....................................... 62 2. Distribution of Claim Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 3. SubmissionofCiaimForms................................... 63 4. Notice of Receipt of Claim Forms.............................. 63 5. Processing of Claim Forms, Requests for Further Information From
Claimants. ................................................ 64 6. Provision ofInformation Regarding Claimants by Home Depot. ... . .. 65 7. . Initial Claim Determination Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65 8. . Notification to Claimant of Claim Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 9. Review of Claim Determinations by the Special Master. . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
F. Class Monetary Distribution ........................................ 67

7091IDG .

- lll-
Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c 1. Class Monetary Distribution List. .............................. 67 2. Residual Funds. ............................................ 68
XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES .................. ~ .......... 69
A. Basis for Award of Fees, Costs and Expenses........................... 69
B. Payment of Award ............................................... , 70

Ci .--

" !

709JIDG

- IV-
Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

I. INTRODUCTION
This Consent Decree ("Decree") has been voluntarily entered into by the parties engaged in this litigation, and has been submitted to the United States District Court for approvaL This Decree finally resolves the litigation now pending between the parties.
This Consent Decree includes ajoint statement of the purposes ofthe Decree, a description ofthc history of the litigation, and various substantive provisions agreed upon by the parties. No particular provision has been agreed to because of any prior Court order. Rather, the parties have met and reached voluntary agreement on the entire contents of this Decree. II. PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT QE.CREE
The parties have entered into this Consent Decree for the following purposes: A. To resolve all disputes covered by this Consent Decree in such a way as to avoid further expensive and protracted litigation; B. To ensure equal employment opportunity for females working within, and applying to, Home Depot's West Coast Division stores; C. To increase the awareness of females concerning the various career options available to them in Home Depot's West Coast Division stores, and to ensure that they are compensated, considered for hire, training, job assignment and promotional opportunities in which they are interested and qualified on a non-discriminatory basis. D. To create an expedited procedure for distributing a monetary settlement to eligible members of the Settlement Class and for implementing equitable reliefpursuant to the terms of this Decree; and E. To provide finality to the resolution of all claims and defenses asserted in this action. III. DEFINITIONS
The following terms when used in this Decree, in addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Decree, shall have the following meanings:
A. "Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court signs this Decree, after having determined that it is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class as a whole, after: (i) notice

709.HDG

-I Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c'

to the Class, (ii) an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class with respect to monetary relief,

(iii) an opportunity to submit timely objections to the Decree, (iv) appropriate discovery of the

specifics of any such timely objections, and (v) a hearing on the fairness ofthe settlement.

B. "Assistant Store Manager" means both the job titles Assistant Store Manager and

Assistant Store Manager Trainee.

C. "Benchmark Positions" means the fQllowing Home Depot West Coast Division

store positions:

Sales Associate

Merchandising Department Supervisor

Assistant Store Manager

Store Manager

D, "Benchmark Related Geographical Area" means, as applicable, stores, districts and

regions within Home Depot's West Coast Division, including the division itself.

E. "Best Efforts" means implementing a plan reasonably designed to comply with the

specified objectives to which the best efforts are directed.

F. "Class" and "Settlement Class" are defined in Sections IV and Vlr,'respectively.

G. "Class Counsel" means Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San

Francisco, California and Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller of Oakland, California.

H. "Class Representatives" means Vicki Butler, Susan Ellis, Teresa Frank, Felicia

Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, Katherine Toma, Kathle<;:n

York, and Cheryl Williams, who were certified by the Court to represent the Class pursuant to .-

Fed. R. Civ, P. 23.

1.

"Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California,

1. "Decree Year" means the one-year period from the Final Approval Date or the

anniversary of the Final Approval Date until the next anniversary of the Final Approval Date. For

example, "Decree Year One" would be the one-year period from the Final Approval Date until the

first anniversary of the Final Approval Date.

709.IIDG

-2Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

K. "Eligible Associates" means those Associates who have registered their interest for the pertinent job pursuant to the Home Depot Job Preference Process provisions of Section XlII of the Decree, and have been determined to meet the Minimum Qualifications for the pertinent job established and maintained by Home Depot pursuant to the terms of Section XlII. In accordance with common usage at Home Depot, "associates" shall refer to all hourly and managerial employees.
L. "Eligible Applicants" means those external Applicants who have registered their interest for Benchmark Positions pursuant to the Home Depot Job Preference Process in Section XlII, and who meet the Minimum Qualifications ofthe pertinent job.
M. "Employee Class Member" means those Settlement Class Members who wcre employed by Home Depot in its West Coast Division stores at any time between November 5, 1992 and the Preliminary Approval Date.
N. "Final Approval" means the entry of this Decree on the Approval Date by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and either: (1) the expiration of the time for filing of a direct appeal from the Court's approval of the Decree without the filing of a notice of appeal, or (2) if a timely direct appeal is filed, the final resolution of that appeal (including any requests for rehearing and/or petitions for certiorari), resulting in [mal judicial approval ofthe Consent Decree.
O. "Final Approval Date" is the date upon which Final Approval of this Decree is attained.
P. "Gender Discrimination" or "Discriminating on the basis of Gender" means unlawful discrimination against Associates on the basis of their sex or gender, including but not limited to retaliation against an Associate because he or she has opposed practices he or she believes in good faith to constitute unlawful sex or gender discrimination or has participated in processes designed to obtain telieffor alleged unlawful sex or gender discrimination. For all purposes of this Decree, "Gender Diserixnination" and "Discriminating on the basis of Gender" shall not include: (1) sexual harassment, (2) retaliation for opposing or complaining about alleged

709,lIDG

-3Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

C)

sexual harassment, and (3) retaliation for participating in a process designed to obtain relief for alleged sexual harassment.
Q. "Home Depot," "Defendant" and "the Company" mean Home Depot, USA, Inc. For all pnrposes and terms of this Decree, only the West Coast Division stores of Home Depot are. covered hereunder.
R. "JPP Semi-Annual Anniversary Date(s)" means September 17, 1998, March 17, 1999, and September 17 and March 17 during each Decree Year thereafter.
S. "Liability Period" means the period between November 5, 1992 and the Preliminary Approval Date.
T. "Minimum Qualifications" means those discrete objective qualifications (such as scrvice requirements, educational requirements, job knowledge tests, ctc.) which: (1) are used by Home Depot as preliminary, independent qualifiers, such that the failure to meet the qualification is, itself, used by Home Depot to preclude further consideration of the individual for a Benchmark Position; (2) can be isolated for purposes of determining adverse impact; and (3) may be applied by Home Depot to screen Associates who have registered interest in a position, prior to determination of Benchmarks under this Decree. The current Minimum Qualifications for Benchmark Positions are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
U. "Plaintiffs" means the Class Representatives in their capacity as party litigants in
the Butler and Emn.k actions, and Jamie Wilson.
V. "Rejected Applicant Class Members" means those Settlement Class Members who applied for employment in Home Depot stores within the geographical area of Rome Depot's .West Coast Division stores between November 5,1992 and the Preliminary Approval Date and were qualified for employment as a Sales Associate or Assistant Manager or Associate Manager and were not hired.
W. "Preliminary Approval Date" mcans the date upon which the Court enters an Order preliminarily approving this Decree, pending notice, an opportunity to opt out ofthe Settlement· Class or submit objections to the Decree, and a fairness hearing thereon.

709.lIDG

-4-
Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

x. "Selection Standards" means any factors considered by Home Depot in making a
final selection decision, other than Minimum Qualifications. Y. wrenn of this Consent Decree" is the period from the Approval Date until the
expiration of the Decree pursuant to Section VI. Z. "West Coast Division" means Home Depot's division of retail stores located in
Arizona, Califomia, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington and the retail stores located in Albuquerque, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas before these stores were transferred to the Southwest Division as of February 3,1997. IV. LITIGATION BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1994, seven female current or fonner Associates of Home Depot, and one applicant for employment to Home Depot USA, Inc., Vicki Butler, Susan Ellis, Felicia Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, Cheryl Williams, and Jamie Wilson, filed a complaint on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of other similarly situated females against Home Depot, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000(e), et seq.., ("Title VII"), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq. C'FEHA"). The action, entitled Butler. et al. v, Home Depot, Inc" Civil Action No. C94-4335 SI (,'the Butler action"), brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Califomia, alleges that Home Depot has engaged in a policy or pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of gender against the Plaintiffs and against similarly situated female currerit and fonner Associates of, and applicants to, Home Depot's West Coast Division in connection with hiring for, and initial and subsequent job assigmnents to, sales and management positions, trainillg, promotion, compensation and other tenns and conditions of employment.
Home Depot categorically denies that it has engaged in any policy or pattern or practice ofgender discrimination against the Plaintiffs or against any other female currcnt or . former Associates or applicants, and maintains that its female Associates and applicants have had equal employment opportunity and are hired for, and assigned to, sales and management positions and are trained, promoted, paid, provided benefits and accorded the same terms and conditions as

109JIDG

-5Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95·2182 S

c·•·. )- '-/

Home Depot's similarly situated and interested male Associates and applicants. Home Depot
further contends that it is in compliance with all applicable state and federal fair employment
laws.
In early 1995, the parties conducted discovery relating to class certification issues.
Plaintiffs deposed approximately ten Home Depot managers. Home Depot deposed, or partially
dcposed, the class representatives in the Butler action.
On June 30, 1995, three additional current and former female Associates of Home
Depot, Teresa Frank, Katherine Toma, and Kathleen York, filed a gender discrimination class
action complaint, C95-2182 81 (the "Frank action") against Home Depot asserting claims almost
identical to the Butler action. On January 24, 1996, the Court consolidated the Butler and Frank
actions. (The consolidated cases are hereafter referred to as "the Butler action. ")
On May 5, 1995, Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the Butler action as a
class action. Plaintiffs supported their motion with, inter alia, declarations ofputative class
members, excerpt~ of deposition testimony from Home Depot managers, documents obtained
from Home Depot during discovery, and a declaration from an expert witness. Home Depot
vigorously opposed Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The parties filed numerous briefs and
supplemental briefs.
On August 30, 1995, the Court heard argument on Plaintiffs' motion requesting
that the Court certify the Butler action as a class action. On January 24, 1996, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion. The Court certified a class (the "Class") comprised of:
A. All female Associates of Home Depot within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division who are or were employed on or after November 5, 1992, or who are or will be employed between this date and the date of entry ofjudgment in this class action; and
B. All female applicants who' applied for employment in Home Depot stores within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division on or after November 5, 1992, and were qualified for employment in the positions of salespersons or assistant managers and who were not hired or were hired for cashier or other operations positions.
Order Certifung Class Action (January 24, 1996).

1091IDG

- 6Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· ·.· ) "0". "

Throughout 1996 and the first eight and one half months of 1997 the parties conducted discovery concerning the merits of Plaintiffs' individual and class claims. The discovery was broad, extensive, and thorough. The discovery included requests for production of documents, interrogatories, contention interrogatories, requests for admissions, disclosures pursuant to Rule 26, and extensive expert discovery.
Discovery included the production of extensive documents from Plaintiffs and Home Depot including production ofcomputerized personnel and payroll data from 1991 through early 1997, relating to Home Depot's West Coast Division. Several hundreds of thousands of pages of documents were produced. In addition, several third parties were subpoenaed, and produced documents, including Automatic Data Processing, which produced payroll data froni Home Depot's West Coast Division from 1991-1993.
The parties have litigated numerous discovery issues, including but not limited to: (1) the discoverability of information concerning sexual harassment complaints asserted by class membcrs other than the Class Representatives; (2) discovery regarding Home Depot's diversity initiative, and (3) the geographical and temporal scope of discovery. The parties also have litigated the appropriate scope and content of counsel's communications with class members.
Deposition discovery was extensive. Well over 100 persons were deposed including the Class Representatives, class members, including many of the approximately 60 class members who filed declarations in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and Home Depot managers and Associates. In addition, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Class Counsel deposed Home Depot through its designated representatives on a variety oftopics, including Home Depot's (1) personnel policies, (2) evaluations, (3) training, (4) computerized records, (5) retention of documents, and (6) diversity initiative.
In March, April, May, andJune 1997, the parties served and filed expert reports, rebuttal expert reports, and surrebuttal expert reports. Plaintiffs submitted expert reports from Dr. Richard Drogin, a statistician: Dr. Marc Bendick, a labor economist; Dr. Susan Fiske, a social psychologist; Dr. William Bielby, a sociologist; Dr. Carl Hoffmann, an expert in survey research and job interests; Dr. Mary Gentile, an expert in the fields of organizational diversity program

709.HDG

-7Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c·.· ,c~_ _

-'

design and implementation; and Dr. Kathleen I.undquist, an organizational psychologist. Home Depot submitted expert reports from, among others, Dr. Judith Stoikov, a statistician; Dr. Ali Saad, a labor economist; Dr. Edward Lazear, a labor economist; Dr. Gary Becker, a labor economist; Dr. Sherwin Rosen, a labor economist; Janis Martinez, a search firm consultant; Dr. Samuel Culbert, a management consultant; and Dr. Barbara Gutek, an organizational psychologist. These experts werc deposed at length.
On July 9, 1997, the Court heard argument on Home Depot's motions to exclude testimony by Drs. Gentile, Fiske, Bielby, and Hoffmann pursuant to Daubert y. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticaL Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). On July 31,1997, the Court denied Home Depot's motions.
In the Summer of 1997, the parties exchanged final trial witness lists, descriptions of trial witness testimony, and trial exhibits. The parties also submitted jury instructions, jury verdict fOIms, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In August, and September 1997, the parties briefed and argued ovcr 80 motions in limine. The parties submitted stipulations . of undisputed facts on September 15, 1997.
After the discovery cut-off, Home Depot filed three motions: (1) a motion for summary judgment on the claims offemale applicants; (2) a motion for summary judgment on the claims of female Associates; and (3) a motion for decertification of the applicant and employee classes. On August 29, 1997, the Court denied the motion for decertification and the motion for summary judgment on the claims offemale applicants. As to the motion for summary judgment on the claims of female Associates, the Court dismissed claims relating to training and to non-store based Associates, but denied the motion in all otherrespects.
On September 2, 1997, the Court held a pretrial conference. At that conference, the Court confirmed that trial would begin on September 22, 1997, and placed limits of 80 hours per side on the parties' presentations ofevidence.
The Plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this case, and Home Depot has vigorously contested it. All pretrial discovery was completed, numerous pre-trial motions were ruled upon, and the parties were prepared for trial. As a result, the parties were able to assess

709.HDG

- 8Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-433581; C 95-2182 SI

c'

reliably the relative merits ofthe claims of the Plaintiffs and the certified Class, and of Home Depot's defenses.
In February, 1997, counsel for the parties met to explore the possibility of settlement. In April, the parties exchanged proposals regarding injunctive relief. Unable to reach agreement at that time because of their very different views of the strength of Plaintiffs' claims, the parties did not discuss settlement again in substance until the Court directed the parties at the pretrial conference held September 2, 1997, to once again explore settlement.
On September 5,1997, Plaintiffs and Home Depot began Court-ordered mediation negotiations with the assistance of an experienced mediator: Hunter Hughes of Atlanta, Georgia. Under the supervision of the mediator, these negotiations have been conducted at arms-length and without collusion. These efforts resulted in an agreement to settle this action. The terms of the parties' agreement are contained in this Consent Decree.
The parties agrec that the formal and informal discovery conducted in this action· :- thc depositions taken by both sides, the documents produced, the expert witness reports, and the information exchanged during mediation - are sufficient to assess reliably the merits of the respective parties' positions and to compromise the issues on a fair and equitable basis. As reflected by the signatures of counsel at the end of this document, the parties have consented to the entry ofthis Decree. V. JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. The Complaints in the Butler and Frank actions assert claims that, ifproven, would authorize the Court to grant the equitable and monetary relief set forth in this Consent Decree. Venue is proper in this District. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration ofthe Decree .solely for the purpose of entering all orders authorized hereunder, which may be necessary to implement the reliefprovided herein. VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE
A. Unless provided otherwise, the equitable provisions in this Decree are effective immediately upon the Approval Date, provided, however, that in the event that this Decree

709.HDG

- 9Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 S

C··.· )\

ultimately does not receive Final Approval, then any prior contempt finding which may have been

entered shall be vacated by the Court.

B. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this Decree and the

agreements contained herein shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years during which the

provisions in Section XIII concerning the Benchmarks are fully operational. Provided, however,

that four (4) ycars after the Approval Date, Home Depot may move the Court to terminate thc

Decree if: (i) the provisions in Section XIII concerning the application of Benchmarks have been

fully operational for at least three years; (ii) Home Depot has met the Benchmarks or justified

pursuant to Section XIII its failure to meet the Benchmarks; and (iii) during the three year period

prior to its motion to terminate the Decree, Home Depot has not been held in violation of any
.
provision of the Decree pursuant to the dispute resolution section established in Section XI.

VII. SETTLEMENT CLASS

A. For purposes of the monetary relief provided in this Decree, the Settlement Class is

certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and consists of:

1. All female Associates of Home Depot's West Coast Division stores who are

or were employed, for any length of time, between November 5, 1992 and the Preliminary

Approval Date (start and end dates inclusive), except those who file a timely request to opt out of

the monetary relief provisions of thc Decrec;

i.

2. All female applicants who applied for employment in Home Depot stores

within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division between November 5,1992

and the Preliminary Approval Date (start and end dates inclusive) and were qualified for

employment in the positions of Sales Associates, Associate Managers, or Assistant Managers and

who were not hired, or were hired for cashier or other operations positions, except those who file

a timely request to opt out of the monetary relicf provisions of the Dccrec.

B. For purposes of the equitable and declaratory relief provided in this Decree, the

Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Federal Rille of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and consists of:

709JIDG

-10 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-433581; C 95-2182 SI

c)

1. All female Associates of Home Depot's West Coa~t Division stores who are or were employed, for any length oftime, hetween Novemher 5, 1992 and the Preliminary Approval Date (start and end dates inclusive).
2. All female applicants who applied for employment in Home Depot stores within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division between November 5, 1992 and the Preliminary Approval Date (start and end dates inclusive) and were qualified for employment in the positions of Sales Associates, Associate Managers, or Assistant Managers and who were not hired, or were hired for cashier or other operations positions.
C. The Settlement Class closes on the Preliminary Approval Date. All females hired by Home Depot into its West Coast Division stores after the Preliminary Approval Date may avail themselves of the equitable relief provided in the Decree but shall not be entitled to any portion of the monetary reliefprovided hereunder.
D. For purposes of Section VII of this Decree, Settlement Class members who have filed a timely request to opt out ofthe morietary relief provisions of the Decree shall not be held to release any claims for individual relief.
E. For purposes of Section VII of this Decree, the Settlement Class does not include those individuals who have filed a timely request to opt out ofthe monetary reliefprovisions of this Decree.
F. In the event that Final Approval of this Decree is not attained, nothing herein shall be deemed to waive Home Depot's objections and defenses to class certification, and this Decree shall not then he admissible in any court regarding the propriety of class certification or any other issue. VIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
A. Release of Claims by Settlement Class Upon Final Approval of the Decree, Home Depot and its directors, officers,
managers, agents, Associates, attorneys, successors and assigns, any and all benefit plan administrators and anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of any of them, shall be fully relea~ed and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands,

709.HDG

- 11 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Class Representatives, by Plaintiffs, by the Settlement Class, by each member of the Settlement Class (hereafter "Releasors"), and by the Releasors' estates, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of or arc related to conduct within the Liability Period constituting alleged Gender Discrimination in employment under Title VII andlor aUeged violations of the recordkeeping requirements with respect to gender promulgated pursuant to Title VII, the California FEHA and/or any other law prohibiting Gender Discrimination, whether statutory, pursuant to local ordinance or at common law, excepting solely claims of Settlement Class members (other than the Plaintiffs) for (a) alleged sexual harassment or (b) alleged retaliation for opposing or complaining about purported sexual harassment andlor for participating in a process designed to obtain relief for alleged sexual harassment. This Release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
B. Release of Claims By Plaintiffs Upon Final Approval of the Decree, for and in consideration of the mutual
promises, terms and conditions by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant set forth herein, the sufficiency of which consideration is expressly acknowledged, the Plaintiffs do hereby fully, fmally and forever release and discharge Home Depot, its directors, officers, any and all benefit plan administrators, managers, agents, Associates, attorneys, successors and/or assigns, and anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of them, from any and all past and/or present claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, liabilities, assessments, judgments, costs, losses, debts, obligations and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, whether or not known, allegedly incurred by Plirintiffs because of claimed unlawful Gender Discrimination or any other allegedly illegal actions by Defendant, including but not limited to those arising in any way out of the alleged facts, circum,iarices and occurrences underlying those allegations of violations of Title VII, and the California FEHA which were asserted or which might have been assertcd by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs against Defendant either in Plaintiffs' complaints in the
l21!!lIT and .E!:i!!!k actions, or in any and all charges of discrimination filed against Home Depot by
some or all of the Plaintiffs with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This

709.HDG

- 12 - . Conserit Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

o

Release does not include the workers compensation claims, if any, ofthe Plaintiffs. This Release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
As to those Plaintiffs who are not employed by Home Depot, they further agree not to re-apply or otherwise seek employment at Home Depot in the future.
C. No Tolling of Sexual Harassment Claims Any claims ofSettlement Class members (other than those of the Plaintiffs) for
alleged sexual harassment or for alleged retaliation for opposing or complaining about purported sexual harassment and/or for participating in a process designed to obtain relief for alleged sexual harassment are not released hereunder because such claims are not and have never been asserted on a class-wide basis as a part of the Butler and Frank actions. Hence, there also has been no tolling of the statute oflimitations for asserting any such claims against Home Depot by operation of this lawsuit or any of the Plaintiffs' individual EEOC charges.
D. No Bar to Fnture Claims
Nothing in the Decree shall be construed to bar any claims of members ofthe Settlement Class or Plaintiffs that arise after the Preliminary Approval Date. IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Calculation of Time In computing any period oftime prescribed or allowed by this Decree, unless
otherwise stated, such computation or calculation shall be made consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) as it exists at the time at issue.
B. No Admission ofHability This Decree represents the compromise of disputed claims that the parties
recognize would require protracted and costly litigation to determine. Home Depot denies that it has engaged in any policy or pattern or practice of unlawful Gender Discrimination, and Home Depot's entry into this Decree is not, and may not be used by any person as an admission or evidence that Home Depot has on any occasion engaged in discriminatory employment practices, such being expressly denied. Home Depot has voluntarily entered into this Decree because the actions it has agreed to undertake demonstrate its strong commitment to equal employment

709.HDG

- 13Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c··.··i, .'-,-' ,/

opportunity. Accordingly, this Decree or any documents related thereto, such as claims fonus, reports, notices and other such documents, shall not be discoverable or admissible for·any purpose in any proceeding other than one relating directly to the enforcement of this Decree.
C. Modification and Severability ofthe Consent Decree 1. Whenever possible, each provision and tenn of this Decree shall be
interpreted in such a manner a,s to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event that after Final Approval hereof any provision or term of this Decree should be determined to be or rendered unenforceable on collateral review, all other provisions and tenns of this Decree and the application thereof to all persons and circumstances subject thereto shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law. If any application of any provisions or tenn of this Decree to any specific person or circumstance should be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the application of such provision or term to other persons or circumstances shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law.
2. Class Counsel and Home Depot may jointly agree to modifY the Decree. In the event that changed or other circumstances make a modification of the Decree necessary to ensure its purposes are fully effectuated, but good faith negotiations seeking such modification are unsuccessful, any party to the Consent Decree shall have the right to move the Court to modifY this Decree. Such motion shall be granted only upon the movant proving to the Court by clear and convincing evidence that changed or other circumstances make such modification necessary and that the modification will not materially increase the burden of compliance and/or thc direct cost to Home Depot of compliance (out-of-pocket or otherwise), after an opportunity for the other parties to be heard on the motion. Any such modification. to this Decree by the Court shall be ordered in such a fashion that will limit the burden of compliance and/or the direct cost to Home Depot (out-of-pocket or otherwise) to the extent possible consistent with effectuating the purposes . of this Decree. The procedures for negotiations about modifYing this Decree (and, if necessary, for resolution of disputcs) shall be the same as those set forth in Section X.B., regarding Decree enforcement.

709.HDG

- 14Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

D. Duty to Support aud Defend the Decree Class Representatives, Class Counsel and Home Depot each agree to abide by all
ofthe terms of this Decree in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their nest Efforts to defend· this Decree from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack.
E. Deadlines The parties recognize that from time to time unforeseen events, including, but not
limited to, exigent business circumstances and personnel issues, cause delays in the accomplishment of objectives no matter how well intentioned and diligent the parties may be. Accordingly, with regard to the provisions of this Consent Decree that require certain acts to be taken within specified time periods, the parties understand and agree that in the event that any party determines that an action required by this Consent Decree cannot be taken within the specified time period, that party shall promptly notify the other party that it anticipates a delay, the reasons for the delay, and a proposed alternative deadline. The parties shall endeavor to cooperate in reasonably rescheduling such deadlines; however, if the other party does not agree to the proposed delay, the parties shall follow the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Section XI of this Consent Decree. X. GENERAL EOUITABLE PROVISIONS
A. General Injunctive Provisions 1. Home Depot and its officers, agents and management or supervisory
Associates shall not engage in any policy, practice or procedure which has the purpose of discriminating against any Class Representative or member of the Settlement Class on the basis 'of gender.
2. Home Depot and its officers, agents and management or supervisory Associates shall not engage in or be a party to any act, policy, practice or procedure which discriminates, retaliates, or has the purpose of discriminating or retaliating against any Class Representative, any member of the Settlement Class, any employee of, or applicant to Home Depot or any other person because he or she furnished information, gave testimony or participated in any respect in tbe prosecution of the Butler action, or in any of the individual charges of

709.HDG

- 15 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2132 SI

Gender Discrimination filed with the EEOC prior to the Preliminary Approval Date by the Class Representatives or members of the Settlement Class, or filed a claim form pursuant to Section XV.
3. Home Depot, and its officers, agents and management or supervisory Associates shall make available to female Associates and applicants the same employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to hiring, job assignments, transfers, compensation, training, and promotions, as Home Depot affords similarly situated male Associates.
4. Nothing herein should be construed as any finding or admission that Home Depot previously has failed to act in the manner described in Section XA.3.
5. Associates complaining of alleged violations of the provisions set forth in Sections X.A.I. through X.A.3., may use Home Depot's internal complaint procedure or may file charges with the EEOC, or the state or local fair employment practices ("FEP") agency. The parties mutually intend that the enforcement provisions of this Decree shall not be used as an alternative method for class members to litigate entitlement to individual relief for claims of alleged Gender Discrimination. Individual complaints of such alleged violations, as distinguished from pattern or practice allegations, shall not be considered to raise an issue of compliance or non-compliance with this Decree, except insofar as the conduct of a Home Depot officer, manager or supervisor is of the level and nature necessary for the issuance of a contempt citation under Section X.B.
6. As ofthe Approval Date, and pursuant to the Court's authority under the' All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S,c' §§ 1651,2283, and Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 23, each and every Class Representative and each and every Settlement Class member. who does not file a timely request to opt outshall be and hereby is permanently enjoined from bringing claims released pursuant to Section VIII in any court, agency or adjudicative body, whether federal, state or locaL

709.HDG

- 16Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

B. Standard for Jndicial Enforcement by Contempt I. Class Counsel may petition the Court to hold Home Depot Or its officers or
managers in contempt, but only after: (a) having exhausted the dispute rcsolution procedures set forth in Section XI without having obtained reasonably effective remedial action, and (b) having, after a rea~onable investigation, concluded in good faith that the standards for a contempt citation described below have been met.
a. Officers or managers of Rome Depot shall not be held in contempt unless the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that either: (i) there has been an intentional disregard or intentional violation of a term or terms of the Decree by that officer or manager, (ii) such officer or manager had knowledge of such a violation of this Decree committed by one of his or her subordinate managers or supcrvisors but failed to take reasonably effective remedial action, or (iii) there is an intentional disregard by such officer or manager of the fact that a Home Depot policy, practice or procedure has an adverse impact on female Associates or applicants in violation of this Decree and such policy, practice, or procedure is not otherwise lawful under appiicable Title VII law; and, as to any to the foregoing, reasonably effective .remedial action has not been taken by Home Depot.
b. Home Depot shall not be held in contempt unless the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that either (i) there has been an intentional disregard or intentional violation of a term or terms of the Decree by one or more Home Depot agents at the level of officer or above, or by the Compliance Official; (ii) one or more agents of Home Depot at the level of officer or above, or the Compliance Official, had knowledge of such a violation of this Decree by an officer, manager or supervisor of Home Depot but failed to take reasonably effective remedial action, with respect to a mattcr within his or lier area of responsibility, or (iii) there is an intentional disregard by one or more Home Depot agents at the level of officer or above, or by the Compliance Official, of the fact that a Home Depot policy, practice, or procedure has an adverse impact on female Associates or applicants in violation of this Decree and such policy, practice or procedure is not otherwise lawful under applicable Title VII law; and, as to any of the foregoing, reasonably effective remedial action has not been taken by Home Depot.

709.HDG

- 17Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· · \--.:.j

2. Third parties shall not have standing to petition the Court to hold Home

Depot or its officers, managers or supervisors in contempt. Rather, any individual concerned

about the Company's compliance with this Decree may so notify Class Counsel and request that

they fulfill their responsibility to examine Home Depot's compliance and to seek such relief, if

any, as may be appropriate.
c. Prevention of Sexual Harassment

1. Home Depot shall continue to maintain enforcement procedures for the

"Standard Operating Procedure 01-21: Workplace Issues," attached as Exhibit B hereto (the

"Harassment Policy"). Home Depot may amend the Harassment Policy from time to time as it

may deem necessary as long as the amended policy has the same substantive import as the

Harassment Policy and is reasonably designed to achieve the same effect as the Harassment

Policy in meeting the Purposes of the Decree. Prior to implementing an amended policy, Home

Depot shall provide Class Counsel with notice of its proposed amendment and a statement of the

reasons therefor. Within twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice from Home Depot, Class

Counsel shall notify Home Depot if they believe that the amended policy is not effective to meet

the Purposes of the Decree, the reasons for that belief, and invoke the meet and confer procedures

set forth in Section XI.

2. The Harassment Policy attached as Exhibit B applies to harassment on

bases in addition to gender; however, the provisions of Section X.C.1. apply only to the "sexual

harassment" provisions of the Harassment Policy.

3. Associates complaining of alleged sexual harassment may use Home

Depot's internal complaint procedures or may file charges with the EEOC or with state or local

FEP agencies. Individual complaints and any related individual retaliation claims shall not be

.

.

considered to raise an issue of compliance or non-compliance with this Decree. Only a complaint

that Home Depot as a matter of policy, practice or procedure, has not adopted or is not

implementing or maintaining enforcement procedures for the Harassment Policy regarding

complaints of alleged sexual harassment shall raise an issue of compliance or non-compliance

with Section X.C.l. of this Decree. The substantive results of any sexual harassment investigation

709.HDG

- 18 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c·.·J··,

tmdertaken by the Company pursuant to the Harassment Policy are outside the scope ofthis Decree, and shall not be the subject of any enforcement proceeding or reporting obligation hereunder.
D.· Home Depot's Internal Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance 1. Designation of Compliance Official. a. Within two (2) weeks of the Approval Date, Home Depot shall
designate a Compliance Official who shall be charged with overall responsibility for monitoring compliance with the terms ofthe Decree. The Compliance Official shall either be the Division Vice President of Human Resources or another individual who shall report directly to the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors designated pursuant to Section XD.2.b.
b. In the event that the Compliance Official ceases to function in that role, the Company shall designate a replacement Compliance Official as soon as practicable but no later than (30) days after the Compliance Official ceases to function in that role.
c. The following procedure shall apply in selecting the Compliance Official:
(i) The Company shall use its Best Efforts to appoint an individual who will be effective in carrying out the duties and responsibilities set forth in Section IXD.2.
(ii) Prior to appointing an individual for the Compliancc Official position, the Company shall provide Class Counsel with a resume including the identity, background, experience and qualifications ofthe individual that the Company intends to appoint to the position. The Company also shall provide Class Counsel with a description of the reasons why it designated this individual. Within ten (10) days of receiving the resume and description of the basis for the selection, Class Counsel may interview the designated individual and provid.e· their views as to the individual's qualifications and suitability for the Compliance Official position.

709.HDG

- 19Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 9~·4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c

2. Duties of the Compliance Official.

The Compliance Official shall use his or her Best Efforts to ensure the Company's

implementation of and compliance with the provisions of this Decree.

a. For purposes of this Section, Best Efforts shall include the

following:

(i) Monitoring the establislunent, implementation, and revision

of the Benclunarks provided for pursuant to Section XlII .C. of the Decree.

(ii) Overseeing the development and implementation of all

Training and Education programs to be provided pursuant to Section XII of the Decree.

(iii) Submitting to Class Counsel progress reports and other

monitoring and reporting material specified in Section XIV of the Decree.

(iv) Ensuring the implementation and monitoring ofthe Internal

Complaint Procedure set forth in Section Xl.D.3. of the Decree.

b. The Ruman Resources Committee of Rome Depot's Board of

Directors will generally supervise the Compliance Official in order to ensure that he or she is

fulfilling the duties and responsibilities listed in Section XI.D.2. of the Decree.

c. The Company shall provide such support staff, funds and other

resources as may be reasonably necessary to discharge the Company's obligations under the

Decrce.

d. The Compliance Official shall have the authority to recommend

appropriate relief, including monetary relief, to be awarded to any individual whom the

CompliaiJ.ce Official concludes has been the victim of a violation of the Decree or of Gender

Discrimination.

3. Internal Complaint Procedure.

a. The Company shall internally publicize its Company-wide policy

prohibiting Gender Discrimination, either separately or in conjunction with the Company's overall

policy prohibiting discrimination.

709,IIDG

- 20Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· '\.-- J - .. /

b. The policy shall provide that persons engaging in such conduct will

be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge. The policy shall be posted in a

prominent place for Associates in each employing location covered by this Decree, and shall be

described in the sununary leaflet provided for in SectionXILA.1.

c. The Company shall maintain an intcmal complaint procedure for

thc purpose ofresolving "Covcred Complaints." The phrase "Covered Complaint" shall rnean any

complaint by a female Associate asserting that: (i ) any provision ofthis Decree has been violated

with respect to her employment with the Company, or (ii) that she has been the subject of Gender

Discrimination. Consistent with the definition of Gender Discrimination in this Decree,"Covered

Complaint" shall not include complaints of sexual harassment. At its election, however, the

Company may extend the operation ofthe intemal complaint procedure to other types of

complaints, including but not limited to sexual harassment complaints, without broadening its

obligations hereunder, which are strictly limited to complaints about Gender Discrimination and

compliance with this Decree. The internal complaint procedure shall not preclnde an employee's

right to file charges with the EEOC or with state or local FEP agencies.

d. An Associate with a Covered Complaint shall be encouraged, but

not required, to resolve the dispute informally at a local leveL

c. The intcrnal complaint procedure will. permit an Associate to

initiate a formal Covered Complaint by submitting a written complaint with the Division's

Employee Relations Manager ("DERM") on a form designed for that purpose. The Company will

make such forms available to Associates at each West Coast Division store upon request to the"

Store Manager or an Assistant Store Manager. In addition, there is a toll-free number through

which an Associate may confidentially request and obtain a form for making such a complaint,

which the Company will continue to maintain and publicize.

f.

Within two (2) weeks ofthe Approval Date ofthe Decree, the

Company shall designate thc Division Employee Relations Manager in accordance with Section

XD.3.g. In the event that the DERM cea<;es to function in that role during the term of this

Decree, as soon as practicable but no later than thirty (30) days after the date the DERM cea~es to

709.HDO

- 21 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

,·,,\':~. i C-'"0 '

function in that role, the Company shall designate a replacement DERM pursuant to Section

X.D.3.g. In the event that the DERM ceases to function in that role, the procedures set forth in

Section X.D.3.g. will be followed.

g. The following procedure shall apply in selecting a new Division

Employee Relations Manager:

(i) The Company shall use its Best Efforts to appoint an

individual who will be effective in carrying out the duties and responsibilities set forth in Scction

X.D.3.h.-k.

(ii) Prior to appointing an individual for the DERM position, the

Company shall provide Class Counsel with a resume including the identity, background,

experience and qualifications of the individual that the Company intends to appoint to the

position. The Company also shall provide Class Counsel with a description of the reasons why it

designated this individual. Within ten (10) days of receiving the resume and dcscription of the

bases for the selection, Class Counsel may interview the designated individual and provide their

views as to the individual's qualifications and suitability for the DERM position.

h. Written Covered Complaints submitted pursuant to Section

X.D.3 .c-e, shall be investigated by an Associate and/or attorney designated by the DERM unless

sufficient information to do so is not found in the complaint or is not otherwise reasonably

available. The DERM shall not designate an Associate to investigate a complaint if that particular

Associate is the subject ofthe complaint. The Associate making the complaint shall be adviscd in

writing of the findings of the investigation.

1. ' Any Associate who has submitted a written Covered Complaint

who is not satisfied with the initial resolution of that complaint may file a written request that the

matter be'reViewed by the Division Vice-President of Human Resources ("DVPHR"), or hislher

designee. The Associate requesting such a review shall be advised in writing of the outcome of

the review within seven (7) days of the review's completion.

I

I

J.

The DERM (or a designee under hislher supervision) shall, for all

written Covered Complaints during the duration of the Decree, retain copies of: the written

709.HDG

- 22Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c·.· .1. . .

Covered Complaint, the written statement of the findings of the investigation, and, when used, the written request for review and the written statement of the outcome of the review by the DVPHR or hisfher designee. Upon Class Counsel's written request, in the context of a dispute regarding compliance with the Decree's express provisions pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XI, the Company shall provide Class Counsel with a copy of the written Covered Complaint raising the alleged issue of non-compliance, the written statement ofthe findings of the investigation regarding that complaint, and, when used, the written request for review and the written statement of the outcome of the review by the DVPHR or hisfher designee. Such documents shall be kept confidential by Class Counsel and shall not be provided by them to any person or entity not a party to this Consent Decrcc.
k. The internal complaint procedure established in this Section is not intended to supplant the right of any employee to file a charge or complaint of discrimination or retaliation under any available municipal, state, or federal law, and shall not be interpreted to alter any applicable time limitations for the filing of any such charge or complaint.
4. Disciplinary Policy. a. The Company's published policies shall include the following
elements: (i) A statement that Gender Discrimination in hiring, job
assignment, transfer, promotion, training, compensation or benefits, discharge, or other employment decisions is unacceptable.
(ii) A statement that it is unacceptable to retaliate against an employee for using the internal complaint procedure established herein, or for otherwise. opposing Gender Discrimination..
(iii) A statement that such alleged conduct, if substantiated, will result in appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge.
b. The Company's Disciplinary Policy shall be disseminated in writing to all West Coast Division store Associates within six months of the Approval Date.

709JIDG

- 23. Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· ·.· ·.:"'.-. c.

----,-_I!

.'''.,>1"

E. Communication of Consent Decree Requiremeuts and EEO Practices to Officers aud Associates No later than thirty (30) days after the Approval Date of this Consent Decree,
Home Depot shall provide to each of its officers, directors, and Associates in the West Coast Division a copy of the Notice and Summary of Consent Decree, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, explaining the Company's duties and obligations under the Decree. XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
A. The parties shall agree to the appointment of attorney Gilmore Diekmann of Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon of San Francisco and Barbara Chvany of Chvany, Silbert & Knowlton of Orinda as Special Masters. Mr. Diekmann shall serve as Special Master in connection with the Dispute Resolution Procedures contained in this Section. Ms. Chvany shall serve as the Claims Review Special Master in connection with the Monetary Claims Procedures contained in Section XV of this Decree. The Special Masters may be removed at the joint written request of Class Counsel and Home Depot, or by order of the Court upon motion of either party. In the event that either Special Master or hislher successor ceases to function as Special Master due to death, voluntary resignation, the joint written request of Class Counsel and Home Depot or an order of Court, Class Counsel and Home Depot shall make a good faith effort to select a new Special Master by mutual agrecment. If Class Counsel and Home Depot are unable to reach agreement as to a successor Special Master within forty-five (45) days following the date the predecessor Special Master ceases to function as Special Master, the Court, upon motion of either Class Counselor Home Depot, shall appoint a successor Special Master. Class Counselor Home Depot may nominate to the Court persons for consideration as successor. Special Master. Both Class Counsel and Home Depot shall have the right to interview ariy nominated person, and to present argument and evidence to the Court regarding the selection of the Spc~ial Master.
B. Special Master Diekmann and any successor of his shall have authority to resolve all disputes arising under the Decree, subject to the various limitations on enforcement, and to the pertinent enforcement standards, as set forth in this Decree. The purpose of the Special Master under this Section is to provide an efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes that arise under the Decree consistent with the terms of the Decree.

709.IIDO

-24 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 51

c'

C. At the request of Class Counsel or Home Depot, Class Counsel and Home Depot shall confer as necessary, and the parties shall use their Best Efforts to resolve promptly any differences or any disputes regarding the interpretation or implementation of the Consent Decree, including Home Dcpot's compliance with the Decrce.
D. Class Counselor Home Depot shall have the right to file a motion with the Special Master to resolve any dispute or issue of compliance regarding any provisions of the Decree, subject to the SaIne enforcement limitations and standards referenced in Section XLB. The procedure for resolution of such issues shall beas follows:
I. If Class Counselor Home Depot has good reason to believe that a legitimate dispute exists, the initiating party shall promptly give written notice to the other party, including: (a) a reference to all specific provisions of the Decree that are involved; (b) a statement of the issue; (c) a statement of the remedial action sought by the initiating party; and Cd) a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances and any other arguments supporting the position of the initiating party;
2. Within twenty (20) days after receiving such notice, the non-initiating party shall respond in writing to the statement of facts and arguments set forth in the noticc and shall provide its· writtcn position, including the facts and arguments upon which it relies in support of its position;
3. Cla% Counsel and Home Depot shall undertake good-faith negotiations, which should include a meeting by telephone or in person andthe exchange of relevant documents and/or other information, to attempt to resolve the issues in dispute or alleged noncompliance;
4. The Special Master, upon motion, may permit either· Class Counselor Home Depot to take discovcry as provided by the Fcderal Rules of Civil Procedure, but only as to demonstrably relevant documents and/or witnesses, if the Special Master determines that the informal exchange of documents or information has not been sufficient to allow either Class Counselor Home Depot to present the dispute upon a factual record adequate for the determination required hereunder;

709_lIDG

- 25 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

5. If good-faith efforts to resolve the matter have failed, and after written notice of an "impasse" to the non-initiating party, Class Counselor Home Depot may file a motion with the Special Master, with a supporting brief, requesting resolution of the dispute or the issue of non-compliance, provided, however, that such motion shall be limited to the dispute(s) and/or issue(s) as to which the "meet and confer" provisions of Section XI.D.l-3, have been exhausted;
6. The non-moving party will have fiftcen (15) days to respond to any such motion; and
7. The Special Master shall attempt within fifteen (15) days after filing of the [mal briefto resolve the dispute and may schedule a hearing or other proceeding to resolve the matter.
E. The provisions of this ~eetion do not prevent Class Counselor Home Depot from .promptly bringing an issue directly before the Court when exigent facts or circumstances require immediate Court action to prevent a serious violation of the tenns of this Decree, which otherwise would be without meaningful remedy. The moving papers shall explain the facts and circumstances that allegedly necessitate immediate action by the Court. If any such matter is brought before the Court requesting irmnediate Court action, the opposing party shall be provided with appropriate actual notice, and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion, pursuant tothe Local Rules of the Court and thc Fcderal Rulcs of Civil Procedure. The Court in its discretion may sct such procedurcs for emergency consideration as are appropriate to thc particular facts or circumstances, but no such matter may be conducted on an ex parte basis.
F. All fees and expenses of both Special Masters shall be paid by Home Depot, except as provided in Section XVLA.S.
G. Either Class Counselor Home Depot may appeal a decision of the Special Master to the Court provided that such an appeal is made within fourteen (14) days of the decision by the Special Master. Any such appeal shall be brought by motion pursuant to the Local Rules of the Court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision rendered by the Special Master shall be

709.lIDG

- 26Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-21 &2 SI

c
c'.·.'.·'.·,,

affirmed unless the Court fmds that the Special Master made clearly erroneous findings of fact or wrongly interpreted or applied the Conseut Decree. XII. TRAINING AND EDUCATION
A. Summan Leaflet I. Within three (3) months after the Approval Date, the Company shall
develop a briefleaflet (with an expected length of not more than 2,000 words) summarizing the content of the non-monetary aspects of the Decree, including the Job Preference Process provisions. The leaflet will refer Associates to the Home Depot Jobs Brochure (see Section XIII.A.3.), which describes career opportunities at Home Depot. Class Counsel shall have the opportunity to review and offer comment on the text of the summary leaflet prior to its use by Home Depot.
2. A copy of the summary leaflet shall be posted and maintained at each Home Depot West Coast Division store in a location readily accessible to Associates and interested applicants, and inchided in the "new hire" packet during the term of this Decree. When the summary leaflet is initially published, each incumbent employee in Home Depot's West Coast Division stores shall be given a copy. Interested Associates and applicants may review the leaflet on a reasonable basis during non-paid, non-working hours.
3. A reference to the summary leaflet, the introductory CD ROM regarding the Sales Associate position (see Section XIILA.3) and the Home Depot Jobs Brochure, and advice about where Associates can obtain copies of the leaflet or jobs hrochure, or view the CD ROM shall be printed in Home .Depot's newspaper "Doings at the Depot" not less than once petyear, throughout the duration of the Decree.
B. Training of Division and Regional Management Regarding the Consent Decree IfIIome Depot has not alrcady donc so prior to the Approval Date, then not later
than two months after the Approval Date of the Decree, and thereafter at least once each subsequent calendar year during the term ofthe Decree, one or more meetings shall he conducted for the West Coast Division President and Regional Vice Presidents to review Home Depot's plan for compliance with the terms of the Decree.

709.HDG

- 27Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c. Training of District Managers and Store Managers Regarding the Consent
Decree If Home Depot has not already done so prior to the Approval Date, then not later than two months after the Approval Date, and thereaficr at least once each subsequent calendar year during the term of the Decree, each District Manager and each Store Manager in the Company's West Coast Division storcs shall attend a meeting (or one in a series of meetings) scheduled and conducted by the Compliance Official, or his or her trained designee, to review Home Depot's plan for·compliance with the terms of the Decree. At these meetings, the following topics shall be reviewed and discussed: (a) compliance with the Decree; (b) equal employment opportunity for women; (c) federal, state and Company prohibitions of workplace sexual harassment and retaliation; (d) diversity training; and (e) other topics that will encourage equal employment opportunity in recruiting, hiring, qualifying, training, promoting and retaining females. The first such meeting shall involve not less than two hours. Meetings in subsequent calendar years shall involve not less than one hour. Attendance at such meetings by each District Manager and Store Manager shall be expected. Such meetings may be in conjilllction with other Company business, at the Company's discretion, and may be organized geographically in such fashion as the Company deems appropriate. D. Additional Training of Assistant Managers 1.. During the term of this Decree; Assistant Managers in the Company's West· Coast Division stores shall receive training on equal employment opportunity, to include the
following topics: (a) compliance with the Decree; (b) equal employment opportunity for womell;
(c) federal, state and Company prohibitions of workplace sexual harassment and retaliation; (d) diversity training; and (e) other topics that will encourage equal employment in recruiting, hiring, qualifYing, training,promoting and retaining females. Such training may be delivered in live "discussion" fonnat, video format, written materials, or any combination of these or other formats, provided, however, that such training that occurs within the first twelve months following the Approval Date shall not be provided to participants solely through written materials. No less than two hours shall be devoted to the training on these topics for each participant, within twelve months following (a) the Approval Date, or (b) the date of the participant's promotion to a

- 28Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

management position, whichever occms later. In addition, in each two-year period beginning January 1, 1999, the Company shall schedule, and Assistant Managers in the Company's West Coast Division Stores are expected to attend, at least two hours of training on such subjects.
2. The training described in Section XILD. 1., may be held in conjunction with other Company business, at the Company's discretion, and may be organized geographically in such fashion as the Company deems appropriate.
E. Department Supervisors I. For purposes ofthis Section, the term "Department Supervisor" shall
include the Department Supervisor of each Merchandising department. 2. During the term ofthis Decree, Department Supervisors in Home Depot's
West Coast Division shall receive, as part of their Department Supervisor Training, training in the following topics: (a) compliance with the Decree; (b) equal employment opportunity for women; (c) federal, state and Company prohibitions of workplace sexual harassment and retaliation; (d) diversity training; and (e) other topics that will encomage equal employment in recruiting, hiring, qualifying, training, promoting and retaining females. Such training may be delivered in live "discussion" format, video format, written materials, or any combination of these or other formats, provided, however, that such training that occms within the fust twelve months following the Approval Date shall not be provided to participants solely through written materials. No less than two hours shall be devoted to the training on these topics for each participant, within twelve months following (a) the Approval Date, or (b) the date ofthe participant's promotion to a Department Supervisor position, whichever occurs later. In addition, in each two-year period . beginning January 1, 1999, the Company shall schedule at least two hours of training on such subjects for each Department Supervisor in the Company's West Coast Division stores at the time such training is provided, and inform Department Supervisors that participation is expected.
3. All incumbent Department Supervisors will be scheduled to receive this portion of Department Supervisor Training within twelve (12) months of the Approval Date if they have not been promoted to Assistant Store Manager.

709.HDG

- 29.Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

F. Diversity Training for Hourly Associates
Home Depot shall, through its "Respect" program, provide each new hourly West Coast Division Associate with diversity training as part of his or hcr new employee orientation.
G. Training ofHuman Resources Personnel Regarding the Consent Decree Unless it has already done so prior to the Approval Date, within ninety (90) days
following the Approval Date, Home Depot will develop and implement a training program for its West Coast Division Human Resources staff Associates who have substantive responsibilities related to compliance with fair employment practice laws andlor the application of consistency and objectivity in the placement and promotion process. New Human Resources Associates starr with such responsibilities shall receive such training within sixty (60) days of their date of entry into such position. Such training shall include, but not be limited to: (a) federal and state equal employment opportunity laws, including but not limited to the general provisions of these laws, the baqes on which discrimination is prohibited under these laws, the identity, roles and responsibilities of agencies established to enforce these laws, and the principles and objectives underlying these laws (including but not limited to job relatedness); (b) the appiication of equal employment opportunity to typical employment situations, including but not limited to thc development and completion of employee performance appraisals, training and other career advancement opportunities, and general supervision of Associates without engaging in either Gender Discrimination or gender stereotyping; (c) review ofthe provisions and requirements of the Decree; (d) review of the internal complaint procedure; (e) the role and responsibility of the Human Resources Department and staff; and (f) supervisory follow-ups ofEEO complaints, including but not limited to, prohibition against retaliation, working with the complainant and discipline of and other remedial measures to be taken with the offender.
II. Product Knowledge (ttPK") Training All West Coast Division Associates will be informed that PK Basic Training, PK
Project Training, and PK advanced product knowledge training will be made available to all Associates through department-specific self-study courses.

709.JIDG

- 30Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 Sl

1. A~!,ess to Product ,Knowledge Self-Study Courses.

Associates who wish to move from an operations position to a sales position, and

wish to obtain product knowledge, will have access to training through Product Knowledge

self-study courses. All Associates may take PK Basics Training, PK Project Training, and PK

Advanced Product Knowledge Training, which consist of department-specific, self-study courses.

These courses enhance the Associates' general knowledge, assist them in obtaining relevant

experience, assist them in determining a career path and helpprepare them for new positions.

Information about these self-study opportunities will be included in the "Home Depot Jobs

,

Brochure" (see Section XIILA.3.), the "Home Depot Standard Operating Procedures Manual," and

I·

the "Orientation Materials Associate Guide". In each Associate break area, information about PK

self-study course materials will be available, and an Associate may take the courses at his or her

own pace.

2. Basic Product Knowledge Training for Cashiers.

Cashiers will be required to take Home Depot's Product Knowledge Basics ("PK

Cashier") course, which is designed for cashiers. This course is a condensed version of PK Basics

and explains the core components of each department in a store. This course is designed to give

cashiers a basic knowledge about Home Depot products and may help cashiers develop an initial

interest in a specific sales department or departments. Based upon thei~ interest and motivation,

cashiers can participate in any product knowledge self-study program.

3. Dissemination ofInformation About Product Knowledge Classes.

The Company will disseminate to all Associates of West Coast Division stores

information about the time, place, and subject ofPK classes. This information describing product

knowledge training ("Product Knowledge Training Calendars") shall be posted in a designated

area in each West Coast Division store on a monthly basis. Information about PK Basics

self-study courses will be available in each Associate break area.

4. Provision of Product Knowledge Classes.

The Company will use its Best Efforts to make product knowledge classes

available to each Associate who has asked to participate in product knowledge classes, consistent

709.HDG

- 31 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

C)

with an Associate's job interests as reflected by the JPP, the number of people who can participate

in a class, and the legitimate needs of the business. If the training is specific to a certain
department, Associates in that department or adjacent departments will have first choice in

attending the training. If there is additional room, Associates who have expressed an interest in

working in that department thJ:ough the JPP will be able to attend the class on a fIrst-come-first-

served basis.

5. Record-Keeping.

Home Depot will maintain a record of the PK training each Associate receives,

through a training tracking system to be established by Home Depot.

XIII. ,rOB PREFERENCE PROCESS/ABOVE-STORE POSITIONSIEVALUAIJONS/ COMPENSATION

A. Home Depot's Job Preference Process for Selecting Store Management and Non Management Positions

1. Standard for Establishing a .Tob Preference Process.

a. On or before August I, 1998, Home Depot shall have implemented

a Job Preference Process ("JPpn) system, as described generally in Sections XIILA2.-3.,

throughout the retail store operations of Home Depot's West Coast Division.

b. The purposes of the JPP include the following: (i) to improve the

information available to Home Depot's management in making promotion and employee

development and training decisions; (ii) to provide a systematic Division-wide method, consistent

with equal employment opportunity, for Home Depot Associates to make informed and

.documented decisions about their career preferences; (iii) to provide a systematic framework

wi.thin which Home Depot will incorporate such Associate preferences into its retail store

promotion and Associate development and training decisions; and (iv) to establish it meaningful

basis for setting Benchmarks pursuant to Section XIlLC.

2. Communications.

a

Information about the JPP will be disscmiriated to Associates on or

before August I, 1998. On or before July 1, 1998, Home Depot shall publish a notification in

709.000 .;

- 32Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

"Doings at the Dcpot" describing the JPP system and the time of its anticipated introduction, and shall post such information in each West Coast Division store.
b. The JPP will also be communicated to Associates and external applicants in the Home Depot Jobs Brochure. (See Section XIIl.B.l.c.)
3. The Internal Job Preference Process for Home Depot Associates. a. On or before August 15, 1998, Associates will bc able to state thcir
job preferences on the in-store computer or bytclephone through Interactive Voice Response ("IVR"). The in-store computer and the IVR will request the following information from the Associate: (i) name, store location, current position, time in current position; (ii) the positions the Associate is interested in being considered for during the next six (6) months (including all Benchmark Positions); (iii) whether the Associate is aware of the minimum requirements for the job sought; and (iv) whether the Associate satisfies the minimum requirements. A chart depicting how Home Depot will carry out the JPP is attached as Exhibit D and a sample JPP form is attached as Exhibit E. Home Depot may modifY this fonn as business needs dictate. If the fonn is modified in any material respect, a copy of the new form will be provided to Class Counsel, who will have ten (10) days to offer comment on the new form. If there is disagreement between the parties that is not resolved within thirty (30) days after Class Counsel offers comments, the parties shall utilize the dispute resolution process described in Section XI.
b. The initial registration ofpreferences shall be completed by Augnst 27, 1998. If an Associate does not meet the minimum qualifications for the position sought but is able to take certain steps to do so prior to September 17, 1998, and subsequently' communicates the fact that he or she has done so, he or she will be considered in the qualified pool.
c. Those Associates who have registered their interest for a job and meet the minimum qualifications for the job sought on September 17, 1998, and each six-month anniversary of September 17, 1998 for the duration of this Decree, will be in the internal qualified pool for the subsequent six (6) months.

709.HDG

- 33Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c
C· ·'-· \"

d. Associates may indicate a new or a different job preference at any time by simply expressing their interest through the in-store computer or by IVR and will then be considered for open positions in jobs for which they register. However, because the JPP is a continuing process, Benchmarks will be measured pursuant to Section XlILA.3.c.
e. Home Depot may propose alternative schedules and approaches with respect to the JPP set forth herein which are consistent with achievement of the substantive purposes described in this Section. For example, after the initial eighteen (18) months of experience under this JPP, Home Depot may propose to stagger the various locations' IPP schedules if deemed operationally preferable. IfHome Depot makes such changes to the JPP, it shall provide Class Counsel with written notification of the proposed changes and the basis for proposing such changes. Class Counsel shall have thirty (30) days to provide written notice identifying the substance of and reasons for any objections to Home Depot's proposed changes and thereby commence the meet and confer and enforcement process set forth in Section Xl. If Class Counsel do not provide such written notice of objections and reasons within the thirtycday period, then such changes will be deemed acceptable. In such event, Home Depot may immediately implement the changes and cannot be deemed in non-compliance with the Decree.
f. Material changes to the JPP (e.g., determining that the JPP is not feasible for certain management positions, or that the registration interval should be greater than six montbs) would constitute modifications invoking the procedures set forth in Section IX. C, if Class Counsel considers such changes to be at material variance from the purposes set forth in Section XlILA.Lb.
g. Nothing herein shall preclude Home Depot from making administrative changes to the details of the JPP without notice to Class Counsel, as long as such changes are not at material variance with the JPP or the purposes set forth in Section XIILA.l.b.
h. An Associate who requests a printout of his or her completed IPP registration shall be provided with one.

709.IIDG

- 34Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95-2182 ~

C·~,.·-.·.·'. j\

B. ,Tob Preference Process for External Applka!1ts 1. Store Applicants. a. External applicants will express their interest by filing an
application for employment after being provided a copy of the Home Depot Jobs Brochure. Each Home Depot Store location shall designate an area [or applicants to apply for jobs at the stores. This dcsignatcd arca will include an information center and a computerized job application. The information available to each applicant will be a Home Depot Jobs Brochure ("HDJB"), which contains a summary description of all entry-level jobs within the stores. Applicants have the . opportunity to review the HDJB and thereafter determine the job or jobs for which they want to be considered. Applicants will then complete computerized employment applications and identifY the specific positions being applied for. The application process shall involve minimal interaction with Home Depot managers or Associates, thus promoting an applicant's informed yet non-suggestive consideration of various job positions. Thc computerized application process will be developed and implemented on or before August 1,1998. A sample computerized employment application screen is attached, as Exhibit F.
b. The computer application shall list both Sales (lumberlbuilding/ millwork, floor and wall, paint, hardware/tools, plumbing, electricalllighting, garden, decor, kitchen and bath) and Operations (cashier, receiving, lot attendant, computer roomlhookkeeping, administrative/order processing, truck driver) positions.
c. On or before March 1, 1998, Home Depot will develop and publish the Home Depot Jobs Brochure. The brochure will contain a summary job description for all of the positions in the store. It will also outline potential job paths. The summary descriptions will include (a) an overview of each job; (b) the major responsibilities and duties of each job; (c) the minimum skills required for each job; (d) the minimum qualifications needed to apply for each job; (e) the job classification or status (i.e. exempt/non-exempt and whether the Associate is eligible for a bonus); (1) the potential next step in terms of career progression; (g) the lPP; . (h) comparative pay information by job; (i) an equal employment opportunity statement; and
G) Home Depot's disciplinary policy regarding Gender Discrimination.

709.HDG

- 35 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95·2182 SI

C··'·' '''.._.' . .,.;

d. The Home Depot Jobs Brochure will be made available to all applicants at a designated location in each store to assist them in completing their employment applications. The Brochure will also be available to Associates in Associate break areas.
e. Home Depot will also make available to all applicants and Associates, through the sales associate selection system, an informational CD Rom describing the Sales Associate position. The CD ROni shall include footage of women working in the Sales Associate position.
2. External ApJili.!:ants For Management Jobs. a. External Management applicants who go directly to a store to apply
for an Assistant Store Manager ("ASM") position will receive a Home Depot Jobs Brochure and a handout including the phone numbers and addresses for the local District Office's Human Resources Managcr ("HRM") or StaffmglDevelopment Manager so that they can apply at the appropriate location.
b. External Management applicants whQ go directly to district offices to apply for ASM positions will receive a Home Depot Jobs Brochure. Applicants will deal directly with and be interviewed by the local HRM or Staffing/Development Manager for initial screening prior to [mal selection at the district level.
c. External Management applicants who go directly to a store to apply for a Department Supervisor position will be given a Home Depot Jobs Brochure. Selection for this position will occur at the store level.
C. S..£ki:jjpn Standards and Minimum Qualifications 1. Home Depot will retain the right, under this Decree, to maintain its existing
Selection Standards and Minimum Qualifications, as set forth in Section XIII.C. and Exhibit A for all positions, and to develop and implement new Selection Standards and Minimum Qualifications, subject only to the limitations stated in Section XIILC. of the Decree.
2. If Home Depot's use of any Minimum Qualification currently maintained or implemented in the future for any Benchmark Position is determined to have an adverse impact on female Associates, andlor applicants for hire, Home Depot shall discontinue the use of such

709.HDG

- 36-
. Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c c'

Minimum Qualification, or modify it to eliminate the adverse impact, unless, under applicable law, Home Depot believes it can establish that the Minimum Qualification is job related for the job position in question and consistent with business necessity.
3. If Home Depot plans to use or plans to continue using for a Benchmark Position a Minimum Qualification that has been determincd to have caused an adverse impact on females, Home Depot shall notify Class Counsel ofits validation evidence or any other justification supporting the use of the Minimum Qualification. If Class Counsel does not agree that Home Depot's use of the Minimum Qualification is in accordance with applicable law, then any party may initiate the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XL, and, if necessary, request that the Court resolve the dispute pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section XL
4. The Minimum Qualifications for cach ofthe Benchmark Positions. that Home Depot may use are listed in Exhibit A. No change of a Minimum Qualification may be made without prior notification to Class CounseL
5.. Home Depot shall not increase the length of any job service requirement that is set forth as a Minimum Qualification on Exhibit A unless Home Depot first provides to Class Counsel its validation evidence for the position in question and establishes that the Minimum Qualification is consistent with business necessity. If Class Counsel and Home Depot do not agree that Home Depot's intended use of the increased job service requirement is in accordance with applicable law, then any party may initiate the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XI., and, if necessary, request that the Court resolve the dispute pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section XL, Home Depot agrees that it will not increase the relevant job· service Minimum QuaIification(s) set forth on Exhibit A pending resolution of any such dispute, provided that the dispute is resolved within ninety (90) days of the date that Home Depot responds to Plaintiffs' notice as provided in Section XLC.l.
6. Whether a Minimum Qualification will be considered to cause an adverse impact will be detennined pursuant to applicable Title VII law and the following principles:
a. Adverse impact of any Minimum Qualification used on a Division-wide basis will be assessed on a Division-wide basis.

709.HDG

- 37Consent Decree

Ca,e Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

C··'.-~-: ' -'.--. I ..-..".:. .

b. Adverse impact assessments regarding all Minimum Qualifications will be made no less frequently than annually; however, any adverse impact assessment may calculate the cumulative impact ofa Minimum Qualification over a longer reasonable period of time.
c. For purposes of calculating adverse impact of a Minimum Qualification for a Benchmark Position, the relevant available pool will consist of all Associates who timely registered interest in the position and have not been earlier screened out based on the application of an earlier-applied Minimum Qualification.
7. The parties agree that any minimum age qualification maintained to meet the requirements of federal, state, or local law, and willingness to work flexible hours (including a minimum of 55 hours per weck for Assistant Store Manager and Store Manager) and passing a drug test, shall be presumed to be job related and consistent with business necessity, and hence not to be a violation of this Decree. The information that has been provided to Class Counsel about the Sales Associate test indicates that the.test does not have an adverse impact on women, is valid, and was developed consistent with professional standards.
D. Benchmarks 1. General Principles. a. Home Depot .shall use its Best Efforts to meet the selection
Benchmark set forth in this section. These Benchmarks do not establish maximum rates for the selection of females, rather these Benchmarks establish selection rates that Home Depot shall use its Best Efforts to acilleve.
b. In attempting to meet these Benchmarks, Home Depot shall not be required to select unqualified persons or to displace any incumbent employee from his or her position. These Benchmarks are not quotas; they 'areBenchmarks designed to afford guidance as to whether Home Depot is making selection decisions in such a way as to afford equal employment opportunity.
c. Failure to achieve a Benchmark by a fraction of a person shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to acilleve a Benchmark under the Decree.

7091IDG

- 38Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

d. Home Depot's failure to achieve a Benchmark for a particular period will not be considered a violation of this Decree unless Home Depot has failed to use its Best Efforts to meet the Benchmarks. Should Home Depot demonstrate that: (i) the proportion of good faith offers made to females as compared to males was at least as high as the Benchmark percentage, or (ii) significant differences in the rclative experience, skill or other qualification of .males and females in the pool explain the failure to achieve the Benchmark (provided that such experience, skill, or other qualifications are job-related for the job position in question and consistent with business necessity), such evidence will conclusively establish that Best Efforts were used. Nothing in Section XIII.D.I.d. shall be interpreted to imply that Best Efforts could not also be shown by other appropriate evidence.
e. If Home Depot establishes a new merchandising job classification in the West Coast Division Stores, Home Dcpot shall so inform Class Counsel. Class Counsel shall inform Home Depot if they believe that this new position should be included among the Benchmark Positions. For example, Class Counsel may assert that the new position should be treated as a Benchmark Position if the new position covers job responsibilities presently performed by Associates working in one or more jobs included among the current Benchmark Positions. If the parties do not agree as to whether the new job position should be included as a Benchmark Position, then the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section XI.
2. Benchmark Positions in Home Depot's West Coast Division Stores. a. Benchmarks shall be established for the positions determined as .-
"Benchmark Positions" in Section III. b. Because Associates may participate in the lPP at any time and
because applicants may apply at any time, the pool is not static. Benchmarks will be determined by taking a snapshot of the internal and external pools for all Benchmark Positions every six months, beginning on September 17, 1998. Separate pools will be established for Eligible Associates and Eligible Applicants with respect to each Benchmark Position. All vacancies that

709.HDG

- 39Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

Ci

occur within the six-month period following the JPP Semi-Annual AImiversary Date shall be filled with candidates from within the appropriate Eligible Associate or Eligible Applicant pools.
c. Home Depot will calculate the Benchmarks pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Section, and shall distribute a list of those Benchmarks; along with the underlying calculations, to Class Counsel within thirty (30) days following the close of the registration and screening process for that particular position. (The screening process will be considered closed when the pools of Eligible Associates have been determined.)
d. Calculation of Benchmarks for Internal Pools. The Benchmark percentage for the Internal Pool for each Benchmark Position shall be determined by dividing (i) the total number of female Eligible Associates in the Benchmark-Related Geographical Area for such position by (ii) the total number of Eligible Associates in the Benchmark-Related Geographical Area for such position. Benchmarks will be stated as percentages, rounded up or down consistent with standard arithmetic practice. For each Benchmark Position, in assessing achievement of the Benchmark at the conclusion of the measurement period, the actual number of female Associates moved into the Benchmark Position from other job classifications will be compared to the Benchmark number, calculated by multiplying the pertinent Benchmark percentage by the number ofmoves into the pertinent Benchmark Position from other job classifications in the Benchmark-Related Geographical Area during the measurement period. Benchmarks will be calculated to one decimal place, rounded up to the nearest one-tenth. Example: The Benchmark-Related Geographical Area for the Sales Associate position covers the Store in which the Associate works or the Siore in which the applicant applies. If, throughout the Store, ·110 Associates are in.the qualified pool for Sales Associate positions, and if31 of those Eligible Associates are female, then the Benchmark for Sales Associate would be 28.2 percent, which would then be rounded down to 28 percent. Therefore, for the following six-month period, Home Depot would use its Best Efforts to select fcmales for 28 percent of the Sales Associate vacancies. If, at the conclusion of the six-month period there had been 14 moves to Sales Associate positions from other job classifications, then the Benchmark would be to have filled

709.HDG

-40 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95-2182 SI

~ f{....;.•.'.-.~\\

3.92 (roWlded up to 4.0 pursuant to accepted arithmetical practices) of those Sales Associate

openiugs with female Associates.

e. Calculation of Benchmarks for External Pools. The Benchmark

percentage for the External Pool for each Benchmark Position shall be determined by dividing

(i) the total number offcmale Eligible Applicants in the Benchmark-Related Geographical Area

for such position by (ii) the total number of Eligible Applicants in the Benchmark-Related

Geographical for such position.

f.

Newly Adopted Positions. Any other West Coast Division store

management/supervisory positions adopted by the Company for general use (as opposed to

limited pilot programs) shall be added to and included in the JPP system.

E. Above-Store-Level Positions

Home Depot recognizes the desirability and importance of having qualified

females occupying management positions above the store level, including District Manager and

Regional Vice-President. Consistent with that principle, Home Depot agrees to give full and

careful consideration to promoting qualified female Associates into such positions.

F. Evaluation and Incentive Programs.

L All management and supervisory performance appraisal forms for the job

positions of Regional Vice-President, District Manager, Store Manager, Assistant Store Manager

and Merchandising Department Supervisor have been or will be revised in order to include

managing diversity in the workforce as a measure ofperformance.

2. On at least an annual basis, the Compliance Official shall have a detailed'

in-person discussion with the Regional Vice-Presiden~ and each District Manager in the West

Coast Division, reviewing with each ofthose managers the performance of the Division and/or the

pertinent District regarding compliance with this Decree. The Compliance Official may designate

the Regional Vice-Presi-dcnt to havc this discussion with one or more District Manager.

3. Prior to any individual's promotion to a Regional Vice-President, District

Manager, Store Manager or Assistant Store Manager position, the Company shall consider the

individual's performance with respect to meeting the Company's obligations under the Decree.

709.HDG

- 41 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· · ·. ·.,;--:--. - \
'.-; ..)

G. Standards Concerning the Establishment of Compensation Rates
1. Considerations Used to Determine Associate Pay Levels. a. Internal Consideration. Current pay levels for Associates in the
same job based on comparable levels of skills, and job knowledge and experience. b. p.xternal Consideration. Competitive labor market data for the
geographical area in which the store is located. This data will be used to determine the salary ranges that Home Depot's competitors pay their Associates for similar jobs in the relevant labor market. It is estimated that such labor data is available for jobs in which approximately 80% of the Associates in the stores work.
c. If no competitive labor market data exists, pay levels will be determined by comparing Home Depot jobs to comparable jobs for which Home Depot has data, based on comparable levels of skills, duties/responsibilities, and job knowledge.
2. Determining Pay Levels.
a: Once a range of pay data is determined for competitive jobs in a
particular labor market, the pay data will be divided into the following percentiles: 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th.
b. Competitive labor market pay data at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles for comparable jobs will be provided to store management. Managers will determine initial pay levels for new hires determining the percentile area that best fits the individual Associate. Factors such as an Associate's skills, job knowledge and experience will be used to determine the initial pay rate assigned to the Associate. For example, new hires who meet the .. minimum qualifications for the job will typiCally be paid at or above the 25th percentile.
c. To increase consistency, initial pay rates of new hires will be compared to those associates in the same job with similar levels of skill, experience andjob knowledge.
.3. Analysis of Compensation Paid to Sales Associates. a. Within sixty (60) days of the end of Decree Year 2, Home Depot
shall conduct a statistical analysis comparing the initial rates ofpay of male and female

709.HDG

- 42Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c· .··.· ./·'

Associates who were hired into the Sales Associate position during the period from the Approval Date through the end of Decree Year 2. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in the initial pay rates of male and female Associates hired into the Sales Associate position in either Decree Year I or Decree Year 2. If this analysis does not show any statistically significant disparity then Home Depot docs not need to perform any such analysis at the end of Decree Ycar 3.
b. If the initial pay analysis conducted at the end of Decree Year 2 shows a statistically significant difference, then within sixty (60) days of the end of Decree Year 3, Home Depot shall conduct a statistical analysis comparing the initial pay rates of male and female associates who were hired into the Sales Associate position during Decree Year 3. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in the initial pay rates of male and fcmale Associates hired into the Sales Associate position during Decree Year 3.
c. Within sixty (60) days of the end of Decree Year 4, Home Depot shall conduct two statistical analyses:
(i) Home Depot shall conduct a statistical analysis comparing the initial pay rates of male and female Associates who were hired into the Sales Associate position during Decree Years 3 and 4 in order to determine whether or not there is a statistical significant difference in the initial pay rates of male and female Associates hired into the Sales Associate position in either Decree Year 3 or Decree Year 4.
(ii) Home Depot shall conduct a statistical analysis of the pay· rate at the end of Decree Year 4 ofthe individuals who were included in the analysis described in section 3.a., above, and who are in the Sales Associate position at the end of Decree Year 4. The purpose of this ·analysis is to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in the pay rates ofmen and women in the Sales Associate position who were in that position at the end of Decree Year 4 and who were initialiy hired into that position in either Decree Ycar 1 or Decree Year 2.

709.lIDG

- 43Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 91-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

'..'· \'.
C'.·.

d. lfthe initial pay analysis conducted at the end of Decree Year 4, see

Section 3.c., above, shows a statistically significant difference, then within sixty (60) days of the

end of Decree Year 5, Home Depot shall conduct a statistical analysis comparing the initial pay

rates of male and female Associates who were hired into the Sales Associate position during

Decree Year 5. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not there is a statistically

significant difference in the initial pay rates of male and female Associates hired into the Sales

Associate position during Decree Year 5.

e. lfthere is a statistically significant pay difference adverse to women

shown in one or more of the pay analyses described in this Section, then Home Depot shall

eliminate such adverse impact unless Home Depot establishes that such adverse impact in pay is

the result of a factor (or combination offactors) other than gender and that such factor (or factors)

are job related for the job position in question and consistent with business necessity.

f.

Home Depot may use an appropriate statistical sample in

performing any ofthe statistical analyses required by this section.

g. Within fifteen (15) days of completing any analysis required by this

section, Home Depot shall provide Class COWlsel with a report describing the methodology for

and results obtained by such analysis.

XIV. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

A. Documents to Be Preserved for the Duratiou of the Decree.

Home Depot shall retain the following employment-related records for the dmation

of the Decree or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

1. A computer readable database or databases containing computerized

payroll and personnel information for Associates in the West Coast Division for the time period

covered by the Decree. The payroll and personnel informationcoritained in the database or

databases shall include the information contained in Home Depot's Human Resources Information

Systems ("HRIS").

709.HJ)G

-44Consent Decree

(""",e Nos .. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 SI

A computer readable database or databases of lPP registration which
includes the dates when completed by the Associates, the Associates' names, social security numbers, and all computer readable information contained on the completed 1PP.
3. Personnel-related documents (or scanned copies or other computer-based storage thereof) of persons hired, including applications, performance rating, discipline, counseling, and discharge records, all declined offers of promotion for Benchmark Positions and Employee Action Notices.
4. Performance evaluation forms for all Associates (including managers). 5. Attendance records for all Associates, to the extent that attendance is reflected by Home Depot's KRONOS system. 6. Scores on the Validated Sales Associate test of persons selected to be Sales Associates, together with copies of all versions oftheValidated Sales Associate test administered, a record of to whom it was administered and analyses of whether the test has adverse impact on females. 7. Drug test results for all Associates. 8. Records relating to whether or not an employee or applicant is able to work flexible hours. 9. A record of the product training each employee receives. 10. All versions of the Home Depot Jobs Brochure (see Section XIILA3.), Informational CD Rom regarding the Sales Associate position (see Section XIILA3.), and Summary Leaflets (see Section XII), and a record of the dates on which they were used. 11. All formal internal complaints filed pursuant to Section X., regarding alleged violations ofthis Decree, or of Gender Discrimination, the written findings ofthe investigation and, when utilized, the written request for review and the written statement ofthe outcome of the review by thc DERM or hislher designee. 12. The compensation analyses provided for in Section XIILE.3. 13. Nothing in this Decree shall be interpreted to relieve Home Depot of any recordkeeping requirements otherwise imposed by applicable Federal or State law.

709JIDG

- 45Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 ,

c.·.•·. 'j -- ,. j

B. Documents to J;le Maintained for Two Years The following documents shall be maintained for two years from the date the
document is created, or as required by state or federal law, whichever is longer: 1. All completed JPP data separated according to the store in which the
Associate completed the JPP. 2. All documents expressly required to be created by this Decree for which a
longer time period is not specified. C. Access to Documents 1. Class Counsel shall, upon reasonable notice, be entitled to review all
documents required to be maintained or created by the express terms ofthis Decree, except, however, that Class Counsel shall not be entitled to review any such documents that are protected by attorney-client or work product privilege.
2. All documents required to be maintained by the express terms of the Decree are and shall be treated as confidential business records. In light of Class Counsel's continuing role in the administration of this Decree, in which Class Counsel will be provided access to such documents on a confidential basis in order to investigate and resolve potential non-compliance with the Decree, Class Counsel shall not divulge any such documents to any third party unless so ordered by the Court after notice to Home Depot and an opportunity for Home Depot to object to such disclosure and be heard. Upon expiration of this Decree, Class Counsel shall promptly return to Home Depot any and all documents Home Depot furnished under this Decree.
D. Reporting Schedule Within three weeks ofthe completion of the initial Benchmark period, and at
six-month intervals thereafter through the Term of this Consent Decree, Home Depot shall provide Progress Reports to Class Counsel on the Company's compliance with the Decree's requirements.

709.HDG

- 46Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95-2182 Sl

E. Contents of the Semi-Annual Progress Reports The Semi-Annual Progress Reports described in Section XIV.D. shall include the
following information: I. A description of any revisions to the Minimum Qualifications set forth in
Exhibit A that are implemented during the reporting period (even though reported separately prior to any revision).
2. A description of any revisions made to the JPP, except those of an administrative nature (even though reported separately prior to any revision).
3. A description of any revisions to any store job descriptions that are implemented during the reporting period, including, but not limited to, the addition of any new job classifications (even though reported separately).
4. A description of any revisions to the Harassment Policy, attached as Exhibit B, that are implemented during the reporting period (even though reported separately prior to any revision being implemented).
5. A chart or charts displaying the number and percentage of male and female Associates who registered their interest for each Benchmark position covered by the JPP system during the reporting period; and of those Associates who registered their interest, thc number and percentage of male .and female Associates who met the screen for Minimum Qualifications for each position. This information shall be reported on a West Coast Division-wide basis.
6. A chart or charts displaying the number and percentage of male and female Associates who were promoted or otherwise moved from another job classification to any Benchmark Position during the semi-annual JPP cycles concluded within the reporting period; and the Benchmark and target for each position, and the numerical difference between each target and the number offemale promoted or moved. This information shall be reported on a West Coast Division-wide basis.
7. Lists of all individuals selected for management Benchmark Positions with gender identification.

709.11DO

- 47Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95-2182 SI

8. A description of the implementation and delivery of the trairring required by Sections XII.B., XIl.C., XII.D., XII.E., and lists of those in attendance.
9. Copies of all training materials used by the Company during the reporting period to train managers and Human Resources staff Associates regarding equal employment opportunity and/or compliance with this Decree, pursuant to Section XII.
10. An organizational chart or charts, which lists all Human Resource staffwho have substantive responsibilities related to compliance with this Decree or fair employment practice laws and which displays the Human Resources Department's reporting and supervisory structure.
II. Certification by the Compliance Official that he or she has used Best Efforts to see that the Notice and Summary of Consent Decree as described in Section X.E.I. has been provided to Associates as required by the Decrec.
12. Certification by the Compliance Official that he or she has used Best Efforts to see that the sununary leaflet described in Section XII has been and remains posted.
13. A summary of the formal internal complaints received during the reporting period alleging violations of this Decree and/or Gender Discrimination. This summary shall be kept confidential and shall not be provided to any person or entity not a party to this Consent Decree. This summary shall include:
a. a designation regarding whether the complaint was one of a violation ofthe decree, or of Gender Discrimination, or both;
b. the name, job classification, store number and Social Security number ofthe complainant(s);
c. the name ofthe investigator designated for the complaint; d. the results of the investigation undertaken in response to such complaint, including the remedial and/or disciplinary measures imposed, if any, and the name of the manager(s) or other Associate(s) disciplined; and e. whether any internal appeal was filed and the disposition of the appeal.

709.HDG

- 48 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c·.·. ':-':~)

XV. MONETARY RELIEF. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE A. Monetary Settlement Fund 1. Creation of Monetary Settlement Fnnd. Home Depot shaH allocate the sum of Sixty Five Million Dollars
$65,000,000.00 (the "Fund" or "Monetary Settlement Fund") for the purpose of providing individual monetary awards to the Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, and other eligible members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
2. Allocation ofthe Fnnd. The amount allocated in accordance with Section XV.A.l., above, shall be
distributed in the following manner: a. Each Class Representative who docs not opt out shall receive the
sum of$30,690.00, in full settlement of all monetary claims of the Class Representativc against Home Depot in this action, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, fringe henefits and emotional distress; the sum of $46,500.00, in recognition of the risks and potential liability related to being a Class Representative in this class action litigation; and the sum of$15,810.00, in consideration for the time and effort each expended in serving as a Class Representative in the litigation. Payment in the amounts specified above shall be made by Home Depot not later than fourteen (14) days after the Final Approval Date to each Class Representative who dOeS not opt out.
b. Plaintiff, Jamie Wilson, if she does not opt out, shall receive the sum of$15,345.00, in full settlement of all monetary claims she has against Home Depot in this action, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, fringe benefits and emotional distress; and the sum of$23,250.00 in recognition of the risk and potential liability related to being a Plaintiff; and the sum of $7,905.00 in consideration for the time and effort she expended in the litigation. Payment in the amounts specified above shall be made by Home Depot not later than fourteen (14) days after the Final Approval Date to Plaintiff Jamie Wilson, assuming she does not opt out.
c. Each Settlement Class member, exclusive of the Plaintiff and Class Representatives, who does not opt out and who has asserted her claims in the form of a sworn

709.HDG

- 49Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SJ

c declaration filed with the Court or deposition in this action, shall be entitled to a monetary award

of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), in recognition of the assistance she provided in

prosecuting this litigation. A list of the class members entitled to such awards is reflected in

Exhibit G, attached hereto. Such payments shall not preclude the class member from filing a

claim for monetary relief under this Decree and shall be in addition to any award the class

member may be determined eligible to receive under the filing provisions of this Decree.

Payment of the monetary awards to class members under this subparagraph shall

be made by Home Depot not later than fourteen (14) days after the Final Approval Date.

'-.

d. One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) of the Fund shall be

allocated as a "Reserve Fund" to be used to pay any otherwise valid claims which are excluded

from the final list of qualified claimants, see Section XII., below, through error or omission of

Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator, Home Depot or its counseL

e. The remainder of the Fund, after allocation of the amounts specified

in subparagraphs a.-d., above, shall be allocated as follows:

(i) A percentage equal to the proportion of timely and valid

claims filed by Rejected Applicant Class Members to the total number of timely and valid claims

filed by all eligible Settlement Class Members, but no more than 10% of the remainder of the

Fund after allocation of the amounts specified in subparagraphs a.-d., above, and less any pro rata

deductions pursuant to Section XV.D., shall be allocated to pay, in accordance with the provisions

of Sections XV.A.3. and XV.E.7., the monetary claims of otherwise eligible Rejected Applicant

Class Members. Thus, for example, if3% of all timely and valid claims filed by all Settlement -

Class Membersare filed by Rejected Applicant Class Members, then 3% of the Monetary

Settlement Fund, after deduction of the payments described in subparagraphs a.-d. above, shall be

allocated to pay the claims of Rejected Applicant Class Members whose claims are determined to

be timely and valid; and

(ii) The remainder ofthe Fund, after allocation of the percentage

of the Fund to be determined in accordance with subparagraph (i) above, but in no event less than

90% of the Fund balance remaining after the distributions made pursuant to Sections

'109.HDG

- 50Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 SI

XV.A.2.a.-d., and less any pro rata deductions pursuant to Section XV.D., shall be allocated to pay, in accordance with the provisions of Sections XV.AA. and XV.E.?, the monetary claims of otherwise eligible Employee Settlement Class Members.
3. Awards to Rejected Applicant Class Members. a. Eligibility for Payment.
To bc eligible for payment of a monetary award from that portion of the Fund allocated to pay the claims ofRejected Applicant Class Members, an individual must:
(i) Return a completed Claim Form signed under penalty of perjury postmarked no later than the date established under this Decree for the submission of claims.
(ii) State (and, upon challenge based on reasonable grounds, establish) that she is a female;
(iii) Provide her full name, address, day and evening telephone numbers, social security number, any other naines by which she has been known, the date and location of her rejected application for employment with Home Depot; the name(s) of any Home Depot employee(s), if known, with whom she interviewed in connection with her rejected application for employment with Home Depot; and the facts upon which the claimant believes she was qualified for employment as a Sales Associate or Assistant or Associate Manager with Home Depot;
(iv) State that she did not reject an offer of employment as a Sales Associate or Assistant or Associate Manager with Home Depot in connection with her application; and .
(v) Have her claim determined to be timely and valid by the Claims Administrator andlor Class 'Counsel in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.E.? or Special Master, in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.E.lO-l1.

709JIDG

- 51 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

b. :Determination of Award Amounts for Qualified Rejected Applicant Claimants. (i) The specific monetary award that will be paid to qualified
Rejected Applicant Claimants who file timely claims that are determined to be valid in accordance with this Section will be detcrmincd by assignment of points as follows:
(a) Each claim ofa qualified Rejected Applicant Class Member who claims to have applied for, been qualified for, and rejected for a Sales Associate position whose claim is determined to be timely and valid in accordance with the provisions of this Section, shall be credited with ten (I 0) points.
(b) Each claim of a qualified Rejected Applicant Class Member who claims to have applied for, been qualified for, and rejected for an Associate Manager Position with Home Depot whose claim is determined to bc timely and valid in accordance with this Scction shall be credited with eleven (11) points.
(c) Each claim of a qualified Rejected Applicant Class Member who claims to have applied for, been qualified for and rejected for an Assistant Manager Position with Home Depot whose claim is determined to be timely and valid in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall be credited with twelve (12) points.
(ii) The total points applicable to all qualified Rejected Applicant Claimants whose claims are determined to be timely and valid will be aggregated. Each qualificd Rejected Applicant claimant's proportionate share of the total points will be determined and a claimant will be allocated her proportionate share ofthe Fund allocated for th~ payment of claims of qualified Rejected Applicant claimants under Section XV.A.2.c.(ii), above.
4. Awards to Employee Class Members. a. Eligibility for Payment.
To be eligible for payment ofa monctary award from that portion of the Fund allocated to pay the claims of Employee Class Members, an individual must:
(i) Return a claim form signed under penalty ofperjury postmarked no later than the date established under this Decree for the submission of claims;

709.HDG

- 52Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95·2182 SI

(ii) State (and upon challenge based on reasonable grounds, establish) that she is a female;
(iii) Provide hcr full name, currcnt address, current day and evening telephone numbers, social security number, any other name(s) she used while employed by Home Depot, the dates and locations of and positions held during her employment with Home Depot;
(iv) State that she believes she may have been discriminated against on the basis of her gender in a term or condition of employment other than sexual harassment or retaliation for complaining about or opposing sexual harassment while employed by Home Depot during the Liability Period;
(v) Havc her claim determinedto be timely and valid by the Claims Administrator andlor Class Counsel in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.E.7. or Special Master, in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.E.IO-II.
b. Determination of Awards for Qualified Employee Class Members. (i) The specific monetary award that will be paid to qualified
Employee Class Members who file timely claims that are finally determined to be valid in accordance with this Section will be determined by assignment of points for years of service.
(ii) Information regarding an Employee claimant's years of service will be obtained from or verified by documentation Home Depot will provide to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.B.l.a. andE.6.;
(iii) Allocation of points based on years of service shall be made in the following manner:

709.000

- 53Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

(\

SERVICE POINTS

Employment for 1991 and before

1 point per year

Employment for years 1992-1997

3

3

3

3

3

2

1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 1997

Allocation of service points will be cumulative. A claimant may accumulate a

maximum of fifteen (15) service points. In calculating the number ofyears of service for

purposes of determining the allocation of points under this provision, associates serving fractions

of a year shall be credited with service for that entire year.

(iv) The points for all qualified Employee Class Members whose

claims are determined to be timely and valid will be aggregated. Each qualified Employee

claimant's proportionate share of the total points for all qualified Employee claimants will then be

determined and a claimant shall be allocated her proportionate share of the Fund allocated under

Section XV.A.2.e.(ii), to pay the claims of qualified Employee Class Members.

5. Claims of Deceased Class Members.

Claims made on behalf of a deceased Rejected Applicant or Employee Class

Member must be accompanied by a certified copy of the deceased class member's death certificate

and must be filed by the administrator or legal representative ofthe estate of the deceased class

member.

6. Allocatiou of Monetary Relief and Tax Treatment.

..

.

All monetary distributions to the Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, and other

qualified Settlement Class Members shall be allocated by Home Depot between compensatory

damages, back pay and front pay, and prejudgment interest. Home Depot shall calculate and

withhold from the gross award of each qualified Settlement Class Member the amounts due for

applicable federal, state and local taxes aud the amount of the employee's share ofF.I.C.A. ou the

back pay and front pay portion of the distribution. Home Depot also shall determine the

employer's shareofF.I.C.A. aud other applicable employer payments and be responsible for

709.HDG

- 54Consent Decree

Ca,e Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95-2182 Sl

C' making those payments, which unlike the Settlement Class member's share of these withholding taxes, will not be deducted from the total class award. Home Depot shall distribute to each Settlement Class member who receives a monetary award, her respective W-2 and 1099 tax reporting forms and Home Depot shall make the respective tax reporting to the IRS or other appropriate agency. Settlement Class members shall be responsible for payment of income taxes owed to any governmental authority on distributions from the Fund. Neither the Claims Administrator, Class Counsel, nor Home Depot or its attorneys, will provide advice to class members concerning what taxes are owed. Settlement Class members should consult with a tax advisor if they have questions concerning their tax liabilities on distributions from the Fund. B. Notice 1. Class Action Settlement Notice. a. Mailed Notice. Within five (5) business days following the Preliminary Approval Date, Home Depot shall prepare and deliver to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator a computer disk containing the full names, social security numbers, birth dates, last-known addresses and lastknown telephone numbers, start dates, and, if applicable, end dates of employment with Home Depot of all potential Employee Class Members (the "Mailed Notice Class List"). Class Counsel shall within five (5) business days following the Prcliminary Approval Date, provide the Claims Administrator in computer readable format for inclusion on the Mailed Notice Class List, a list of all potential Employee and Rejected Application Class Members who are known to Class Counsel and their addresses. Prior to mailing the notice to individuals on the Mailed Notice Class List, the Claims Administrator shall update the Mailed Notice Class List with any new addresses for such individuals it may obtain from the National Change of Address System. On or before October 10, 1997, the Claims Administrator shall mail, via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, notice of the class settlement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit H, to each personon the Mailed Notice Class List and claim forms in the forms attached hereto as Exhibit I, to all Employee Class Members and Exhibit J, to all Rejected Applicant Class Members on the Mailed

709.HDG

- 55Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

Cl,o•. ".
;;-- ',::-.:_"
. .

Notice Class List as updated with any new addresses obtained from the National Change of Address System.
b. Tracing of Mailed Notice and Claim :Forms. Not latcr than seven (7) days after receipt of any notice of class action settlement andior claim form mailed under Section XV.B.l.a. or E.2. returned as "undeliverable," the Claims Administrator shall arrange through IRSC or a comparable service, for a computer database search for such class member and remail the notice andlor claim form to any additional address obtained for such class member.
c. Published Notice. The Claims Administrator shall cause to be published notice of the class settlement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit K, in each ofthe newspapers listed and according to the schedule set out in Exhibit 1.
d. Costs of Mailed Notices and Claim Forms, Tracings. The expenses related to preparation and mailing of the class settlement approval notice and claim forms, tracings related to mailed notices and claim forms returned as undeliverable and publication of the notice of class settlement shall be paid by Home Depot. C. Objections and Exclnsions 1. Objections. Class members who wish to present objections to the proposed settlement must do so in writing. Written objections shall be mailed to the Claims Administrator at Gilardi & Co.,
LLC, P.O. Box 7090, San Rafael, cA 94912-7090. Written objections must be received by the'
Claims Administrator on or before November 21,1997. The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received On the original of any objections it receives and serve copies of the objections on Class Counsel and Home Depot's counsel not later than two (2) business days after receipt thereof and shall file the date-stamped originals of any objections with the Clerk onhe Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the. date of the final approval hearing. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all written objections in its files until such time as the Claims Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

709.HDG

- 56Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 SI

('
. '."'.@.~-,;-~ ~.-) ';:".'---~ ,,- ..

2. Exclusions.

a. Consistent with Section VII of this Decree certifying the Settlement

Class under FederaI Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), for purposes of monctary relief, and in

accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), any potential class

member may request exclusion from the class for purposes of monetary relief only.

Potential class members who wish to exclude themselves from membership in the

I

Settlement Class for purposes of participation in the monetary portion of the settlement must do

so in writing, by filing with the Claims Administrator a signed and dated "opt-out" statement.

Written opt-out statements shall be mailed to the Claims Administrator at Gilardi & Co., LLC,

P.O. Box 7090, San Rafaei, CA 94912-7090. Opt-out statements must be received by the Claims

Administrator on or before November 21,1997. Opt-out statements shall, at a minimum, contain

the following language:

"1 understand that by requesting to be excluded from the class monetary

settlement, 1 will receive no money from the settlement fund created in

accordance with the Consent Decree entered into by Home Depot. I

understand that ifI am excluded from the class monetary settlement, I may

bring a separate action seeking damages, however, I may receive nothing or

less than I would have received ifI had filed a claim under the class

monetary settlement procedure. I also understand that I may not seek

exclusion from the class for injunctive relief, and that I am bound by the

injunctive provisions of the Consent Decree entered into by Home Depot."

Only those class members who request exclusion in the time and maimer set forth herein shall be

excluded from the class.

b. The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the

original of any opt-out statement received and serve copies of the statements on Class Counsel

and Home Depot's counsel not later than two (2) business days following receipt thereof and shall

file the date-stamped originals of any written bpt-out statements with the Clerk of theCourt not

later than five (5) business days prior to the date of the final approval hearing. The Claims

709.HDG

- 57Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 i

Administrator shall retain copies of all opt-out statements in its files Until such time as the Claims .Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
c. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (b)(3) and (c)(2), the terms and provisions of this Decree concerning monctary reliefshall have no binding effect on any person who makes a timely request for exclusion in the manner required by this Decree.
d. Any class member who has already had her claim of gender discrimination adjudicated or settled is ineligible to receive any monies under this Consent Decree.
3. Rescissions of Opt Outs and Withdrawals of Obiections. a. The parties recognize that some class members who initially submit
objections to this Consent Decree or request to be excluded from the monetary provisions of the Decree may upon further reflection, consultation or the provision of additional information regarding this Decree, wish to withdraw such objections or rescind such opt out statements.
The parties agree that class members shall be permitted to withdraw such objections or rescind such opt out statements by submitting a Withdrawal of Objection in the form attached as Exhibit M, or a Rescission of Opt Out Statement in the form attached as Exhibit N, to the Claims Administrator up to but no later than December 19, 1997.
b. The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the original of any Withdrawal of Objections and Rescissions of Opt Out Statements it receives and serve copies of the Withdrawal of Objections and Rescissions of Opt Out Statements on Class counsel and counsel for Horne Depot not later than two (2) business days after receipt thereof arid shall file·the date-stamped originals of any Withdrawals of Objections or Rescissions of Opt Out Statements with the Clerk of the Court not later than five (5) business days prior to the date of the final approval hearing. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all Withdrawals of

709.HDG

- 58 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 81; C 95-2182 SI

c'

Objections and Rescissions of Opt Out Statements in its files until such time as the Claims Administrator is relieved of it~ duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
D. Opt-Out Credits 1. In the event that any member of the Settlement class elects to opt-out
pursuant to the procedures e~;tablished in this Decree and in the Court's Order preliminarily approving the Decree, and within (12) months of the Approval Date such Settlement Class mcmber timely files a civil action in any court alleging a claim of Gender Discrimination for acts occurring during the Liability Period, or timely files with the EEOC or a state or local FEP agency a charge of Gender Discrimination for acts occurring during the I,iability Period, the amount of the Class Monetary Settlement Fund shall be decreased by an amount as set forth below ("the Opt-Out Credit"). Within thirty (30) days of service of the complaint in such a civil action or receipt of a notice of such a charge of Gender Discrimination, but not later than twelve and onehalf (12112) months after the Approval Date, Home Depot shall notify Class Counsel of the identities of all persons who have tiniely opted out of the Decree and timely filed such a civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination within twelve (12) months of the Approval Date, the identity of their attomey(s), and the courts or administrative agencies in which such persons have filed civil actions or charges. Any dispute with respectto Opt-Out Credits shall be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in Section XI. of this Decree.
2. Home Depot shall receive no Opt-Out Credit for: a. Any Settlement Class mcmbcr who fails to file a timely request for
exclusion in a manner that the Court holds to have satisfied tile requirements of this Decree and· the Court's Order preliminarily approving this Decree; and
b. Any Settlement Class member who,. as of the Preliminary Approval Date, has commenced any civil action against Home Depot or any of its directors, officers, agents or associates in any federal, state or local court alleging a violation of federal, state or local law prohibiting Gender Discrimination.

709.HDG

- 59Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 Sl

3. Home Depot shall receive an Opt-Out Credit cif One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) for each Settlement Class member who opts out and timely files a civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination as set forth in Section XV.F.I. and
a. Who has signed a declaration which was submitted to the Court by Class Counsel in this civil action;
b. Who has had charges alleging Gender Discrimination filed with the EEOC by Class Counsel, unless Class Counsel withdrew their representation of such individual prior to December I, 1996; or
c. Who is a Class Representative or Plaintiff. 4. Home Depot shall receive an Opt·Out Credit of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for each Settlement Class member who opts out and files a civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination as set forth in section XV.F.I. and who does not meet any of the three categories set forth in section XV.D.3. 5. At any time prior to twelve and one-half (12 112) months after the Approval Date, Class Counsel may notifY Home Depot that, for purposes of Opt-out Credits, all Settlement Class members who have timely opted out but who have not already filed a civil action or charge which satisfies the conditions of Section XV.D.3. should be presumed to have filed such a timely civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination. If Class Counsel make this election, Home Depot shall identifY separately the Opt-Out Credits attributed to those potential Settlement Class members who thereby are presumed to have filed such a timely civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination. If Class Counsel make this election, Home Depot shall identifY separately the Opt-Out Credits attributed to those potential Settlement Class members who thereby are presumed to have filed such a timely civil action or charge of Gender Discrimination (hereinafter a
"Presumptive Opt-Out"), ~d. the final determination of the total Opt-Out Credit condition
contained in Section XV.D.1. will be deemed satisfied. The total amount of Opt-Out credits due these Presumptive Opt Outs shall be deducted by Home Depot from the Class Monetary Fund allocated under Section XV.A.I. If such Presumptive Opt-Out subsequently files a civil action or . charge which satisfies the conditions of Section XV.D.1., then Home Depot may use the Opt-Out

709.HDG

- 60Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

Credit attributed to that Presumptive Opt-Out, along with all other Opt-Out Credits to which Home Depot otherwise is entitled, to defend, settle or pay any judgment related to a civil action or charge, which satisfies the conditions of Section XV.D.3. Any Opt-Out Credits that are not used by Home Depot as set forth above and any Opt-Out Credits that were attributed, at Class Counsel's election, to presumptive Opt-Outs who never filed a civil action or charge which satisfies the conditions of Section XV.D.l. shall be paid to the Beneficiary or Residual Beneficiaries selected in accordance with the provisions of Section XV.F.2.
6. The cumulative total amount of Opt-Out Credits shall not exceed Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00), and the total amount of Opt-Out Credits pursuant to Section XV.D.3. shall not exceed Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00).
. E. Claims Determination Procedure 1. Claims Administrator. Gilardi & Co., LLC, of San Rafael, California, an experienced class action claims
administrator, will be used to assist Class Counsel: (i) in the receipt of objections and opt-out statements; (ii) to prepare and mail notices and claim forms to potential class members as required by this Decree; and (iii) in the claims procedure in accordance with the provisions of this Decree. Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator shall agree on the procedures the Claims Administrator shall employ to discharge its duties under this Decree. All fees for costs and expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator shall be paid by Home Depot.
2. Distribution of Claim Forms. In additional to mailing ~laim forms to class members as provided in Section XV.R l.a. above, the Claims Administrator also shall make claim forms available to any other individual identifying herself as a potential class member who submits a written or oral request for a claim form. The Claims Administrator shall mail the requested claim forms via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, to individuals requesting them, not later than two (2) business days after the Claims Administrator's receipt of a request therefor. When requesting a claim form, the class member shall indicate and the Claims Administrator shall determine whether the class member is requesting a claim form to make a claim as an Employee Class Member or

709.BDG

- 61 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182 SI

Rejected Applicant Class Member. In the event that Class Counsel, Home Depot or it counsel receive a written or oral requests for a claim form from a potential Class Member, the Class Member shall be provided the name, address and toll-free 800 number of the Claims Administrator and advised that all requests for claim forms must be directed to the Claim Administrator. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all written requests for claim' forms and the envelopes in which they were mailed and a record of all oral requests for claim forms in its files until relieved of its duties under this Decree.
3. Submission ofChlim Forms. a. Class members who wish to seekrecovery of monetary
compensation under this Decree must complete a claim form, and the claim form must be filed with the Claims Administrator by mailing the claim form to the Claims Administrator at Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 7090, San Rafael, CA 94912-7090. The claim form must be postmarked on or before December 19, 1997 in order to be considered timely. All claim forms must be signed under penalty of perjury to be considered. Failure by any claimant to timely submit a claim form (for any reason whatsoever), shall bar the potential class member from having her claim considered and from receiving a monetary award from the Fund. The Claims Administrator shall establish a toll-free 800 line and be available to respond to requests from class members for assistance in completing and filing claim forms. Home Depot shall be responsible for the costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of the Claims Administrator's 800 number. In addition, Class Counsel shall be available to consult with and provide assistance regarding the claim filing requirements to cla% members including class members referred to them by the Claims Administrator.
4. Notice of Receipt of Claim Forms. a. . Not later than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the claim filing
deadline, the Claims Administrator shall cause to be mailed, via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, to cach claimant whose claim form was received on or before the filing deadline, notice that such claim form was received and will be reviewed.

709.HDG

- 62Consent Decree

C,,-se Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c'
Ci

b. Not later than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the claim filing deadline or five (5) days after the Claims Administrator's receipt of a claim form postmarked after the claim filing deadline, whichever is later, the Claims Administrator shall cause to be mailed, via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each claimant whose claim form is postmarked after the filing deadline and is determined to be untimely under the provisions of this Decree, written notice that such claimant's claim form was not timely postmarked, and notice that such claimant may request review in accordance with Section XV.E.9 by the Claims Review Special Master selected by the parties pursuant to Section XI in connection with the Monetary Claims Procedures of this Decree. The Special Master shall not reverse the determination that a claim form was untimely unless the claimant can demonstrate that the determination of untimeliness was erroneous, i.e., that the claimant's claim form was postmarked on or before the claim filing deadline provided for in Section XV.E.3.
c. In the event that the Special Master determines that a claim was, in fact, timely, the claim shall then be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Decree to determine whether it is valid and its value.
5. Processing of Claim Forms. Requests for Further Information From Claimants.
The Claims Administrator shall process and initially review each claim form to determine if it is complete. If the Claims Administrator determines that a claim form is incomplete the Claims Administrator shall send via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, a written request to the claimant that the claimant complete the claim form Cir provide supplemental information in support of the claim. The Claims Administrator may consult with Class Counsel regarding its review of claim forms and communicationS with claimants. A claimant must complete the claim form or provide any requested supplemental information in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, to the Claims Administrator on or before twenty-one (21) days after the date on which the Claims Administrator's request for completion of the claim form or supplemental information was mailed, and the written notice to the claimant shall specify the date by which the completed claim fonn or supplemental information must be received by the Claims Administrator in order to be considered timely. Any additional information submitted by

709.HDG

- 63 Consent Decree

Ca,e Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95·2182:

a claimant in response to a request by the Claims Administrator shall be deemed to be part ofthe claimant's claim form. The failure of a claimant to timely respond to the Claims Administrator's request to compete the claim form or for supplemental information may result in the denial of the claim.
Class Counsel shall determine the validity of all timely claims in accordance with the provisions set forth in Sections XV.A.3., XV.A.4. and XV.E.7.
6. Provision ofInformation Regarding Claimants by Home Depot. Class Counsel on their own or on behalf of the Claims Administrator may request additional information from Home Depot reasonably related to determining whether a claim is valid and the value of or the assignment of points to a claim. Such requests shall be made in writing. Home Depot shall promptly provide the additional information, but in any event no later than twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the request. 7. Initial Claim Determination Process. Class Counsel shall make a preliminary determination as to whether each timely claim is valid and the assignment of points to each valid timely claim. Such determination shall be based upon the claim form submitted, and any other pertinent information presented by the claimant or the Company. In addition, Class Counsel may request additional information from the claimant which Class Counsel believes to be necessary to determine whether a claim is valid. Such requests for additional information shall be made in writing and sent via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, and shall specify the information the claimant is required to provide. The claimant must provide the requested information in writing or provide a written explanation as to why she cannot provide the requested information, signed under penalty of peljury, to Class Counsel on or before twenty-one (21) days after the date on which Class Counsel's request for additional information was mailed, and the written notice to the claimant for such supplemental information shall specify the date by which the information must be received by Class Counsel in order to bc considered timely. Such additional information shall be deemed to be part of the claimant's elaim form. The failure of a claimant to timely respond to the request for information may result in the denial of the claim. For purposes of this preliminary determination, a claim of a

709.HDG

- 64Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182:

c)

Rejected Applicant Class Member shall be "valid" if the claimant meets the criteria set forth in Section XV.A.3.a. A claim of an Employee Class Member shall be "valid" if the claimant meets the criteria set forth in Section XV.A.4.a. Class Counsel shall complete its review and determination of claims and assignment of points not later than 365 days following the expiration of the claim filing deadline set forth in Section XV.E.3.
8. Notification to ClaiIl!l!Jlt of Claim Determination As they complete their review and determination ofclaims, Class Counsel shall cause written notice to be mailed to each claimant. Such notice shall advise each claimant whether her claim has been determined to be valid and, if so, the total number ofpoints allocated to her or ifher claim has been determined not to be valid, the reason(s) for such determination. The notice also shall advise the claimant of her right to request review by the Special Master of the claim determination and/or point allocation and that the claimant has twenty-one (21) days from the date of the notice ofclaim determination within which to request review by the Special Master. Any claimant wishing to seek review of her claim determination or pointallocation must do so by returning a written request for review tei the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the notice of claim determination. Failure to timely file a request for review shall bar a claimant from challenging the claim determination or point allocation or otherwise participating in any monetary award under the Decree on the basis ofa claim determined not to be valid. 9. Review of Claim Determinations by the Special Master
a. All requests for review under Section XV.E.g, shall be decided by the Special Master based on the claim form, any supplemental information provided by the claimant and the written request for review form, unless the Special Master requests that the claimant and/or Class Counsel submit supplemental information.
b. . The Special Master shall attempt to expeditiously resolve any request for review not later than sixty (60) days after the filing ofthe challenge or request for review, unless Class Counsel consents that more time is needed and permitted. The Special Master shall issue a written decision on each request for review. Copies of the Special Master's

709JffiG

- 65 Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

C·"·'· .,\

decisions shall be mailed to the claimant seeking review of her claim determination and to Class Counsel. The Special Master's decisions on requests for review shall be final, binding and nonappealable.

F. Class Monetary Distribution 1. Class Monetary Distribution List. Not later than thirty (30) days after the later of the deadlines for completion of the
claim determination process by the Claims Administrator and Class Counselor the Special Master, the Claims Administrator shall prepare and submit to the Special Master for review and approval and to Class Counsel and Home Depot for their information a final combined list of: (i) the names of all qualified Employee claimants whose claims have been [mally determined to be timely and valid, the number of points allocated to each such claimant, and the total number of points allocated to all such claimants ("Qualified Employee Claimant List"); and (ii) the names of all qualified Rejected Applicant claimants whose claims have been finally determined to be timely and valid, the number ofpoints allocated.to each such claimant and the total number of points allocated to all such claimants ("Qualified Rejected Applicant Claimant List"). The Special Master shall issue her approval determination on the two Qualified Claimant Lists within fourteen . (14) days of receipt of the Lists from the Claims Administrator. Within five (5) days after the Special Master's approval of the Qualified Claimant Lists, the Claims Administrator, shall calculate the gross amount of each claimant's monetary award based upon the Fund allocation formula set forth in Section X'f.A.2.e, and the total points allocated to each claimant and the point allocation formula set forth in Section XV.A3.h. and X'f.A4.b,and provide to Class Counsel and Home Depot a report including the name, social security number, total point allocation to and amount of the gross monetary award to each claimant on the Qualified Employee Class Member List and the Qualified Rejected Applicant Class Member List. Not later than twenty-one (21) days after the Special Master approves the two Qualified Claimant Lists, or fourteen (14) days after the Final Approval Date, whichever is later, Home Depot shall cause to be mailed via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, checks in the amounts calculated to each claimant on

709.HDG

- 66Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2i82 SI

C'
C··.~\ j

the Qualified Claimant Lists approved by the Special Master, less wiihholdings as determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections XV.A.6. Such checks shall be accompanied by a cover letter that shall explain to the claimant the basis on which the monetary award and deductions were calculated, W-2 or 1099 fonus and any other written information the parties may deem to be pertinent or necessary. All checks shall be negotiable for not more than six (6) months from the date of mailing, and each check and accompanying cover letter sh3.!1 so indicate. The envelope in wmch each check is mailed shall have on it the Claims Administrator's address as the return address. For each check that is returned to the Claims Administrator as "undeliverable," the Claims Adrrllnistrator not later than fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof, shall conduct an IRSC or comparable database search, and if such search is unsuccessful in locating the claimant and the gross value of the claimant's individual share exceeds Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall rctain the services of a private investigator to search and attempt to locate the claimant and shall cause to be remailed via certified mail, return receipt requested, the check to the claimant at such new address. Payment for the services of a private investigator, if such services become necessary, shall be made out ofthe balance of that class member's award, provided, however, that such amounts shall not exceed the lesser of ten (10) percent of the net value of the claimant's individual share or $1,000. Such reissued checks shall bc issued witmn six (6) months of the mailing ofthe initial checks, and negotiable for not more than six (6) months from the date of rcmailing. All returned checks to claimants for whom no additional address is obtained, or whose check is returned after an additional address has been obtained, shall be held by the Claims Administrator for not more than six (6) months, after wmch they will be returned to Horne Depot. If no claim is made for the checks by the claimants witmn that time period, the funds shall be considered unclaimed funds and distributed in accordance with Section XV.F.2.b. oftms Dccree.
2. Residual Funds. a. To the extent any funds remain in the Class Monetary Settlement or
Reserve Funds one year after initial distribution of class settlement checks, all remaining funds which are unclaimed shall be deemed Residual Funds and shall be distributed in accordance with subparagraph b, below.

709.IIDG

- 67Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 Sl; C 95-2182 SI

b. Home Depot shall select as a Residual Beneficiary an entity, organization or program which provides aid to or is dedicated to promoting the causes of women in the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division. Prior to distribution of any Residual Funds to any such entity, organization or program, Home Depot shall notifY Class Counsel of the identity of such entity; organization or program in order that Class Counsel may determine that thc purposes of the entity, organization or program are consistent with the purposes of this Decree. XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES
A. Basis for Award of Fees, Costs and Expenses. 1. The parties have agreed that it is appropriate as part of the settlement
underlying this Consent Decree for Home Depot to pay to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Class Representatives and the SettlementClass, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs in this casco
I. The Cbmpany has agreed to pay Class Counsel ao award of reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, aod costs in the amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) for work performed and costs and expenses incurred through and including the
i
Approval Date. Included in this amount is approximately Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for litigation costs aod expenses incurred by Class Counsel. This amount fully satisfies any arguable obligation the Company may have to pay attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs for and on behalf ofthe Plaintiffs, Class Representatives and the Settlement Class for any and all work performed aod costs and expenses incurred through and including the Approval Date.
1. The Company also has agreed to pay Class Counsel an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, aod costs for work required to be performed by Class Counsel after the Approval Date pursuaot to this Decrce. The Company agrees that Class Counsel shall be paid such attorneys' fees, expenses and costs in the amount of Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), for work performed aod costs and expenses incurred after the Approval Date relating to monitoring, administration and implementation, (including, without limitation, for processing of all claim forms under Section XV., evaluating possible compliance

709.IIDG

- 68Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94·4335 SI; C 95·2182 Sl

,
c··········.\·'

with this Decree, including the retention of experts to assist in such evaluation, and defense of the

Decree. Except as provided in Section XVLA.4., this amount satisfies any arguablc obligation the

Company may have to pay attorneys' fees, expenses and costs to Class Counsel for any and all

work performed and costs and expenses incurred after the Approval Date ofthe D.ecree for the

monitoring, administration, implementation and defense of the Decree,

1. Inaddition to the foregoing amounts, Home Depot agrees that in the event

Horne Depot or any of its officers, managers or supervisors is held in contempt violation of this

Decree or to Section x.B., Class Counsel shall be paid their reasonable costs, expenses and

attorneys' fees for the enforcement proceedings resulting in the contcmpt holding, as though Class

Representatives then were a prevailing party in Title VII litigation.

1. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude Home Depot from seeking

attorneys' fees, expenses and cost~, including fees of the Special Master, incurred in litigating

enforcement matters according to Title VII law applicable to a prevailing defendant.

B. ~ent of Award

1. Within fourteen (14) days following the Approval Date, the Company shall

pay to Class Counsel one half (V,) of the Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) or Ten Million

Dollars ($10,000,000), for litigation-related attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as set forth in

Section XVLA.2. Home Depot shall pay Class Counsel the remaining amount within fourteen

(14) days following the FinalApproval Date. In the event that Final Approval of the Decree is

not attained, Class Counsel shall return to Home Depot the initial payment ofTen Million Dollars

($10,000,000) within 15 days after the non-approval ofthe Decree becomes final.

1. The attorneys' fees, expenses and costs awarded and agreed to be paid by

the Company pursuant to Section XVLA.3. shall be paid according to the following schedule:

Thirty (30) days after the Approval Date

$800,000

January 15, 1999

$900,000

January 15,2000

$300,000

January 15,2001

$200,000

January 15,2002

$200,000

709.HDG

- 69Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

c January 15, 2003

$100,000

If the Decree is terminated prior to January 15,2003 pursuant to Section VI, Home Depot shall

pay to Class Counsel all attorneys' fees listed above that are unpaid as of the date of the Decree is

terminated. Such payment shall be made no latcr than fourteen (14) days after the date the Decree

is terminated.

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this
h-~,JUg.

~~
/t -----day of

~ :h~~fJ:~
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge Northern District of California

()

709.HDG

- 70Consent Decree

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182 SI

•
c"
c···~ ··. c,

) l
SfJPUlATED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:

James M. Finberg Kelly M. Dermody Jonathan D. Selbin Trina N. Parker LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3339 .
Telephone: (415) 956-1000

Barry Goldstein Morris 1. Baller David Borgen Linda M. Dardarian Jack W. Lee SAPERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN,
DEMCHAK & BALLER 1300 Clay Street, 11th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800

cLAss COUNSEL

. Larry Smith
General Counsel
The Home Depot usA
Two Paces West 2727 Paces Ferry Road, N.W; Atlanta, GA· 30339 .
Telephone: (770) 433-8211

John . . Sarnu I .
Debor R. KurzweiJ Powell, Goldstdn, Frazer & Murphy LLP 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. . Atlanta, Gk 30303 Telephone: (404) 572-6600

Fred Alvarez, Esq. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (415) 493-9300

Thomas P. Brown, IV Cynthia Gitt Epstein, Becker & Green 1875 Century Park East Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2501

COUNSEL FOR HOME DEI'OT, USA, INC.

- 72-

Case Nos. C 94-4335 SI; C 95-2182

.
•

1

J

STIPULATED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:

James M. Finberg
Kelly M. Dermody Jonathan D. Selbin Trina N. Parker L1EFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 .

Barry Goldstein Morris J. Baller David Borgen Linda M. Dardarian Jack W. Lee SAPERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN,
DEMCHAK & BALLER 1300Clay Street, 11th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800

CLASS COUNSEL

Lar Smi· General Counsel .
The Home Depot USA Two Paces West 2727 Paces Ferry Road, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 433-8211

John F. Wymer, III Samuel M. Matchett Deborah. R. Kurzweil Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & MurphyLLP
191 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, GA 30303 . Telephone: (404) 572-6600

Fred Alvarez, Esq. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & RoSati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone; (415) 493~9300

Thomas P. Brown, IV
. Cynthia Gilt Epstein, Becker & Green 1875 Century Park East Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2501

COUNSEL FOR HOME DEPOT, USA, INC.

- 72-

C-= Nos. C 94-4335 51; C 95-2182

 
 United States District Court, N.D. California. Vicki BUTLER, Susan Ellis, Felicia Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, Cheryl Williams,
and Jamie Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant. No. C94 4335 VRW. December 20, 1994.
Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages
Elizabeth J. Cabraser (State Bar No. 083151), James M. Finberg (State Bar No. 114850), Michael F. Ram (State Bar No. 104805), Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716), Lieff, Cabraser & Heimann, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, Telephone: (415) 956-1000, Guy T. Saperstein (State Bar No. 046354), Barry L. Goldstein (State Bar No. 141868), Teresa Demchak (State Bar No. 123989), David Borgen (State Bar No. 099354), Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, A Professional Corporation, 1300 Clay Street, 11th Floor, Oakland, California 94612, Telephone: (510) 763-9800, Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs.
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Vicki Butler, Susan Ellis, Felicia Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, Cheryl Williams, and Jamie Wilson, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a class action brought by female employees of and applicants for employment with Defendant Home Depot, Inc. (hereinafter “Home Depot”), charging that Home Depot is guilty of a continuing policy and practice of denying employment, desirable job assignments, training and promotional opportunities, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment to its female employees in its Western Division. In general, Home Depot reserves the most desirable work assignments and positions, and the training necessary to achieve them and to advance within the company, for its male employees. In addition, Home Depot discriminates against its female employees in pay, working conditions and other terms of employment.
2. This action seeks an end to these discriminatory practices, an award of backpay and front pay, as well as damages and injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.
JURISDICTION AND VENTTE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.
4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (action not founded solely on the basis of diversity) and 42

U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(3). Members of the Plaintiff class reside throughout the United States, including the Northern District of California. Defendant Corporation Home Depot is a Georgia corporation, which is licensed to do business in California. Many of the acts complained of occurred in this District and gave rise to the claims alleged.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Vicki Butler is a resident of Sacramento County, California. She has been employed by Home Depot as a Sales Representative, in Sacramento County, since December 1992.
6. Plaintiff Susan Ellis is a resident of Yolo County, California. She has been employed by Home Depot as a Designer and Sales Representative, in Solano County, California, since October 1993.
7. Plaintiff Felicia Funderburk is a resident of Contra Costa County, California. She has been employed by Home Depot primarily as a Cashier, in Contra Costa County, since March 1992.
8. Plaintiff Jacqueline Genero is a resident of San Mateo County, California. She has been employed by Home Depot as a Cashier and Sales Representative, in San Mateo County, since February 1993.
9. Plaintiff Sheryle Jones is a resident of San Mateo County, California. She has been employed by Home Depot primarily as a Cashier, in San Mateo County since September 1992.
10. Plaintiff Kimberly Stoddard is a resident of Sacramento County, California. She was employed by Home Depot as a Sales Representative, in Sacramento County, from February 1993 to August 1993.
11. Plaintiff Cheryl Williams is a resident of Riverside County, California. She was employed by Home Depot as a Sales Representative, in Riverside County, from November 1993 to May 1994.
12. Plaintiff Jamie Wilson is a resident of Contra Costa County, California. She was denied employment at Home Depot, in Contra Costa County, in or about January 1994.
13. Defendant Home Depot, Inc., is a Georgia corporation which maintains offices and is doing business in California and in this federal district. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot, Inc., has been an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(b), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.
14. All plaintiffs herein were employed by or applied for employment within Home Depot's Western Division, which is headquartered in Fullerton, California, and which encompasses the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as other areas throughout California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
15. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all female past, present, and future employees and applicants in Home Depot's Western Division who have been, continue to be, or in the future may be denied employment, desirable job and department assignments, training, promotional opportunities, desirable hours, compensation and/or other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their gender.
16. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.
17. The members of the class identified are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The number of class

members is indeterminate at the present time but is larger than can be addressed by joinder. There are approximately 99 Home Depot stores in the Western Division, with scores of employees in each store.
18. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including without limitation, whether Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., as alleged herein, under either disparate treatment or disparate impact theories.
19. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
20. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions and employment discrimination litigation.
21. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Each member of the class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reasons of the common, uniform, unfair personnel policies, practices, and procedures of Home Depot. Home Depot's discriminatory compensation and personnel policies are uniform throughout its Western Division. On information and belief, Home Depot has uniform computerized payroll and personnel data that will make calculation of damages for specific class members relatively simple. Finally, the appropriateness and the amount of punitive damages are issues common to the class.
22. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a whole.
CLAIMS OF NAMED PLATNTIFFS
Vicki M. Butler
23. Plaintiff Vicki Butler, a female, has been employed by Home Depot as a Sales Representative at Store Number 651 at 4641 Florin Road, Sacramento, California, since she was hired on December 7, 1992.
24. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Butler received an Associate of Arts degree in environmental design and received a Bachelor of Science degree in plant science from the University of California at Davis. She served in the United States Air Force as an aircraft mechanic. Ms. Butler had extensive experience working as a handyperson, with electrical, plumbing, carpentry, and sheetrocking experience. She had also supervised employees in a previous position as a greenhouse manager. Ms. Butler is currently a Sales Representative in the Inside Garden Department of Home Depot Store Number 651.
25. Since she began working at Home Depot, Ms. Butler has been asked to assume different and less desirable work responsibilities than similarly-situated males. Although Ms. Butler was hired as a Sales Representative, she was asked to work as a Cashier during the holiday season in her first weeks at Home Depot. A male employee who was hired as a Sales Representative by Home Depot at the same time as Ms. Butler was not asked to work as a Cashier.
26. Ms. Butler has been denied training, promotions, and compensation on the basis of her gender during her employment at Home Depot. For example, in approximately June 1994, a male working in the same capacity, who had less seniority at Home Depot and considerably less practical experience than Ms. Butler, was selected by store management to participate in a six-week management training program. Completion of the management training program is a prerequisite to promotion to management at Home Depot. Because of her gender, Ms. Butler was not offered training for promotion to managerial positions which are predominantly staffed by male employees at Home Depot.

27. Despite Ms. Butler's qualifications, educational background, and previous managerial experience, she was denied promotional opportunities to managerial positions offered to similarly-situated male employees. On November 11, 1994, a less qualified male employee, with less seniority at Home Depot, less practical experience, and little or no relevant educational background as compared to Ms. Butler, was promoted to Department Head of the Inside Garden Department. Because of her gender, Ms. Butler has been denied the opportunity to work in managerial positions that are predominantly staffed by male employees at Home Depot.
28. Defendant Home Depot has discriminated against Ms. Butler on account of her sex as follows:
(a) By failing and refusing to consider her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as males are considered;
(b) By failing and refusing to provide her with promotional opportunities on the same basis as males to positions that are more desirable and more likely to lead to greater advancement with the company;
(c) By failing to provide her with training and work experience to qualify her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as such training and experience is provided to males;
(d) By failing to provide her with timely and accurate notice of employment opportunities;
(e) By relying on subjective selection criteria and decision making by a nearly all male managerial force to deny her promotional opportunities;
(f) By promoting similarly-situated males more rapidly than her;
(g) By discouraging her from seeking promotional opportunities; and
(h) By imposing work on her in areas traditionally reserved for female employees that has not been imposed on similarlysituated males.
29. On or about December 14, 1994, Ms. Butler filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference, is a copy of that charge. Ms. Butler has requested a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Susan L. Ellis
30. Plaintiff Susan Ellis, a female whose date of birth is XX/XX/1950, began working for Defendant Home Depot as a Designer at Store Number 637, at 2121 Cadenasso Drive, Fairfield, California, on October 18, 1993.
31. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Ellis had worked as a private contractor designer for eighteen years, with extensive experience in high-end design projects. Ms. Ellis had received degrees in both art and art history. Ms. Ellis is currently a kitchen/cabinet Designer in the Plumbing Department of Home Depot Store Number 637.
32. During her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Ellis has been denied training necessary for promotion, as well as promotional opportunities and compensation, which have been given to similarly-situated males and younger employees. At her performance review in May 1994, she was denied a raise, despite the fact that she had performed well in sales and customer satisfaction. Upon information and belief, Ms. Ellis is paid a lower salary than similarly-situated males.

33. Ms. Ellis has regularly been subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and sexually harassing conduct. Such sexually hostile and harassing work environment was created and includes conduct by Home Depot managers who have subjected her to vulgar, derogatory, and offensive sexual language. For example, in approximately July 1994, while employees at Store 637 were attending a mandatory screening of a tape on sexual harassment, a photograph of several assistant managers with a nude woman was placed on the table in the employee conference room. On or about November 1, 1994, a male Department Head asked her, “How are you today?” When she responded, “I have a sinus infection, I don't feel good,” the male Department Head stated, “Thank God you don't have a yeast infection.” On or about November 8, 1994, a male Department Head stated loudly and repeatedly to a female employee, “I feel so frisky.” Although Ms. Ellis brought such incidents to the attention of store management, nothing was done to address or punish the offensive conduct.
34. Ms. Ellis has been subjected to retaliation for complaining about the harassment and discrimination she has experienced. On December 14, 1994, store management requested that a male Sales Representative in her department record any errors made by her. Upon information and belief, the male Sales Representative has even searched Ms. Ellis' drawer and files looking for any evidence of her errors.
35. Defendant Home Depot has discriminated against Ms. Ellis on account of her sex and age as follows:
(a) By failing and refusing to consider her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as males and/or younger employees are considered;
(b) By failing to provide her with training and work experience to qualify her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as such training and work experience is provided to males and/or younger employees;
(c) By not evaluating her performance and/or considering her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as similarlysituated males and/or younger employees;
(d) By discouraging her from seeking promotional opportunities traditionally afforded only to males and/or younger employees;
(e) By constructively denying her promotion to more desirable positions while promoting males and/or younger employees of lesser qualifications and seniority;
(f) By denying her wages and compensation equal to that of similarly-situated males and/or younger employees;
(g) By failing to provide her with desirable shifts, hours of work, and job assignments on the same basis as males and/or younger employees;
(h) By subjecting her to a sexually hostile and sexually harassing work environment; and
(i) By retaliating against her when she complained of the above discriminatory treatment.
36. On or about December 15, 1994, Ms. Ellis filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the DFEH. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference, is a copy of that charge. Ms. Ellis has requested a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Felicia Funderburk
37. Plaintiff Felicia Funderburk, an African-American female, has been employed primarily as a Cashier at the Home Depot stores in Concord and Pleasanton, California, since March 1992. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Funderburk

had several years of retail experience with Pak 'N Save.
38. On numerous occasions, Ms. Funderburk has been denied promotional opportunities by Home Depot on the basis of her sex and race. These promotional opportunities include, but are not limited to, Sales Representative positions that were given to males and/or non-African Americans. For example, in October 1992, Ms. Funderburk requested assignment to any Sales Representative position available. She was told she was not eligible for such a position because she had not been with the company long enough. However, Ms. Funderburk observed white males hired directly for sales positions or promoted with less seniority than her from cashier to sales positions. In April 1994, Ms. Funderburk inquired again about a sales position. At the time, there were sales openings in the “Light Cloud” Department, Paint Department and Design Center. The Light Cloud position was filled by a male employee from the Electrical Department; a male was hired off the street for the Paint Department; and a white female was hired off the street for the Design Center position (which traditionally has been held by women). Around the same time, Ms. Funderburk was told by a Home Depot manager that Home Depot did not want females in the Hardware Department.
39. Ms. Funderburk has also been deterred from applying for promotions to department head and managerial level positions at Home Depot due to the apparent segregation of jobs by gender and because she has been told by management that “Women can't be Department Heads because they bitch and whine too much.”
40. Home Depot has continually discriminated against Ms. Funderburk on the basis of her sex and/or race as follows:
(a) By failing and refusing to provide her with promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Sales Representative positions at Home Depot on the same basis as males and/or non-African Americans;
(b) By failing to provide her with work experience and training on the same basis as males and/or non-African Americans;
(c) By failing to provide her with desirable shifts, hours of work, and job assignments on the same basis as males and/or nonAfrican Americans;
(d) By placing her in sex-segregated, predominantly female jobs and failing to and refusing to place her in predominantly male jobs;
(e) By denying her wages and compensation equal to that of similarly-situated males and/or non-African Americans; and
(f) By discouraging her from applying for positions traditionally afforded only to males.
41. Ms. Funderburk filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit C. Ms. Funderburk has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Jacqueline Genero
42. Plaintiff Jacqueline Genero, a female, has been employed at the Home Depot store in Colma, California, since February 9, 1993. Ms. Genero had extensive retail experience before starting work at Home Depot, including hardware and tool sales at Sears. Despite her prior experience and expressed interest in sales, Ms. Genero was initially assigned as a Cashier. In April 1993, Ms. Genero was transferred, without increase in pay, to the traditionally female position of Sales Representative in the Design Center Department. Ms. Genero was transferred back to Cashier in November 1993, and has held a variety of traditionally female jobs at Home Depot since that time.
43. On numerous occasions, Ms. Genero has been denied promotional opportunities that were given to males, including but

not limited to Sales Representative positions in the Tool Department and the Lumber Department in May 1994.
44. Plaintiff Genero has been subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and sexually harassing conduct. Such sexually hostile and harassing work environment was created by and includes conduct by Home Depot managers who have subjected Ms. Genero to continual uninvited and offensive sexual attention, including but not limited to propositions to engage in sexual activities, vulgar, derogatory and offensive sexual language, and repeated, unwanted telephone calls to her home, which continued despite complaints to management.
45. Home Depot has continually discriminated against Ms. Genero on the basis of her sex as follows:
(a) By failing and refusing to provide her with promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Sales Representative positions at Home Depot on the same basis as males;
(b) By failing to provide her with timely and accurate notice of employment opportunities;
(c) By failing to provide her with work experience and training on the same basis as males;
(d) By failing to provide her with desirable shifts, hours of work, and job assignments on the same basis as males;
(e) By placing her in sex-segregated, predominantly female jobs and failing to and refusing to place her in predominantly male jobs;
(f) By denying her wages and compensation equal to that paid to similarly-situated males for the same work; and
(g) By subjecting her to a sexually hostile work environment and sexually harassing conduct.
46. Ms. Genero filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit D. Ms. Genero has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Sheryle Jones
47. Plaintiff Sheryle Jones, a female, has been employed at the Home Depot store located at 91 Colma Boulevard, in Colma, California, since September 14, 1992. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Jones had extensive retail experience, including nearly 10 years of retail employment at Gemco and Lucky Stores. Ms. Jones is currently a Cashier at the Home Depot in Colma.
48. Ms. Jones has been denied training, promotions, job assignments, and compensation on the basis of her sex during her employment at Home Depot. Ms. Jones has repeatedly been denied an opportunity to work as a Sales Representative, including but not limited to denial of a Sales Representative position in the Lumber Department in May 1994. In response to her request for a Sales Representative position, Ms. Jones was told by the Lumber Department Manager: “There is no way Home Depot would put a female in Lumber.” Shortly thereafter, a less qualified male cashier was placed in the Lumber Department Sales Representative position. There was no job posting or application process for this position.
49. Ms. Jones has repeatedly been denied an opportunity to work on the sales floor performing stocking duties. Stocking duties include working with inventory and provide experience for promotion to Sales Representative positions. Male cashiers are routinely permitted to work at stocking as time permits. When Ms. Jones has requested an opportunity to stock, she has been told instead to dust the merchandise. Dusting is an unskilled job duty that does not provide on-the-job training leading to promotional opportunities.

50. Ms. Jones has repeatedly requested the opportunity to attend on-site product knowledge classes, a prerequisite for advancement at Home Depot, and to be provided with forklift training. Male employees have been permitted to attend these onsite classes and to receive such training. Ms. Jones has been denied the opportunity to attend on-site product knowledge classes and to receive forklift training due to her gender.
51. Ms. Jones has been channelled into jobs predominantly staffed by females, such as the cashier position. Ms. Jones has been told by Home Depot managerial staff that women should be “up front,” i.e., on the cashier line, as opposed to on the sales floor or in managerial positions that are predominantly staffed by male employees at Home Depot.
52. Ms. Jones has been denied wages and compensation equivalent to that of similarly-situated male employees. For example, in 1994, while Ms. Jones was working in Special Orders, she received a performance evaluation rating of 3 on a scale ranging from 1-4 and a $.30 per hour pay increase. Conversely, a male employee working in the same capacity, who had less seniority at Home Depot and considerably less overall cashier experience compared to Ms. Jones, also received a performance evaluation rating of 3, but received a pay increase of $.50 per hour.
53. Ms. Jones has been subject to a sexually hostile work environment and sexually harassing conduct. Such sexually hostile and harassing environment was created by and such conduct includes managerial staff making inappropriate, unwanted and offensive sexual remarks to her and to other female employees in her presence, and a manager making unwanted sexual advances toward her.
54. Home Depot has continually discriminated against Ms. Jones on the basis of her gender as follows:
(a) By failing and refusing to provide her with promotional opportunities on the same basis as males to positions that are more desirable and more likely to lead to greater advancement with the company;
(b) By failing to consider her for promotional opportunities on the same basis as males are considered;
(c) By relying on subjective selection criteria and decision making by a nearly all male managerial force to deny her promotional opportunities;
(d) By failing to provide her with formal, informal and on-the-job training opportunities on the same basis as males;
(e) By denying her wages and compensation equal to that paid to similarly-situated males for the same work;
(f) By channelling her into lower paying, deadend jobs reserved only for females; and
(g) By subjecting her to a sexually hostile work environment and sexually harassing conduct.
55. Ms. Jones filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit E. Ms. Jones has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Kimberly Stoddard
56. Plaintiff Kimberly Stoddard, a female, was employed by Home Depot as a Sales Representative at Store Number 651, at 4641 Florin Road, Sacramento, California 95820, from February 8, 1993 to August 14, 1993.
57. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Stoddard had received her certification as a journeyperson/tile setter

from the Northern California State Apprenticeship School in 1986, and her ceramic tile contractors license for California in 1988. She had also worked for approximately 12 years as a tile finisher, tile setter, and ceramic tile contractor. From 1988 to February 1993, when Ms. Stoddard began working at Home Depot, Ms. Stoddard had begun and had owned a contracting business which engaged in meeting with customers, bidding for jobs and installing ceramic tile, marble, and glass block. While employed by Home Depot, Ms. Stoddard was a Sales Representative in the Floor and Wall Department.
58. Ms. Stoddard completed her 90-day probationary period, and received uniformly positive written reviews between her 90-day and six-month reviews.
59. Ms. Stoddard was denied compensation offered to similarly-situated male employees. For example, she received a lower starting salary than similarly-situated males. In addition, she was denied merit badges and compensation for the approximately 200 help letters submitted on her behalf by customers who had attended one of her weekly tile installation clinics. Under Home Depot's employee recognition program, merit badges are given to an employee when customers complete and submit letters commending the employee. After receiving five merit badges, an employee is entitled to a bonus of $65.00. Ms. Stoddard was denied the recognition and compensation because of her gender.
60. Ms. Stoddard was denied desirable shifts and promotional opportunities provided to similarly-situated male employees. Although she was informed that she was the expert, or “Bernie Girl,” for the Floor and Wall Department, after approximately a two-week period she was not given the 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift that all other experts, or “Bernie Boys,” received. No other female employees were department experts, or “Bernie Girls,” at the Sacramento store.
61. Ms. Stoddard was subjected to different performance standards than similarly-situated male employees and was denied salary increases on the basis of her gender. On August 13, 1993, Ms. Stoddard received her six-month review. In the review, she received an evaluation in the range of good to excellent on more than 70% of the areas evaluated. In addition, her file reflected that Ms. Stoddard's supervisor, the Assistant Store Manager over the Floor and Wall Department, reported: “Kim has done a great job as our site tile expert and has also successfully put together a contractor breakfast and meeting to bring in business and boost sales.” Prior to the review, Floor and Wall Department Head Wade Watkins had even noted that Ms. Stoddard gave “the best clinics ever in the whole store.” Despite Ms. Stoddard's positive evaluations, she received a poor performance rating of 2, and was denied a pay increase.
62. On August 14, 1993, the day after Ms. Stoddard's six-month performance review, she was constructively discharged on the basis of her gender when she realized that she would not receive promotional opportunities, salary increases, or recognition necessary for promotion on the same basis as similarly-situated male employees at Home Depot. During the time she was employed by Home Depot, there were no female Department Heads at the Sacramento store.
63. Defendant Home Depot has discriminated against Ms. Stoddard on account of her sex as follows:
(a) By denying her wages and compensation equal to that paid to similarly-situated males for the same work;
(b) By denying her pay increases provided to similarly-situated males;
(c) By relying on subjective selection criteria and decision making by a nearly all male managerial force to deny her promotional opportunities;
(d) By discouraging her from seeking promotional opportunities;
(e) By failing to provide her with desirable shifts, hours of work, and job assignments on the same basis as males; and
(f) By constructively discharging her on or about August 14, 1993, because of her sex.

64. On or about November 5, 1993, Ms. Stoddard filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the DFEH. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F, and incorporated by reference, is a copy of that charge. Ms. Stoddard has received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Cheryl Williams
65. Plaintiff Cheryl Williams, an African-American female whose date of birth is XX/XX/1953, was employed at the Home Depot store in Corona, California, from November 1993 until May 19, 1994. Prior to her employment with Home Depot, Ms. Williams had approximately one year of experience in retail floor and tile sales. While employed by Home Depot, Ms. Williams was a Sales Representative in the Floor and Wall Department.
66. Ms. Williams began her employment with Home Depot on November 22, 1993. She was assigned as a Sales Representative to the Floor and Wall Department. She was one of only a few African-American and female Sales Representatives employed by Home Depot at the Corona store. Additionally, Ms. Williams was only one of very few African-American employees employed in any position by Home Depot at the Corona store.
67. Ms. Williams satisfactorily completed her 90-day probationary period. At her six-month review in April 1994, she was advised in writing that she was doing a “Good Job!” and was given a 6.6% pay increase.
68. In late April or early May 1994, Ms. Williams was asked to train two Caucasian male employees, one who was approximately 22 years old and the other who was approximately 35 years old. It was Ms. Williams' understanding that these male employees had been hired on a part-time basis and that neither had any prior experience in floor and wall sales.
69. On May 19, 1994, Ms. Williams, without notice or cause, was advised by two Home Depot managers that her position had been eliminated and that she was terminated, effective immediately. To Ms. Williams' knowledge, her position was the only one eliminated and she was the only employee terminated at that time. To Ms. Williams' knowledge, the two younger, white males she had been asked to train assumed her job duties and responsibilities.
70. While she was employed by Home Depot, Ms. Williams was denied compensation equal to that of similarly-situated males and/or non-African American employees. For example, although Ms. Williams was informed that she was the expert or “Depot Don” for the Floor and Wall Department, she was the lowest-paid employee in the department. She was the only female and African-American employee in her department.
71. While she was employed by Home Depot, Ms. Williams was denied work hours and shifts afforded to similarly-situated male and/or non-African American employees. For example, although Ms. Williams was informed that she was the expert or “Depot Don” for the Floor and Wall Department, she was not given the 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift that all other experts, or “Depot Dons,” received. No other females or African-American employees were department experts, or “Depot Dons,” at the Corona Home Depot.
72. Home Depot has continually discriminated against Ms. Williams on the basis of her sex, race and/or age as follows:
(a) By terminating her without cause and replacing her with two younger, white male employees; and
(b) By denying her wages and compensation and other terms and conditions of employment afforded to similarly-situated non-African Americans, males, and/or younger employees.
73. Ms. Williams filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which is incorporated by reference

and attached hereto as Exhibit G. Ms. Williams has requested a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Jamie Wilson
74. Plaintiff Jamie Wilson, a female, applied for employment with Home Depot's El Cerrito, California, store in or around January 1994. Prior to her application with Home Depot, Ms. Wilson had extensive retail sales and managerial experience. During her initial application interview with Home Depot, Ms. Wilson was advised to put “check/cashier” on her application form, despite her qualifications, experience and interest in sales/managerial positions. During a second interview with a male whom Ms. Wilson believed to be a Home Depot manager, Ms. Wilson was asked what her employment goals were. When she replied that she desired to be a manager, the interviewer became upset and informed Ms. Wilson that she lacked experience required for such a position at Home Depot. The interviewer then ended the interview in a manner that made it clear to Ms. Wilson that she was being rejected for employment in any position at Home Depot.
75. Home Depot discriminated against Ms. Wilson by denying to her on the basis of her gender employment for a position offered to male applicants for which she was qualified.
76. Ms. Wilson has filed a timely charge of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit H. Ms. Wilson has requested a Notice of Right to sue from the DFEH.
GENERAL PATTERNS OF DISCRIMINATION
77. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by Plaintiffs are not isolated examples of Home Depot's employment practices. Rather, they are illustrative of the pervasive pattern of sex discrimination in employment opportunities that has continually existed in Home Depot's Western Division.
78. The under-representation of women in Defendant Home Depot's most desirable positions is not random or coincidental, but results from discrimination in training, job assignments, promotional opportunities, pay, and standards of evaluation, and from the policy and practice of Defendant Home Depot in discriminating against women in employment opportunities in its Western Division.
79. Home Depot has pursued policies and practices on a continuing basis which have had the effect of denying equal job opportunities to qualified women. Such policies and practices include, without limitation:
(a) Reliance upon unweighted subjective, gender-based and/or arbitrary criteria utilized by a nearly all male managerial workforce in making assignment, training, and promotional decisions;
(b) Failure to follow a uniform job posting procedure to guarantee that all employees have notice of openings, even though promotions have generally been filled by Home Depot employees;
(c) Use of pretextual and shifting “qualifications” and requirements for training and job opportunities which are different for males than for females;
(d) Maintenance of largely sex-segregated job categories;
(e) Discouraging females from applying for management positions;
(f) Failing and refusing to consider females for promotion on the same basis as males are considered;

(g) Failing and refusing to provide females the necessary work experience and training to qualify them for more desirable positions on the same basis as males are provided it;
(h) Failing and refusing to promote females on the same basis as males are promoted;
(i) Failing to provide females with accurate notice of employment opportunities and hiring procedures;
(j) Maintaining and fostering a reputation for discriminatory conduct which deters females from pursuing promotional opportunities with Home Depot;
(k) Establishing and maintaining arbitrary and subjective requirements for job assignment and promotion which have the effect of excluding qualified women and which have not been shown to have any significant relationship to job performance or to be necessary to the safe and efficient conduct of Defendant's business;
(l) Placing females in sex-segregated operational positions with fewer promotional opportunities, while placing males into more desirable floor positions with greater opportunities for advancement;
(m) Paying females lower salaries than similarly-situated males;
(n) Denying females more desirable work hours and work shifts;
(o) Failing and refusing to take reasonable and adequate steps to eliminate the effects of Defendant's past discriminatory practices; and
(p) Refusing to hire qualified female applicants.
80. As a result of Defendant's continued policies and practices of intentional discrimination and pursuit of policies and practices with an adverse impact upon women, there are in fact two different work forces in Home Depot's Western Division. One, primarily male, work force enjoys preferential treatment, better job opportunities, and a swift path to advancement. This work force dominates all management positions. The other, primarily female, work force holds a disproportionate share of the lowest level positions, and only a fraction of this work force has been allowed to advance to better positions.
81. The two work forces are further illustrated by Home Depot's general policy and practice of placing females in sexsegregated operational positions with fewer promotional opportunities, and placing males into floor positions with greater opportunities for advancement into managerial positions.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq.)
82. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 81.
83. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the class they represent.
84. The foregoing conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq.
85. Plaintiffs Funderburk, Genero, Jones, and Stoddard have received Right to Sue letters from the EEOC, and have commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiffs Butler, Ellis, and Williams have each requested a Notice of Right to Sue

from the EEOC. Plaintiffs have therefore exhausted their administrative remedies and fulfilled all conditions precedent to suit. 86. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.) 87. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 86. 88. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the class they represent. 89. The foregoing conduct violates the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. 90. Plaintiffs Butler, Ellis, Funderburk, Genero, Jones, Stoddard, and Williams have received Right to Sue letters from the DFEH. Plaintiff Wilson has requested a Notice of Right to Sue from the DFEH. The pendency of the EEOC investigations into Plaintiffs' charges tolled the time limits for filing civil actions pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs have therefore timely complied with all prerequisites to suit. 91. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 1981)
92. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 91. 93. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Funderburk and Williams only. 94. The foregoing conduct constitutes intentional racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 95. Plaintiffs Funderburk and Williams request relief as hereafter provided.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.) 96. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 95. 97. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Ellis and Williams only. 98. The foregoing conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. 99. Plaintiffs Ellis and Williams request relief as hereafter provided.
RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

100. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendant's discriminatory acts and omissions.
101. The actions on the part of Defendant have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and all class members substantial losses in earnings, promotional opportunities and other employment benefits, and have caused Plaintiffs and all class members to suffer and continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an amount according to proof.
102. Defendant did the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and with wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and all class members, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' and class members' rights. Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for relief as follows:
1. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff class and designation of Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and their counsel of record as Class Counsel;
2. All damages which individual Plaintiffs and the class have sustained as a result of Defendant's conduct, including backpay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation and job benefits that they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Defendant, and for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;
3. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant's ability to pay and to deter future conduct;
4. Liquidated damages in addition to backpay for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 on behalf of Plaintiffs Ellis and Williams.
5. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant and its partners, officers, owners, agent, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set forth herein;
6. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violative of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.
7. An order restoring class members to their rightful positions at Home Depot, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay benefits;
8. An assignment of Plaintiffs and the class to those jobs they would now be occupying but for Defendant's discriminatory practices;
9. An adjustment of the wage rates, benefits, and seniority rights for Plaintiffs and the class to that level which Plaintiffs and the class would be enjoying but for Defendant's discriminatory practices;

10. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent allowable by law;

11. Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law; and

12. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

DATED: December 19, 1994

Respectfully submitted, LIEFF, CABRASER & HEIMANN Elizabeth J. Cabraser James M. Finberg Michael F. Ram Kelly M. Dermody By: <<signature>> James M. Finberg SAPERSTEIN MAYEDA & GOLDSTEIN A Professional Corporation Guy T. Saperstein Barry L. Goldstein Teresa Demchak David Borgen By: <<signature>> Barry L. Goldstein Plaintiff Class Co-Counsel

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all individual and class claims so triable.

DATED: December 19, 1994

Respectfully submitted, LIEFF, CABRASER & HEIMANN Elizabeth J. Cabraser James M. Finberg Michael F. Ram Kelly M. Dermody By: <<signature>> James M. Finberg SAPERSTEIN MAYEDA & GOLDSTEIN A Professional Corporation Guy T. Saperstein

Barry L. Goldstein Teresa Demchak David Borgen By: <<signature>> Barry L. Goldstein Plaintiff Class Co-Counsel
Vicki BUTLER, Susan Ellis, Felicia Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, Cheryl Williams, and Jamie Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant. 1994 WL 16515435 (N.D.Cal. ) (Trial Pleading )
END OF DOCUMENT

 
 VICKI BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant.
No. C-94-4335 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3370; 70 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 51

January 24, 1996, Dated March 25, 1996, FILED

ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION
On August 30, 1995, the Court heard argument on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 8, 1995; September 11, 1995; September 18, 1995; October 11, 1995; December 5, 1995; and December 6, 1995, the parties filed supplemental briefing and authorities. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and adopts the following class definition:
A. All female employees of Home Depot within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division who are or were employed on or after November 5, 1992, or who are or will be employed between this date and the date of entry of judgment in this class action; and
B. All female applicants who applied for employment in Home Depot stores within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division on or after November 5, 1992 and were qualified for employment in the positions of salespersons or assistant managers and who were not [*3] hired or were hired for cashier or other operations positions.
The Court further orders that this litigation be bifurcated into separate phases. The first phase will address liability and relief applicable to the class as a whole, including declaratory and injunctive relief, and whether defendant is liable for punitive damages. This phase of the action is certified under FRCP 23(b)(2). If liability is established, the second phase of this case will address appropriate individual compensatory and equitable relief, including individual entitlement to back and front pay.

The precise procedures to be used during the second phase, if any, will be determined later in this litigation.
BACKGROUND
This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ß 2000e et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code ßß 12940 et seq. (FEHA). The complaint in this action was filed on December 12, 1994. Plaintiffs Vicki Butler, Susan Ellis, Felicia Funderburk, Jacqueline Genero, Sheryle Jones, Kimberly Stoddard, and Cheryl Williams allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ß [*4] 20003 et seq., and allege gender discrimination practices against female employees and applicants throughout Home Depot's West Coast Division (hereafter "WCD").
A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs allege that Home Depot discriminates based upon gender in nearly all aspects of its personnel decision-making, including: (1) hiring and patterns of gender-based segregation of segregation of jobs and departments in initial job placement; (2) training; (3) transfer opportunities to merchandizing positions; (4) promotional opportunities to supervisorial and management positions; and (5) compensation.
First, plaintiffs allege that the defendant's system of hiring, job assignment, training, promotions, and compensation is entirely subjective. They allege that there are no specific, objective hiring criteria, nor are there objective criteria used to set pay levels, and that local gender biased male managers are therefore left broad discretion to make decisions that have an adverse effect upon women. Second, plaintiffs present statistical evidence of the low number of women in sales, merchandising, managerial and supervisorial positions, and the high number of men in these positions; [*5] and of the high number of women in cashier and other operations positions, and the corresponding low number of men in these same positions. This statistical evidence, upon which

plaintiffs rely heavily, suggests a high level of segregation by gender. Plaintiffs contend that this is particularly significant, given that Home Depot is a store that promotes from within, provides on the job training, and has no minimum qualifications for entry level jobs.
In support of their motion, plaintiffs have submitted the following materials: (1) the declarations of 55 members of the proposed class and of 8 other witnesses detailing incidents of gender discrimination in connection with hiring, job assignments, training, promotions and compensation; (2) the EEOC charges of 10 members of the proposed class; (3) Home Depot's standardized personnel forms, procedures and training materials; (4) excerpts from the depositions of 10 Home Depot managers; and (5) the declaration of plaintiffs' expert, Professor William T. Bielby.
In opposition to the motion, defendant filed: (1) declarations of 30 witnesses who are or were employees of Home Depot; (2) various charts and compilations concerning plaintiffs' [*6] employment history; (3) declarations of two experts; and (4) excerpts from the depositions of class representatives.
B. Legal Standard for Class Certification
As a threshold to class certification, Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of the following: (1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that there are common questions of law or fact; (3) that the representative parties' claims or defenses are typical of the class claims or defenses; and (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. The party moving for class certification bears the burden of showing that the 23(a) requirements are satisfied. General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 2370, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982).
In addition to demonstrating that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met, the plaintiffs must establish one or more of the following grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(b): (1) that there is a risk of substantial prejudice from separate actions; (2) that declaratory or injunctive relief benefitting the class [*7] as a whole would be appropriate; or (3) that common questions of law or fact predominate and the class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication.
DISCUSSION
A. Rule 23(a) Requirements
1. Rule 23(a)(1) - Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that the number of potential plaintiffs cannot be practica-

bly joined. Whether joinder would be impracticable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and does not require any specific minimum number of class members. In the present case, it is undisputed that the proposed class numbers in the thousands. The numerosity requirement is easily met.
2. Rule 23(a)(2) - Common Questions of Law or Fact
The requirement in Rule 23(a)(2) that there be questions of law or fact common to the class is satisfied by "the alleged existence of common discriminatory practices." The defendant's actions need not affect each class member in the same manner. Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D.Cal. 1994) (citation omitted).
The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement by their challenge to defendant's [*8] uniform personnel policies under Title VII. Common issues include whether the plaintiffs can sustain their burden of proof under either the disparate treatment (intentional acts of discrimination), or the disparate impact (not necessarily intentional) theories as to Home Depot's subjective employment practices. See Jauregui v. Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1988); Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 694 F.2d 531, 554 (9th Cir. 1982). In addition, the evidence upon which plaintiffs propose to rely -- statistical evidence of widespread discrimination -- is common to the class as a whole. See Int'l Broth. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 339-40, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396, 97 S. Ct. 1843 (1977); EEOC v. General Tel. Co., 885 F.2d 575, 579-82 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950, 112 L. Ed. 2d 332, 111 S. Ct. 370 (1990). The inferences drawn from this evidence will be common to all class members an will raise common questions of law.
3. Rule 23(a)(3) - Typicality
In addition, the Court finds that the representative plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs contend that defendant maintains a personnel system characterized by the use [*9] of subjective criteria by male management with hostile and stereotypical attitudes toward women. Plaintiffs further allege that they were discriminated against with respect to initial job placement, equal pay, and denial of training and promotional opportunities. These class claims are the same claims raised by the class representatives, and the declarations filed in support of this motion demonstrate their typicality. The individual plaintiffs' claims depend upon proof of the same discriminatory employment practices complained of by and on behalf of the class members. Defendant's argument that these plaintiffs' claims are not typical is unpersuasive.

4. Rule 23(a)(4) - Adequacy of Representation
Adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4) involves the satisfaction of two elements: 1) that the representative party's attorney be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation; and 2) that the suit not be collusive and that the representative plaintiffs' interests not be antagonistic to those of the remainder of the class. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, 15 FEP Cases at 1649.
The first element of the adequacy requirement is easily satisfied [*10] by the competence and experience in handling complex class action lawsuits of the firms representing plaintiffs.
With respect to the second element, defendant objects to the inclusion of applicants in the class, contending that applicants have different and antagonistic interests from employed class members since they are all competing "to get into the same sales and management positions." (Def. Br. at 5-6). Defendant also argues that no named representative is an applicant, because plaintiffs' former applicant representative, Wilson, is time barred. Defendant further argues that the presence of both supervisory and non-supervisory personnel in the proposed class precludes certification.
Plaintiffs concede that Wilson has been removed as a class representative, but argue that the absence of an applicant representative does not preclude class certification. Plaintiff cites several cases in which courts reversed decertification of classes comprised of both employees and applicants. See Watson v. Fort Worth bank & Trust, 798 F.2d 791, 795-6 (5th Cir. 1986), vac'd and remanded on other grounds, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) (reversing decertification of a class combining applicants and [*11] employees, stating that proof that an employer acted under a policy of discrimination could support certification of a class comprised of both applicants and employees if the discrimination manifested itself in hiring and promotion practices in the same general way, such as through subjective decisionmaking). Furthermore, plaintiffs argue that the Court may permit counsel to designate an appropriate employee member of the class to serve as an applicant representative.
Plaintiffs are correct that classes comprising both employees and applicants can be certified together. General Telephone v. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n.15 (1982). Courts have routinely found that allegations that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination can justify a class comprised of a diverse set of individuals. Neal v. Moore (D.D.C. No. 93-2420 (1994), Mem. Op. at 22), citing Richardson v. Byrd, 709 F.2d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir 1983) (job assignment policy affected both employees and applicants). Some courts have concluded that "subjective decision-making" infected a

company's employment practices as a whole, such that a broadly defined class is warranted. Neal v. Moore at 22, citing, [*12] Brown v. Eckerd Drugs, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 1440, 1446 (W.D.N.C. 1983).
Moreover, as will be discussed in further detail below, any potential problems inherent in the fact that the proposed class in the present case is comprised of a diverse group of plaintiffs can be remedied by bifurcation of the case into a liability phase (addressing issues common to the class such as injunctive relief) and a remedial phase (addressing the individual compensatory damage claims). See eg., Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396, 97 S. Ct. 1843 (1977). If there is a second, remedial phase of this case, supervisors and non-supervisors will all be able to come forward with evidence of their own specific claims for relief. During the first, liability phase, by contrast, the diversity of class membership will not present material conflicts. 1
1 One Court has commented that "an injunction against a few supervisory members of the class -who most likely did not exert significant influence over departmental policy-making -- is fairly characterized as de minimus relative to the value of such an injunction in protecting these same supervisors from epidemic discrimination." Neal v. Moore (D.D.C. No. 93-2420 (1994) Mem. Op. at 27)).
[*13] Accordingly, this Court finds that the interests of the representative plaintiffs are not antagonistic to the remainder of the class; and that plaintiffs have met their burden of proving adequacy of representation, both of counsel and of the class representatives.
B. Rule 23(b) Requirements
Once the four requirements of 23(a) have been met, the Court must determine whether the case meets any of the three requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs argue that this class should be certified under 23(b)(2), which provides in pertinent part:
(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
* * *
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or

corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole . . .
Defendants argue that class certification under this subdivision is improper because the damages issues in this case predominate and "overwhelm" the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.
In making this argument, defendant [*14] relies upon McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. of Cal., 523 F.2d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 1975). The facts of the cases cited by defendant are completely inapposite. In McDonell Douglas, a wrongful death action for damages resulting from an airplane crash, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief "added nothing to [plaintiffs'] claim for damages." In the present case, plaintiffs' claims for damages are secondary to their primary claim for injunctive relief to prohibit gender biased employment practices. The fact that plaintiffs seek damages in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief does not preclude certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement System, 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1986). It is "well established . . . that employment discrimination suits involving such individual-specific awards of lost back pay may be maintained as (b)(2) class actions . . . ." Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 453, citing, Probe, 780 F.2d at 780. 2
2 Defendant also points to Celestine v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., et al., Case No. 93-0864 (W.D. La.), in which Magistrate Judge Wilson's recommendation (filed 8/7/95) against class certification was adopted by the district court (9/11/95). This Court finds the analysis in that case inconsistent with controlling Ninth Circuit precedent and with other class action employment cases decided in this district. See, e.g., Probe, supra; Barefield v. Chevron, supra; Arnold v. United Artists, supra.
[*15] Plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant maintains a policy and practice of denying women equal employment opportunities is sufficient to satisfy the Rule 23(b)(2) requirement. Defendant's arguments that the damage claims "overwhelm" the claims for injunctive relief are conclusory and, at this early stage, speculative. Accordingly, the Court finds that the first, liability phase of this case is appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
C. Bifurcation
At oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing on whether this case could proceed in phases,

and what, if any, constitutional limitations might affect such a process. 3
3 Specifically, the Court requested briefing on the effect, if any, of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (amending Title VII to add claims for compensatory and punitive damages for intentional discrimination, and a right to jury trial), and the Seventh Amendment implications if this case were to be tried in separate phases before separate juries.
[*16] In response to this request, plaintiffs have pointed to numerous cases, many of which are from the Northern District of California, indicating that the courts have routinely certified classes in similar employment discrimination cases by separating the trials into two phases. In Phase I, class wide damages and injunctive relief are determined. In Phase II -- which the Court could certify now, or postpone until a later date -- the individual compensatory damages issues would be resolved. In Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D.Cal. 1994), Chief Judge Henderson addressed bifurcation of employment discrimination cases, and made the following general observations:
According to the authors of the leading treatise on class actions, most courts adjudicating civil rights class actions in the employment discrimination context opt to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of the trial. 5 H. Newberg, Class Actions ß 24.123, at 24-414-416 (3d ed. 1992). See, e.g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 360-362, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 1867-68, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977); Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D.Cal. 1977); [*17] Barefield v. Chevron, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15816, 1988 WL 188433, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 907 (N.D.Cal. 2988).
158 F.R.D. at 458-459. See also Barefield v. Chevron, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15816, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 907 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
Similarly, in Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal. No. C-88-1467 (MHP), Judge Patel bifurcated a class action employment discrimination case into two separate phases. The first phase of the trial addressed class liability and liability for punitive damages. The claims of the individual plaintiffs for damages were deferred to later proceedings. 4

4 The case settled after Judge Patel issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; the court never held the second phase of the trial.
Defendant argues that bifurcation of liability and damages would violate its Seventh Amendment right to a fair trial, because different juries would be deciding essentially the same issues. In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077, 1086 (Fed. Cir. [*18] 1986). Defendant argues that whether each individual plaintiff "can establish liability and the measure of compensatory and punitive damages" would have to be considered again in the second phase of the trial.
This Court is not persuaded by these arguments. Courts have routinely adopted the approach advocated by plaintiffs in which the first phase of the proceedings focuses exclusively on classwide claims, e.g., whether a defendant has in fact engaged in discriminatory employment practices. A jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs at this phase would result in injunctive and declaratory relief, and possibly, punitive damages. Individual compensatory damages would be resolved in the second phase of the proceedings which, since they would adjudicate individual claims, would not involve the "same issues" as did the first phase. As evidenced by the numerous cases across the country that have addressed this issue, the Seventh Amendment does not mandate that all phases of the litigation be heard by the same jury.
This Court will defer ruling on class certification with respect to the second phase of this trial. At such a time as it becomes necessary, the Court will adopt an approach that [*19] the Court and the parties can agree will best protect the rights of absent class members and defendant, in adjudicating the remaining issues
D. Other Issues
The scope and starting and ending dates of the class are disputed by the parties. Defendant argues that the class is too broad, in that it encompasses those who might suffer some injury in the future. Plaintiffs have framed the class to include claims which arise between the class opening date, and the date of the entry of judgment in this action. In this respect, the Court does not find the class definition to be overly broad.
Defendants also argue that the named representatives are time-barred under Title VII and FEHA. With respect to the Title VII plaintiffs, the earliest filed charge is that of Kim Stoddard, who filed an EEOC and DFEH charge on November 5, 1993. Thus any claims that arose prior to January 9, 1993 (300 days prior to the November 5 date) must be excluded from the action.
With respect to the FEHA claims, defendant argues that the earliest proper DFEH claim was made on August 25, 1994 (by Funderburk) and thus any claims arising out

of actions which occurred prior to August 25, 1993 (one year prior [*20] to the August 25 date) must be excluded. Defendant argues that plaintiff Stoddard's November 5, 1993 DFEH charge should be treated as ineffective, because Stoddard's lawsuit was not filed within one year after the DFEH issued her right to sue letter. Plaintiffs disagree, claiming that the class opening date for FEHA claims should be November 5, 1992 (one year prior to the date of Kim Stoddard's DFEH filing), and that Stoddard's claim is not time-barred because the statute of limitations for filing a complaint under FEHA may be equitably tolled during the pendency of an EEOC investigation. EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1994); See also, Salgado v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 823 F.2d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs argue that since the EEOC was investigating Stoddard's claim until it issued her right-to-sue letter on September 22, 1994, Kim Stoddard's FEHA claim filed three months later was timely. This Court agrees. Accordingly, the class opening date for the Title VII issues as to all ten states in the WCD will be January 9, 1993. The class opening date for the FEHA claims in California will be November 5, 1992.
Finally, a related case -- Frank v. Home [*21] Depot Inc., No. C-95-2182 SI -- has been filed against the same defendant with allegations that are almost identical to those in Butler. Plaintiffs have requested consolidation of these cases. Defendant points out that this motion was previously denied. 5 However, consolidation was denied before because adding new plaintiffs at that time would have necessitated modification of the briefing and discovery schedules with respect to the pending motion for class certification. In light of this Court's decision to grant plaintiffs' motion for class certification, these concerns are moot. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate is GRANTED.
5 This case was then pending before the Hon. Vaughn Walker.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) have been satisfied, and determines that, subject to the terms and limitations discussed above, the actions may be maintained as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules [*22] of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 1996.
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

 
 United States District Court, N.D. California. Vicki BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant.
Teresa Frank, Katherine Toma, and Kathleen York, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Home Depot, Inc., Defendant. Nos. C-94-4335 SI, C-95-2182 SI.
Aug. 29, 1997.
ORDER:
ILLSTON, J.
*1 (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON APPLICANT CLASS CLAIMS;
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EMPLOYEE CLASS CLAIMS; and
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DECERTIFICATION
Defendant Home Depot, Inc. (“Home Depot”) has filed three motions in the above-entitled matter: (1) a motion for summary judgment on the claims of female applicants; (2) a motion for summary judgment on the claims of female employees; and (3) a motion for decertification of the applicant and employee classes. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby DENIES defendant's motion for summary judgment on the applicant class claims, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant's motion for summary judgment on the employee class claims, and DENIES defendant's motion for decertification.
BACKGROUND

This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. (FEHA). Plaintiffs, female employees and applicants throughout Home Depot's West Coast Division, allege gender discrimination by Home Depot in hiring, initial assignments, promotions, compensation, and training. Plaintiffs allege that discrimination has occurred both in the form of intentional discrimination and in the form of neutral employment practices which disparately impact female employees and applicants of Home Depot.
On January 25, 1996, this court certified this matter as a class action and adopted the following class definitions:
A. All female employees of Home Depot within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division who are or were employed on or after November 5, 1992, or who are or will be employed between this date and the date of entry of judgment in this class action; and
B. All female applicants who applied for employment in Home Depot stores within the geographical area of Home Depot's West Coast Division on or after November 5, 1992 and were qualified for employment in the positions of salespersons or assistant managers and who were not hired or were hired for cashier or other operations positions.
Home Depot has moved for summary judgment with respect to the claims of the classes encompassed by paragraph A (“the employee class”) and paragraph B (“the applicant class”) of this Court's class certification order. Home Depot contends that plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that members of these separate classes were discriminated against on the basis of gender and that summary judgment is warranted with respect to both the disparate treatment and disparate impact claims of class members. Home Depot has also filed a motion, in the alternative, for decertification of the applicant and employee classes.
LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Summary Judgment
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
*2 A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the moving party must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. In contrast, a moving party who will not have the burden of proof on an issue at trial can prevail merely by pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id.
If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must then set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, “ ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ “ Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis added).
In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir.1987). The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. See Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls, 754 F.2d 49 (2nd Cir.1985); Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v. General Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.1979). Hearsay statements found in affidavits are inadmissible. See, e.g., Fong v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 762-63 (9th

Cir.1980).
II. Disparate Treatment
A plaintiff alleging disparate treatment must prove that the defendant intentionally treated the plaintiff less favorably because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, the plaintiff must offer evidence that “give[s] rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Evidence of discriminatory intent may be direct, circumstantial, or inferred from statistical evidence, and all evidence that the plaintiff presents in that regard can contribute to the inference in a cumulative manner. Green v. USX Corp., 896 F.2d 801, 807 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 814, 111 S.Ct. 53, 112 L.Ed.2d 29 (1990); see also McCullough v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 776 F.Supp. 1289, 1293 (N.D.Ill.1991).
The Supreme Court has set forth a four-prong formula by which plaintiffs may establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under this formula, a plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge bears the initial burden of showing that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff applied for an advertised job opening; (3) the plaintiff was rejected despite being qualified for the position; and (4) similarly situated non-protected employees were hired or the employer sought a replacement with qualifications similar to the plaintiff's qualifications. Id. at 802.
*3 The McDonnell Douglas formula, however, is not the only means by which a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13 (“[T]he specification above of the prima facie proof required from respondent is not necessarily applicable in every respect to differing factual situations.”); Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54 n. 6 (same). In particular, plaintiffs in the class action context may make out a prima facie case of discrimination against individual class members by demonstrating the existence of a discriminatory hiring pattern or practice. International Brother-

hood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 359-60, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (citing Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747, 772, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976)).
If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, there is a presumption that the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254. That presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant to rebut the prima facie case by producing evidence that the employment decision was made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Id. However, the plaintiff always retains the ultimate burden of persuasion. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993).
Should the defendant produce such evidence, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the proffered reason is a pretext for a discriminatory motive. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256. The plaintiff need not submit direct evidence, but may rely on a showing that the decisions in question were more likely than not motivated by a discriminatory reason. Aikens, 460 U.S. at 716. The plaintiff meets the ultimate burden of persuasion if the plaintiff demonstrates that a discriminatory reason “was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).
III. Disparate Impact
For a disparate impact claim, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate “that [[[an employer] uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of ... sex ... and the [employer] fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i).
A prima facie case of disparate impact is established by showing that an employer's use of an employment practice caused unequal treatment by the employer of a protected group. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, Inc., 490 U.S. 642, 656-57, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989). Unlike a disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff is not required to prove discriminatory intent to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact. “[G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures ... that operate as ‘built-in headwinds' for minority

groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971).
*4 Identification of a specific employment practice is not required in all instances to establish a prima facie claim. “[I]f the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i).
Subjective employment standards are also not immune to disparate impact analysis.
[D]isparate impact analysis is in principle no less applicable to subjective employment criteria than to objective or standardized tests.... It is true, to be sure, that an employer's policy of leaving promotion decisions to the unchecked discretion of lower level supervisors should itself raise no inference of discriminatory conduct.... It does not follow, however, that the particular supervisors to whom this discretion is delegated always act without discriminatory intent. Furthermore, even if one assumed that any such discrimination can be adequately policed through disparate treatment analysis, the problem of subconscious stereotypes and prejudices would remain.
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994-95, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988).
Employers can rebut a disparate impact claim by demonstrating that the allegedly discriminatory practice is required by business necessity. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The plaintiff, in turn, can rebut this by showing that an alternative policy with lesser discriminatory effects would be as effective as the one in question. Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 660-61.
IV. Class Certification
As a threshold to class certification, Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of the following: (1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that there are common questions of law or fact; (3) that the representative parties' claims or defenses are typical of

the class claims or defenses; and (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. The party moving for class certification bears the burden of showing that requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 2370, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982).
In addition to demonstrating that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met, the plaintiffs must establish one or more of the following grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b): (1) that there is a risk of substantial prejudice from separate actions; (2) that declaratory or injunctive relief benefitting the class as a whole would be appropriate; or (3) that common questions of law or fact predominate and the class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication.
DISCUSSION
I. Summary Judgment
Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or disparate impact in the hiring, initial assignment, promotion, compensation, and training of its employees. Plaintiffs, in turn, contend that their statistical, sociological, and anecdotal evidence establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and disparate impact. According to plaintiffs, the evidence submitted by Home Depot in support of its motions, at most, raises genuine issues of material fact that are properly reserved for trial.
A. Disparate Treatment
*5 A prima facie showing of disparate treatment requires that the plaintiff establish intent, on the part of the employer, to discriminate. “Proof of discriminatory motive is critical, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment.” Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 335-336 n. 15.
1. Hiring and Initial Assignments
Plaintiffs contend that Home Depot intentionally discriminates in the hiring and initial assignment of its female employees. In support of this contention, plaintiffs submit statistical evidence from their ex-

perts, Drs. Marc Bendick FN1 and Richard Drogin,FN2 who report that the representation of women in certain entry-level positions compared to the number of qualified women in the available applicant pool is so low as to be statistically significant.
FN1. Dr. Bendick is a labor economist. Dr. Bendick earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin in 1975 and has engaged in the full-time practice of economics, specializing in labor economics and related issues, for 25 years. Bendick Rpt. at ¶ 1.
FN2. Dr. Drogin is a statistician and statistical analyst. He earned a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California at Berkeley in 1970. He has been employed at California State University, Hayward, since 1973, and he is presently an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Statistics. Drogin Rpt. at ¶ 1.
Dr. Bendick uses census data to calculate “standards of availability” for hiring by Home Depot into its entry-level positions.FN3 Based on his analysis of census data, Dr. Bendick calculates that from 1992-1996, women comprised 48-49% of the qualified and available labor force for Home Depot sales associate positions and 36-39% of the qualified and available labor force for Home Depot assistant manager trainee positions. Bendick Rpt. at ¶¶ 17, 21. Plaintiffs compare this baseline of available and qualified women (i.e., 48-49% female for sales associate positions; 36-39% female for assistant manager trainee positions) with the actual numbers of women hired from 1992-1996 into these positions (i .e., 15.20% female for merchandising/sales associate hires; 6.40% female for assistant manager trainee hires).FN4
FN3. A standard of availability is the representation, expressed in percentage terms, of persons from a demographic group (in this case, women) that would be expected among a group of hires if hiring and related personnel processes were conducted without adverse impact on that demographic group. Bendick Rpt. at ¶ 8.
FN4. The statistics regarding the gender composition of Home Depot's actual hires

from 1992 to 1996 is provided by Home Depot's expert, Dr. Ali Saad. Saad Rpt., Table 17A.
Dr. Bendick also provides estimates of job availability, based on application data provided by Home Depot.FN5 Using this application data, he estimates that women comprised 33.3% of the qualified and available work force for sales associate positions and 34.0% of the qualified and available work force for assistant manager trainee positions. Bendick Decl. ¶¶ 27, 69. Dr. Bendick compares these alternative estimates of job availability (i.e., 33.3% female for sales associate positions; 34.0% female for assistant manager trainee positions) with the gender breakdown of Home Depot's actual hires (i.e., 15.20% female for merchandising hires; 6.40% female for assistant manager trainee hires). He concludes that even if considerations of job qualification and availability are taken into account, gender disparities exist in Home Depot's hiring into merchandising and management positions that cannot be explained by chance alone. Id. at ¶¶ 49-55.
FN5. Dr. Bendick cautions against relying on application data provided by Home Depot, stating that:
[I]t is not possible to use such “applicant flow” data unless the employer has systematically retained records of applications received, including the gender of applicants. It is my understanding that Home Depot did not systematically retain such records for a large portion of the period at issue. For that reason, an alternative basis for estimating availability must be found.
Bendick Rpt. at ¶ 9 (footnotes omitted). See also Bendick Decl. at ¶¶ 3-10. In particular, plaintiffs have filed a countermotion to defendant's summary judgment motion, in which they argue that they are entitled to a mandatory inference in their favor at trial because Home Depot has intentionally destroyed applications that would have shown under-representation of women in merchandising positions. The Court need not decide this matter for purposes of summary judgment. Plaintiffs recently filed a motion in limine, which

raises this very issue. The Court will rule on plaintiffs' motion in limine after the parties have had an opportunity to fully brief the issues.
Dr. Drogin uses the same applicant pool created by Dr. Bendick for his analysis. Based on his analysis of Dr. Bendick's census data, Dr. Drogin reports statistically significant disparities in the hiring of women into salesperson positions (Z-value of 110.9), assistant manager trainee positions (Z-value of 8.2), and associate manager positions (Z-value of 2.8).FN6 Drogin Rpt. at ¶ 31. In addition, Dr. Drogin analyzes the data of defendant's expert, Dr. Saad. Dr. Drogin performs an applicant flow analysis of hires into merchandising and operations positions, controlling for prior experience and position applied for, as measured by Dr. Saad, and skills box information, as recorded on job applications. Dr. Drogin concludes that women are significantly under-hired into merchandising positions and significantly over-hired into operations positions, compared to men with similar prior experiences and job desires. Drogin Decl. ¶¶ 622.
FN6. A Z-value is a measure of the disparity between an observed result and an expected result. The Z-value expresses the size of the disparity in terms of standard deviations. For instance, a Z-value of 1.96 expresses a 1 in 20 probability of the observed result occurring by chance. Drogin Rpt. at ¶¶ 20-21. The Supreme Court has held that a Z-value of 2 to 3 may be significant. See Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 311 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (“a fluctuation of more than two or three standard deviations would undercut the hypothesis that decisions were being made randomly with respect to race”).
*6 Dr. Saad, in turn, analyzes job applications provided to him by Home Depot.FN7 He finds that overall, women were hired in greater numbers than expected, when their experience is taken into account. Saad Rpt. at 19. For instance, Dr. Saad finds that from 1992-1994, females comprised 25.2% of the applicant pool and 29% of the applicants hired by Home Depot. Id. at 19.
FN7. Dr. Saad is a labor economist. Dr.

Saad earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, has taught economics at The City University of New York in the Department of Economics and Finance, and is currently partner-in-charge of The Economics and Litigation Services Department in the Los Angeles office of Altshuler, Melvoin and Glasser, LLP, an accounting and consulting firm. Saad Rpt. at 1.

Dr. Saad furthermore conducts an analysis of the 1990 census figures relied on by plaintiffs' experts. Based on this census-data analysis, Dr. Saad reports that women comprised 14.01% of the available labor market for merchandising positions and 81.82% of the available labor market for cashier positions. FN8 Id., Table 17A. Home Depot emphasizes the lack of disparity between Dr. Saad's census-data figures (i.e., 14.01% female for merchandising positions; 81.82% female for cashier positions) and the gender composition of its work force (i.e., 15.20% female for merchandising hires; 80.60% female for cashier hires). Home Depot concludes that there is no evidence of gender disparity in its hiring or assignment of employees.

FN8. Dr. Bendick challenges Dr. Saad's analysis of the 1990 census data, arguing that the pool of persons considered by Dr. Saad in developing his standard of availability is too narrow:

[O]nly 12% of the experience background

of persons that Home Depot hired as sales

associate[s] fit the category that Dr. Saad

considered-“Retailing-Hardware

and

Building Supplies.” Dr. Saad ignored the

other 88% of work experience of hires,

ranging from carpenters working as car-

penters (as distinguished from carpenters

working in retailing, who are included in

his analysis) to persons in retailing other

than hardware and building materials and

persons with work experience unrelated to

retailing or construction.... Because Dr.

Saad's availability of 14.01% does not re-

flect the vast majority of experiences of

actual sales associate hiring at Home De-

pot, it is not a reasonable standard of

availability for sales associate hiring.

Bendick Decl. at ¶¶ 31-32 (emphasis in original).
The Court finds that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to raise an inference of a pattern or practice of discrimination by Home Depot. See Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 359 (plaintiffs may establish a prima facie case of discrimination against individual class members by demonstrating existence of a discriminatory hiring pattern and practice). Plaintiffs' statistical experts conclude that women are significantly over-hired into operations positions and underhired into merchandising positions at Home Depot. Moreover, Drs. Bendick and Drogin opine that these disparities cannot be attributed to chance alone or the reasons proffered by Home Depot (i.e., prior experience, skills, or job desires). See Hazelwood, 433 U.S. at 307-08 (“Where gross statistical disparities can be shown, they alone may in a proper case constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination.”).
Home Depot argues, in response, that plaintiffs' experts have not adequately taken skill level and past experience into account in their analyses.FN9 Home Depot furthermore criticizes the methodology and reasoning of Drs. Bendick and Drogin.FN10 Home Depot argues that plaintiffs' statistical showing is deficient as a matter of law.
FN9. See, e.g., Def.'s Reply Re: Appl. Class at 9 (“Bendick's ‘new’ analysis treats all skill levels in retail sales positions as equal in terms of relevant experience, while Drogin ignores the second and third previous jobs and previous level in evaluating experience”) (emphasis in original); id. at 15 (“a review of [Dr. Drogin's] analysis shows ... that he gives the same value to the simple check of one of 17 skills boxes on the application form as he does to working in the construction trade for 10 years-which is absurd.”).
FN10. See, e.g., Def.'s Reply Re: Appl. Class at 18 (“Bendick ... somehow comes up with ... a total of 8864 ‘candidates' from a sample of 463-a feat of multiplication on a scale previously accomplished only with loaves and fish. See Matthew 14:14-21; 15:32-38; see also Mark 6:35-44; 8:1-9”);

Def.'s Suppl. Briefing Re: Appl. Class at 14.
Defendant's criticisms of plaintiffs' statistical evidence may indeed be valid. However, plaintiffs' statistical showing is probative and admissible evidence of gender discrimination by Home Depot in the hiring and assignment of its female employees,FN11 and the weight to be accorded to the statistical findings of each party's experts is an issue that is properly reserved for the factfinder at trial, not this Court on a motion for summary judgment. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1225 (9th Cir.) (“Whether the statistics are undermined or rebutted in a specific case would normally be a question for the trier of fact.”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1005, 112 S.Ct. 640, 116 L.Ed.2d 658 (1991); Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (“While the omission of variables from a regression analysis may render the analysis less probative than it otherwise might be, it can hardly be said, absent some other infirmity, that an analysis which accounts for the major factors ‘must be considered unacceptable as evidence of discrimination.’ ”) (Brennan, J., concurring).
FN11. As noted above, plaintiffs' experts, in performing their statistical analyses, control for factors such as job qualifications and applicant interests. Moreover, plaintiffs present evidence that factors such as qualifications and job interests have not, in fact, been consistently utilized by Home Depot managers in making hiring and assignment decisions. See Plaintiffs' Response to Home Depot's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts Re: Applicant Class (“Pls .' Facts Re: Appl. Class”) at ¶¶ 6-7, 17, 26, 41-42, 47, 74. Finally, plaintiffs submit evidence that the alleged gender disparities in hiring and initial assignments cannot be explained by the lack of job openings at Home Depot. See id. at ¶ 22.
*7 Plaintiffs have also presented sociological and anecdotal evidence in support of their claim of disparate treatment in hiring and initial assignments. Dr. Bielby,FN12 plaintiffs' sociological expert, opines that Home Depot's working environment is heavily maleoriented, influencing the attitude of male store managers towards female applicants:

FN12. Dr. Bielby received a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of WisconsinMadison in 1976. He is currently Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Over the past fifteen years, his research has focused on the issue of gender and workplace discrimination, and on organizational policies and practices more generally. Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 1. In an earlier motion, Home Depot sought to exclude Dr. Bielby's testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). That motion was denied.
In the context of a male-dominated culture, relying on highly arbitrary assessments of subjective hiring criteria allows stereotypes to influence hiring decisions. Under such circumstances, there is likely to be a strong tendency for women to be considered unqualified or inappropriate for “men's work” in Merchandising jobs, regardless of any individual female applicant's objective qualifications ... for such positions. Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 73. Plaintiffs furthermore present evidence that Home Depot managers have utilized stereotypes about women in hiring and placing new hires in initial job assignments. Pls.' Facts Re: Appl. Class at ¶ 6.18; Fiske Rpt. at 4-7. Finally, plaintiffs cite to the experience of class members who allege that they were denied employment on account of their gender FN13 or steered away from traditionally “male” positions.FN14
FN13. Monica Zubiate applied for a position with Home Depot three different times in four years. Plaintiffs assert that on her last attempt, she was a department manager for a Target store, had worked in the hardware department, and received a business degree from Cal State Fullerton. Plaintiffs contend that she was denied a position in the hardware department, while her male cousin, who did not have prior experience in sales or home improvement experience, was hired into the hardware department. Pls.' Facts Re: Appl. Class at ¶ 77A .7.
FN14. Plaintiffs contend that Kathleen York

was denied a merchandising position despite her prior experience hauling lumber and as an office manager for a lumber processing plant. According to plaintiffs, when York submitted her application for a merchandising position in the lumber department at Home Depot, she was told that “girls don't work in the lumber department” and was instead hired as a cashier. Pls.' Facts Re: Appl. Class at ¶ 77A.45.
In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs' statistical, sociological, and anecdotal evidence establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment in hiring and initial assignments at Home Depot. Home Depot disputes plaintiffs' evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from this evidence. However, the evaluation of plaintiffs' evidence is a matter for the jury at trial, not this Court on a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence by which a jury could reasonably infer discriminatory intent on the part of Home Depot. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of hiring and initial assignments is DENIED.
2. Promotions
In addition to their hiring and initial assignment claims, plaintiffs allege disparate treatment by Home Depot in job promotions. In support of this claim, plaintiffs cite to the findings of Dr. Drogin. Examining historical patterns of promotion at Home Depot, Dr. Drogin describes the basic lines of progression as follows:
a) Sales openings are filled mostly by new hires (about 2/3), and employee moves from Cashier and Lot.
b) Merchandise Department Supervisor openings filled through promotions are filled primarily (over 85%) by promotion of Sales workers. Virtually none of the openings in Department Supervisor positions are filled by hires.
c) Assistant manager openings filled through promotions are filled mostly (over 75%) by promotions of Merchandise Department Supervisors, with the remaining openings filled primarily by promotions of workers in Sales, Cashiers, and Cashier Supervisor positions. In addition, about 23% of all

openings in Assistant Manager positions are filled by hires.
d) Store Manager openings are filled by promotions of Assistant Managers.
*8 Drogin Suppl. Rpt. at ¶ 62. Dr. Drogin analyzes advancement of employees along these lines of progression-i.e., from Operations to Sales positions, from Sales to Merchandise Department Supervisor positions, from Merchandise Department Supervisor to Assistant Store Manager Trainee positions, and from Assistant Manager to Store Manager positions. He controls for year of promotion, store, department, title code, part-time/full-time status, seniority, and performance rating. Drogin Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5.
Dr. Drogin concludes that there are statistically significant gender disparities in advancements to sales positions, promotions to Merchandise Department Supervisor positions, and promotions to Assistant Store Manager Trainee positions. Drogin Suppl.Rpt. at ¶¶ 65, 67, 71; Drogin Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5. While Dr. Drogin does not find a statistically significant disparity in promotions from Assistant Manager to Store Manager positions (Z-value of - 1.65), he notes that this smaller disparity is explained by the fact that women historically have been excluded from the feeder pool for Store Manager positions. Drogin Suppl.Rpt. at ¶ 76. See also Stender v.. Lucky Stores, Inc., 803 F.Supp. 259, 333 (N.D.Cal.1992) (“The statistical evidence is significant for some positions, but not for others. However, the court finds that the lack of statistically significant disparities in promotions of women to Third Person, Assistant Store Manager and Store Manager is caused by women being blocked from upper management positions at the lower rungs of the promotional ladder.”).
Home Depot, in turn, cites to the findings of its statistical expert, Dr. Judith Stoikov.FN15 Dr. Stoikov reports that from 1992 to 1996, 3,772 women were promoted, and that this figure is larger than expected, given female representation in the jobs that serve as feeders for these promotions. Stoikov Rpt. at ¶ 25. In addition, Home Depot criticizes Dr. Drogin's findings, arguing that he creates an artificial shortfall in the number of women promoted by: (1) treating transfers from Operations to Sales positions as “promotions” and (2) assuming that seniority is a relevant factor in promotion decisions. Moreover, Home De-

pot contends that Dr. Drogin has failed to control for a number of factors that might explain the alleged gender disparities, such as knowledge, skills, and interest/commitment. Home Depot argues that Dr. Drogin's findings are insufficient as a matter of law to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment.
FN15. Dr. Stoikov is an expert in labor economics and statistical analysis. She holds a bachelor's degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in economics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She is presently employed by Employment Economics, a division of Price Waterhouse LLP, which specializes in preparing statistical and economic analyses of employment and labor market issues in connection with litigation. Stoikov Rpt. at ¶ 1.
Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to meet their burden on summary judgment. In response to defendant's motion, Dr. Drogin explains the reasoning behind his analytic choices,FN16 discusses the shortcomings of Dr. Stoikov's analysis,FN17 and incorporates defendant's criticisms into his statistical models.FN18 In addition, plaintiffs offer evidence to rebut Home Depot's contention that factors, such as knowledge, skills, interest, and performance, explain the alleged gender disparities in promotion patterns.FN19 In sum, the Court finds that Dr. Drogin's testimony is admissible, probative evidence of gender discrimination by Home Depot. The weight to be accorded to Dr. Drogin's and Dr. Stoikov's testimony is not an issue for this Court; that determination is expressly reserved for the jury. See Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1225, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(c) (right to jury trial in Title VII disparate treatment cases).
FN16. Dr. Drogin explains that transfers from Operations to Sales positions are job advancements, similar in nature to promotions, because: (1) on average, Sales personnel earned approximately $2.24/hr more than non-supervisor operations employees in 1996; (2) on average, starting salaries for Sales workers are more than $2.00/hr higher than starting salaries for Cashiers; (3) there is much greater chance for job advancement to higher paying salaried jobs for those in merchandising than those in operations; and

(4) from 1992-1996, employees who moved from Cashier to Sales or Merchandising Department Supervisor positions received a higher salary than employees who stayed in Cashier or Cashier Supervisor positions. Drogin Suppl.Rpt. at ¶ 66.
FN17. Dr. Drogin states that Dr. Stoikov undercounts the actual number of promotions from Operations to Assistant Manager Trainee positions. Drogin Suppl.Rpt. at ¶ 73 (“There were 109 promotions from Cashier or Cashier Supervisor into Assistant Manager Trainee positions during 1992 through February 3, 1997.... However, Dr. Stoikov reports only 53 promotions for these moves. If she had correctly counted the number of promotions from Cashier or Cashier Supervisor to Assistant Manager Trainee, she would have found an even greater shortfall in the number of women promoted.”). See also id. at ¶ 70.
FN18. Dr. Drogin reports that even if seniority is omitted as a variable and performance rating is included as a variable, there is a statistically significant shortfall of women promoted to Merchandise Department Supervisor and Assistant Manager Trainee positions. Drogin Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5.
FN19. Plaintiffs offer evidence that Home Depot has not consistently applied objective criteria in making promotions decisions. See Plaintiffs' Response to Home Depot's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts Re: Employee Class at ¶ 18; Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 77.
*9 Plaintiffs' statistical showing is buttressed by their sociological and anecdotal evidence. In his report, Dr. Bielby emphasizes that:
There are no written guidelines for making decisions about promotions to department supervisor positions, and the company does not provide training to Store Managers and Assistant Managers on how to select employees for promotions. While Standard Operating Procedures specify the process to be followed in making promotions into salaried assistant manager and store manager positions, they do not specify the criteria to be used in mak-

ing promotion decisions. Promotion opportunities in existing stores are not posted, and there is no formal procedure for making vacancies known or requesting a promotion. In making decisions about promotion to department supervisor, there is no requirement that the person under consideration meet any minimum rating on recent performance evaluations, or that written performance reviews are consulted at all in making the decision. Nor is there any requirement to record the reasons why an employee is or is not selected for a promotion.
Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 77 (footnotes omitted); see also id. at ¶¶ 78-82. In addition, plaintiffs have cited to the deposition testimony of class members who contend that they were denied promotions in favor of less qualified males. See, e.g., Decl. of Rosanne Mah (“Mah Decl.”), Ex. 37, at 172-74 (Butler Depo.); id., Ex. 22, at 15-25 (Harris Depo.).
In sum, plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of disparate treatment by Home Depot in the promotion of its employees. Drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as this Court is required to do, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Home Depot has intentionally discriminated against female employees in awarding promotions. Home Depot's motion for summary judgment on the issue of employee promotions is therefore DENIED.
3. Compensation
Plaintiffs allege gender discrimination by Home Depot in the compensation that it provides to its female employees. In support of this contention, plaintiffs cite to the findings of Drs. Drogin and Bendick. Analyzing Home Depot's compensation rates, Dr. Drogin determines that there are statistically significant gender disparities in initial salary rates and compensation rates. Drogin Suppl.Rpt. at ¶¶ 24, 77. Through a regression analysis, Dr. Drogin determines that these gender disparities in earnings cannot be explained by seniority, part-time/full-time status, store, department, or title code. Id. at ¶¶ 79-80. By analyzing the data of Dr. Saad, one of defendant's statistical experts, Dr. Drogin concludes that prior experience and merchandising skills also do not account for these gender disparities. Id. at ¶¶ 58-59.

Dr. Bendick also reports gender disparities in compensation rates adverse to women. Controlling for seniority, part-time/full-time status, store, hours worked, and hourly/salaried status, Dr. Bendick observes that women at Home Depot have suffered a financial penalty in earnings compared to men, subdivided into an “equal pay” component and an “occupational segregation” component. FN20 Dr. Bendick reports that in the six years which he examined, the “equal pay” penalty averaged $767, and the “occupational segregation” penalty averaged $581. Bendick Suppl. Rpt. at ¶ 69.
FN20. According to Dr. Bendick, labor economists commonly distinguish between two underlying processes that typically contribute to disparities in earnings among men and women. One process is an “occupational segregation” effect (i.e., women might be disproportionately employed as cashiers, men might be disproportionately employed as sales associates, and the average sales associate might receive a higher rate of pay than the average cashier) and the other process is an “equal pay” effect (i.e., among women and men both employed as sales associates, the average male sales associate might receive a higher rate of pay than the average female sales associate). Bendick Rpt. at ¶ 26.
*10 In response, Home Depot cites to the findings of Dr. Stoikov. Dr. Stoikov reports that women fared relatively better than men in terms of the wage boost they received when they left their prior jobs and were hired by Home Depot. Stoikov Rpt. at ¶ 6. In addition, she reports that women with certain workrelated characteristics (i.e., 1600 hours of work per year, an average work performance rating of at least 2.4, and an initial salary of $5.00 or more per hour), were as likely as equally qualified men to be fast wage advancers. Id. at ¶ 38. Finally, she concludes that among hourly employees, women were paid more than men performing similar work, and that among salaried employees, women were not paid differently than men performing similar work. Id. at ¶ 44.
Home Depot argues that plaintiffs, at most, have established gender segregation. Def.'s Reply at 10

(“Home Depot readily acknowledges the unremarkable fact that it employs relatively more women as cashiers, and relatively more men as sales associates. It is also known that throughout the labor force ... sales people generally earn more than cashiers”). In addition, Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs have failed to eliminate other potential causes of the alleged gender disparities, including prior wage rates, requested starting wage, and job performance. Home Depot argues that requested wage rates and market factors, in particular, are legal justifications for pay differences within jobs, citing Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 691 F.2d 873 (9th Cir.1982), Covington v. Southern Illinois Univ., 816 F.2d 317 (7th Cir.1987), and Deroiun v. Louis Allis Div., 618 F.Supp. 221 (E.D.Wis.1984), in support of this contention.
In response to defendant's arguments, plaintiffs assert that Dr. Stoikov relies on “tainted variables” in conducting her analysis: FN21
FN21. A “tainted variable” is one whose value is affected by discrimination and has the effect of concealing disparities due to discrimination. Drogin Suppl. Rpt. at ¶ 82.
Dr. Stoikov includes the variable “starting job” as an explanatory variable. But “starting job” is a tainted variable because women are under-hired in merchandising, initially over-placed in operations, and paid less at hire than men.... The variables “downgrade” and “years in department” in Dr. Stoikov's regressions are also tainted since women experience shortfalls in career advancement at Home Depot ... Drogin Suppl. Rpt. at ¶ 83. Dr. Drogin conducts a separate analysis, excluding these “tainted variables”, and reports that gender disparities appear in compensation rates. Id. at ¶¶ 85-86.
Plaintiffs furthermore argue that the “wage boost” analysis conducted by Home Depot relies on two tainted variables-last prior pay and first Home Depot pay. Plaintiffs emphasize that an employer's use of prior pay rate to set current pay rates may be impermissible. Kouba, 691 F.2d at 876 (“An employer ... cannot use a factor which causes a wage differential between male and female employees absent an acceptable business reason. Even with a businessrelated requirement, an employer might assert some business reason as a pretext for a discriminatory ob-

jective. This possibility is especially great with a factor like prior salary which can easily be used to capitalize on the unfairly low salaries historically paid to women.”) (emphasis added). See also Glenn v. General Motors Corp., 841 F.2d 1567, 1570 (11th Cir.) (“This Court and the Supreme Court have long rejected the market force theory as a ‘factor other than sex’ ”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948, 109 S.Ct. 378, 102 L.Ed.2d 367 (1988).FN22
FN22. Cases interpreting the Equal Pay Act, such as Kouba, may be applicable to claims alleging discriminatory compensation under Title VII. See Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1313 (9th Cir.1979) (“although decisions interpreting the Equal Pay Act are authoritative where plaintiffs suing under Title VII raise a claim of equal pay, plaintiffs are not precluded from suing under Title VII to protest other discriminatory compensation practices unless the practices are authorized under one of the four affirmative defenses contained in the Equal Pay Act and incorporated into Title VII by § 703(h).”), aff'd, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981).
*11 Finally, plaintiffs cite to sociological and anecdotal testimony in support of their disparate compensation claim. Dr. Bielby describes Home Depot's compensation policy as follows:
Home Depot['s] compensation policy is to “pay people what they are worth,” a variation on “payfor-performance” or merit-based pay systems. Effective “pay-for-performance” systems are based on valid, reliable measures of performance that are systematically linked to compensation. In contrast, distinctive features of the Home Depot compensation system are: (1) the absence of specific criteria for initial pay, for wage and salary adjustments at the time of performance reviews, or for meritbased raises; (2) a subjective performance evaluation system that gives little guidance to managers and supervisors on how to rate specific employees; and (3) the absence of any systematic procedure for basing raises on ratings in performance reviews.
Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 83 (footnotes omitted); see also id. at ¶¶ 84-91. Plaintiffs also cite to the experiences of class members, such as Sherry Payne, who allege that

they received less pay than comparable males.FN23
FN23. For instance, plaintiffs assert that Sherry Payne was laid off by Home Depot “because [she] was making too much money” and was subsequently rehired by Home Depot at a lower wage. Mah Decl., Ex. 21, at 44, 67 (Payne Depo.). According to plaintiffs, a male was hired to replace Payne and was paid a salary greater than the amount Payne was receiving at the time that she was laid off. Id. at 44, 64.
The Court finds that plaintiffs' statistical showing, when considered alongside plaintiffs' other evidence, establishes a genuine issue of material fact regarding disparate treatment by Home Depot in the compensation of its employees. At the summary judgment stage, the Court is not to determine the weight to be accorded to the parties' contrary statistical findings; that determination is properly reserved for the jury at trial. Instead, the Court must determine only if plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence from which a jury may infer discriminatory intent. The Court finds that a sufficient evidentiary showing has been made. See Green v. USX Corp., 896 F.2d 801, 807 (3rd Cir.1990) (evidence of discriminatory intent may be direct, circumstantial, or inferred from statistical evidence, and all evidence that the plaintiff presents in that regard can contribute to the inference in a cumulative manner). Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of employee compensation is therefore DENIED.
4. Training
Plaintiffs argue that Home Depot has disparately allocated training opportunities to its employees on the basis of gender. Plaintiffs provide no statistical evidence on the issue of training. Instead, plaintiffs cite to Professor Bielby's findings, the anecdotal testimony of individual class members, and the deposition testimony of selected Home Depot managers regarding training. Plaintiffs argue that the absence of specific criteria by which to guide store management allows training opportunities to be allocated disparately on account of gender.
In response, Home Depot argues that plaintiffs have provided no evidence of a pattern or practice of gender discrimination with respect to the provision of

training opportunities. Home Depot argues that Home Depot makes training opportunities available to all employees.FN24 In addition, it emphasizes that plaintiffs have not provided statistical evidence in support of their training claim and questions the inferences that may be drawn from Professor Bielby's findings and plaintiffs' anecdotal testimony.
FN24. See Gutek Suppl. Rpt. at 5 (“Each store is required to have at least 4 hours of formal training a month for all associates. This is standard procedure; it is not optional. Associates can receive a lot more training each month, much of it on product knowledge. All associates should have an opportunity to learn about the different products Home Depot sells. Training sessions are not limited to those working in that area, although those working in the area are likely to be given first priority in the event that some particular training session is especially in demand.”).
*12 The Court finds that plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of disparate treatment with respect to training. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that Home Depot utilizes subjective factors in allocating training opportunities and that individual class members may have been denied training on account of their gender. However, plaintiffs have provided no evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination. The mere occurrence of isolated or sporadic discriminatory acts is insufficient to prove a systemic pattern or practice. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336. As such, defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of training is GRANTED.
5. Employees in Non-Store Based Positions
Finally, Home Depot seeks summary judgment on the claims of employees in non-store based positions.FN25 In their summary judgment motion, Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs have presented no evidence that it discriminated against this sub-class of employees. At oral argument, the Court specifically requested plaintiffs to address this issue. Plaintiffs failed to respond to Home Depot's contentions at oral argument or in their opposition brief. Accordingly, because plaintiffs have presented no evidence of discrimination against non-store based employees, the Court GRANTS summary judgment with respect to

this sub-class of employees.
FN25. These positions include store support, divisional, distribution center, human resources, and regional merchandising positions.
B. Disparate Impact
A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact by showing that an employer's use of an employment practice caused unequal treatment by the employer of a protected group. Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 656-57. In the instant case, plaintiffs argue that Home Depot's policy of giving store-level managers unbridled discretion to make decisions based on vague, unvalidated, arbitrary, and subjective criteria has disparately impacted female employees. In support of this contention, plaintiffs rely on their statistical and sociological experts' findings regarding the practices of Home Depot and the alleged effect of these practices on the opportunities available to female employees.
Home Depot, in turn, argues that plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing of disparate impact. First, defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of gender disparities. Second, Home Depot contends that plaintiffs have failed to isolate a particular employment practice. Third, Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a specific practice of Home Depot caused the gender disparities alleged by plaintiffs. The Court will address each of the defendant's contentions.
As regards the first element (i.e., disparate impact), plaintiffs have presented statistical evidence of gender disparities in hiring, initial assignments, promotions and compensation. Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs' statistical evidence is unreliable and contradicts the findings of its own statistical experts, except where plaintiffs' experts report no disparities. In addition, Home Depot asserts that plaintiffs have provided no evidence, statistical or otherwise, of gender disparities in training.
*13 As indicated above, plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence of gender disparities, for purposes of summary judgment, with respect to their hiring, initial assignment, promotion, and compensation

claims. However, plaintiffs have produced no evidence of gender disparities in the allocation of training opportunities. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Home Depot on plaintiffs' training claim.
Home Depot next argues that plaintiffs' disparate impact claim must fail because they have not identified specific employment practices causing the alleged gender disparities. Home Depot argues that the elements of its decisionmaking process are, in fact, capable of separation for analysis and that, as such, plaintiffs must identify discrete employment practices by Home Depot that adversely impact female employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) (“if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.”).
Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim in the instant case is analogous to the plaintiffs' claim in Stender. The Stender Court held as follows:
Where the system of promotion is pervaded by a lack of uniform criteria, criteria that are subjective as well as variable, discretionary placements and promotions, the failure to follow set procedures and the absence of written policies or justifications for promotional decisions, the court is not required to “pinpoint particular aspects of [the system]” that are unfavorable to women.
803 F.Supp. at 335 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs in the instant case have presented evidence that Home Depot fails to provide its store managers with meaningful criteria by which to guide hiring, assignment, promotion, and compensation decisions. Dr. Bielby notes that:
A distinctive and integral feature of the Home Depot personnel system is the near total absence of specific criteria for selection decisions about screening and hiring job applicants, initial pay, job assignment, promotion, [and] wage and salary increases.... [I]t is the policy of Home Depot to delegate decisions about hiring, pay, job assignment, and promotions to Store Managers or teams of managers who, individually and as a team, base those decisions on their own subjective judgments, with virtually no written criteria for systematically

evaluating the qualifications of individual candidates.
Bielby Rpt. at ¶ 56. Having reviewed the evidence in this matter, the Court is satisfied that the elements of Home Depot's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis.
Finally, Home Depot argues that plaintiffs have not submitted evidence of causation. Home Depot argues that plaintiffs' statistical evidence alone is insufficient to establish causation, citing Torre v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 F.Supp. 790, 810 (D.Kan.1994), and Johnson v. Uncle Ben's Inc., 965 F.2d 1363, 1369 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1068, 114 S.Ct. 1641, 128 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). As regards plaintiffs' sociological evidence, Home Depot contends that this evidence demonstrates at most that Home Depot's decisionmaking process may have caused the gender disparities claimed by plaintiffs. According to Home Depot, evidence of potential causation is insufficient to withstand summary judgment, under the Ninth Circuit's holding in Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc., 10 F.3d 1485, 1498-99 (9th Cir.1993).
*14 The Court finds that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence of causation to meet their burden on summary judgment. In Watson, the Supreme Court held that:
Once the employment practice at issue has been identified, causation must be proved; that is, the plaintiff must offer statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group.
487 U.S. at 994-95 (emphasis added). As stated above, plaintiffs have presented statistical evidence of a kind and degree from which causation may reasonably be inferred. Moreover, plaintiffs have presented sociological evidence to buttress the causal link between Home Depot's alleged subjective practices and the gender disparity in the work force. See Bielby Rpt. at ¶¶ 50 (“Gender stereotypes influence personnel decisions in work contexts with maledominated cultures and subjective personnel practices.”); 54 (“Stereotypical beliefs ... are not unique to Home Depot managers, but the company's subjective personnel system makes them especially conse-

quential for personnel decisions.”); 106 (“The subjective decision-making throughout the Home Depot personnel system, applied in the context of a maledominated corporate culture which encourages managers to ignore the objective qualifications and interests of women employees, leads to a pattern of segregation whereby women have limited opportunities to advance into the most rewarding positions in the company.”).
In sum, plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of disparate impact with respect to their hiring, initial assignment, promotion, and compensation claims and have established genuine issues of material fact for trial. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment as regards these claims is DENIED.
II. Class Certification
On January 25, 1996, this Court certified two separate classes (i .e., applicant class and employee class) under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) had been met and that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief were not overwhelmed by plaintiffs' request for damages. The Court further ordered that litigation be bifurcated into separate phases: the first phase would address liability and relief available to the class as a whole, including declaratory and injunctive relief, and whether defendant was liable for punitive damages; the second phase would address appropriate individual compensatory and equitable relief. The Court certified the first phase under Rule 23(b)(2) and deferred ruling on plaintiffs' request for class certification as regards the second phase.
Home Depot has filed a motion to decertify the applicant and employee classes in light of recent developments. Home Depot contends that it is now clear that plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages predominate over any potential injunctive relief that may be awarded in this matter so as to make certification under Rule 23(b)(2) improper. In addition, Home Depot argues that plaintiffs have failed to meet the “commonality” and/or “adequacy of representation” requirements of Rule 23(a). The Court will address defendant's contentions in turn.
*15 Home Depot argues that it can no longer be seriously contended that this case is primarily about injunctive relief. Home Depot emphasizes the potential

liability it faces if plaintiffs prevail on their claims for compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, Home Depot emphasizes that the injunctive remedies (e.g., timetables, goals) sought by plaintiffs cannot be obtained from this Court, in light of the restrictions that the Supreme Court placed on class-based remedies in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995), and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989). Finally, Home Depot argues that programs and initiatives are already in place at Home Depot, whose purpose is to promote equal opportunity. As such, Home Depot concludes that no injunctive relief need be awarded in this matter.
In support of its argument, Home Depot cites a number of cases which held that certification was improper under Rule 23(b)(2) where damages issues predominated over plaintiffs' demands for injunctive or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs, in turn, cite cases in which various courts certified classes, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs sought punitive and compensatory damages in addition to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In addition, plaintiffs note that the cases cited by defendant do not stand for the broad proposition that plaintiffs seeking injunctive and monetary relief are precluded from seeking class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). See, e.g., McKnight v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 550, 553 (E.D.Va.1996) (cited by Home Depot in its decertification motion) (“Certainly there are cases where the sheer size of a class and the complexity of the common issues would lead a court to conclude that efficiency factors override certain considerations of fairness.”).
From the Court's review of these cases, it seems clear that the determination of which type of relief is predominant is a matter within the sound discretion of the court. See Shores v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 1996 WL 407850, at *9 (M.D.Fla. Mar.12, 1996); Morgan v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 349, 358 (E.D.Mo.1996). See also Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1232 (“The determination as to whether to certify a class is committed to the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.”). The Court has reviewed the materials submitted by both parties and concludes that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) remains proper.

The injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs includes a formal method of announcing job openings; promotion and advancement goals for women based upon the percentage of qualified women who register their interest in, apply for, or are available for a particular position; use of validated job criteria; and various accountability mechanisms. The relief sought by plaintiffs is not barred, as Home Depot contends, by recent Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has squarely held that courts are empowered to impose affirmative action as a remedy for past discrimination. See Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 475-76, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(g)(1) (“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may ... order such affirmative action as may be appropriate ...”). Home Depot may disagree as to whether after trial plaintiffs will have made a sufficient showing of discrimination so as to justify imposing such remedies; however, the merits of plaintiffs' claims are not properly before the Court for purposes of class certification. See Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974).
*16 The Court also rejects Home Depot's argument that it has already implemented the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek in their complaint. The extent to which Home Depot has, in fact, implemented such measures and the extent to which these measured need to be “fine tuned” are issues contested by the parties. The Court need not resolve these disputes at this juncture; it is sufficient that plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in their complaint, that the injunctive relief sought is authorized under existing case and statutory law, and that the relief sought by plaintiffs in Stage I of these proceedings is primarily injunctive in nature.
Next, Home Depot argues that decertification of this matter is appropriate because individual class members are in a better position to protect their rights and recover meaningful damages than the certified classes. Home Depot argues as follows:
(1) Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, only declaratory and injunctive relief is available to a plaintiff in a mixed-motives case where the employer can demonstrate that it would have made the

same decision independent of gender.
(2) The method of proof chosen by the applicant and employee classes in this matter establishes at most that gender was a factor, not the sole factor, in Home Depot's personnel decisions.
(3) Stage I of this litigation will therefore not resolve any issue for any individual plaintiff seeking monetary damages because the applicant and employee classes are putting on a mixed-motives case, which precludes an award of monetary damages.
In sum, Home Depot concludes that class certification is inappropriate in the instant case.
The Court soundly rejects this argument. Even if the Court were to accept the premises of Home Depot's argument, which are disputed by plaintiffs, Home Depot proves only that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). Home Depot argues that the only class-wide relief available in this litigation is injunctive and/or declaratory relief. If Home Depot is correct, plaintiffs have undoubtedly met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). See Fed.R.Civ . Proc. 23(b)(2) (“An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition ... the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole”). In sum, the Court finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) remains the proper course of action.
Home Depot alternatively seeks decertification on the ground that the requirements of Rule 23(a) have not been met. Home Depot argues that plaintiffs' statistics fail to demonstrate gender disparities in promotions and compensation so as to meet the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a). In addition, Home Depot argues that the interests of female employees and female managers, who are included within this Court's class definitions, are antagonistic in nature.
*17 The Court disagrees. Home Depot both argues the merits of plaintiffs' case and raises arguments previously considered and rejected by this Court. The Court declines to revisit its decision to certify this matter as a class action based on defendant's proffer of evidence. Defendant's motion for decertification is

therefore DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby:
(1) DENIES defendant's motion for summary judgment on the applicant class claims;
(2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant's motion for summary judgment on the employee class claims; and
(3) DENIES defendant's motion for decertification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
N.D.Cal.,1997. Butler v. Home Depot, Inc. Not Reported in F.Supp., 1997 WL 605754 (N.D.Cal.)
END OF DOCUMENT

 
 Case: 3:95-cv-02182-SI As of: 08/05/2010 08:16 AM PDT 1 of 3
CLOSED, CONSOL
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:95−cv−02182−SI

Frank, et al v. Home Depot, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Susan Illston Demand: $0 Lead case: 3:94−cv−04335−SI Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Date Terminated: 01/14/1998 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Teresa Frank

represented by James M. Finberg Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris J. Baller Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: mjb@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Katherine Toma

represented by James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris J. Baller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathleen York

represented by James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris J. Baller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Home Depot, Inc.

represented by Thomas P. Brown , IV Epstein Becker &Green, P. C. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, Ca 90067−2501 310 556−8861

Case: 3:95-cv-02182-SI As of: 08/05/2010 08:16 AM PDT 2 of 3
Email: tbrown@browngitt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Elizabeth Gitt Brown Gitt Law Group LLP 300 North Lake Ave Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−229−1919 Fax: Email: cgitt@browngitt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet Louise Morgan Clausen Law Group 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 201 Point Richmond, CA 94801 (510) 234−5155 Fax: (510) 234−4578 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/30/1995 06/30/1995 06/30/1995 07/11/1995 07/24/1995 07/25/1995 08/01/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/31/1995
12/01/1995 01/26/1996

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Summons Issued); Fee status paid entered on 6/30/95 in the amount of $120.00 (Receipt No. 36995); jury demand [3:95−cv−02182] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
2 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of related case C−94−4335−SI [3:95−cv−02182] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
3 ORDER by Senior Judge William H. Orrick setting status conference for 2:00 p.m. on 10/12/95 (cc: all counsel) [3:95−cv−02182] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
4 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston relating case to C−94−4335−SI , and that Case reassigned to Judge Susan Illston (cc: all counsel) [3:95−cv−02182] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
5 NOTICE by Plaintiffs re change of firm name [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
6 ANSWER by defendant Home Depot, Inc. to complaint [1−1] [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
7 LETTER dated 7/31/95 from Morris J. Baller re setting status conference for 8/30/95 10:30 and status conference due 8/20/95 [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/1995)
8 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiffs and defendant [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of joint status conference statement [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
10 MINUTES: ( C/R Carl Pline) Status conference held 8/31/95; Court to schedule status conference hearing after ruling is made on class certification (C−94 4335); counsel to prepare a proposed paralell litigation schedule if motion for class certification is not granted; parties to exchange FOIA material [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
11 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : extending time to file mtn for class certification (cc: all counsel) [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
12 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement is due 3/1/96 ; Case Management Conference set for 2:00 3/8/96 ; [3:95−cv−02182] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

Case: 3:95-cv-02182-SI As of: 08/05/2010 08:16 AM PDT 3 of 3

09/09/1997 01/14/1998
03/02/1999 03/02/1999 05/07/2001

01/29/1996)
13 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston re motions in limine (see Order) − see also C−94−4335 ( Date Entered: 9/12/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:95−cv−02182] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
14 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston approving consent decree, dismissing case . Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the court finds that the proposed Consent Decree is reasonable, fair, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. The proposed Consent Decree is therefore GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL and shall be entered as the Court's judgment. ( Date Entered: 1/15/98) (cc: all counsel) [3:95−cv−02182] (dcap, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
15 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of Joint Report to the Court re: the status of the implementation of the consent decree and the distribution of the settlement fund [3:95−cv−02182] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
16 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of notice [15−1] [3:95−cv−02182] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
17 LETTER dated 05/01/01 from plaintiffs' counsel Morris J. Baller re the information and reports compiled by Home Depot. [3:95−cv−02182] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/16/2001)

 
 Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 1 of 53
CLOSED, CONSOL, PROTO
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:94−cv−04335−SI

Butler, et al v. Home Depot Assigned to: Judge Susan Illston Demand: $0 Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/20/1994 Date Terminated: 01/14/1998 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Vicki Butler

represented by Barry L. Goldstein , Goldstein Demchak &Baller 300 Lakeside Dr Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763−9800 Fax: Email: bgoldstein@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis 1600 Market Street Ste 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 751−2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis 1600 Market Street Ste 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 751−2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis 1600 Market Street Ste 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H. Brown , III Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis 1600 Market Street Ste 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 751−2000

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 2 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Susan Ellis

represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Felicia Funderburk

represented by James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jacqueline Genero

represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 3 of 53

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sheryle Jones

represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberly Stoddard

represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary M. Tocci (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 4 of 53

Plaintiff Cheryl Williams
Plaintiff Jamie Wilson TERMINATED: 04/24/1995

William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary M. Tocci (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa S. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M. Christine Carty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William H. Brown , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry L. Goldstein , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Finberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Home Depot

represented by Cynthia Elizabeth Gitt Brown Gitt Law Group LLP 300 North Lake Ave Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−229−1919 Fax: Email: cgitt@browngitt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fred T. Alvarez Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati 650 Page Mill Road

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 5 of 53

Palo Alto, CA 94304−1050 650−493−9300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet Louise Morgan Clausen Law Group 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 201 Point Richmond, CA 94801 (510) 234−5155 Fax: (510) 234−4578 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marian Exall 650 Fifth St Ste 502 San Francisco, CA 94107 415−546−7771 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas P. Brown , IV Epstein Becker &Green, P. C. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, Ca 90067−2501 310 556−8861 Email: tbrown@browngitt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan L. Alpert 100 South Ashley Dr. Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 223−4131 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Teresa Frank

represented by Morris J. Baller Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: mjb@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: borgen@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L. Alexander Saperstein Goldstein Demchak &Baller 300 Lakeside Dr Suite 1000

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 6 of 53

Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Katherine Toma

represented by Morris J. Baller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathleen York

represented by Morris J. Baller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L. Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/20/1994
12/20/1994 01/11/1995 01/17/1995
01/19/1995 01/23/1995 02/06/1995 02/06/1995 02/06/1995 02/07/1995

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 12/20/94 in the amount of $ 120.00 (Receipt No. 113517); jury demand [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
2 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R. Walker setting status conference for 9:00 3/24/95 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
3 NOTICE by Plaintiff of change of firm name [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Home Depot on 12/21/94 by serving Maria Sanchez [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
5 ANSWER by defendant Home Depot to complaint [1−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
6 LETTER dated 1/19/95 from James M. Finberg re: status conference set for 2/7/95 at 3:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
7 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
8 CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
9 CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
10 MINUTES: (C/R Bobbie Rogers) Status conference set for 2:00 3/24/95 Computerized payroll records to be provided to plaintiffs counsel, alternativley to

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 7 of 53

02/10/1995
02/10/1995
02/17/1995 03/14/1995
03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/21/1995 03/21/1995
03/22/1995 03/23/1995
03/31/1995 03/31/1995 04/07/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995 04/19/1995

disclose procedure in which documents are stored. [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/1995)
11 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of original signature of Thomas Brown IV re: joint scheduling conference statement [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
12 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of original signature of Thomas Brown IV re: certification of counsel [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
13 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/7/95 (C/R: Roberta Rogers) [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
14 LETTER dated 3/9/95 from James M. Finberg re: status conference reset for 3/23/95 at 2:00. Status conference statments due 7 days before [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1995)
15 BRIEF FILED by defendant Home Depot re: initial disclosure [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
16 DECLARATION by Judith Stoikov on behalf of defendant Home Depot re brief [15−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
17 DECLARATION by Thomas Brown on behalf of defendant Home Depot re brief [15−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
18 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of status conference statement [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
20 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1995)
21 DECLARATION by Thomas Brown on behalf of defendant Home Depot re: defendants reply memo to plaintiff status conference statemenet [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1995)
22 SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
23 MINUTES: (C/R Bobbie Rogers) motions will be heard by 10:30 6/23/95 Defendant to complete their initial disclosures within two weeks. [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
24 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of additional class [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
25 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice of additional class [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
26 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/23/95 (C/R: Bobbie Rogers) [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
27 LETTER dated 4/10/95 from Thomas P. Brown IV re: opposition to new punative class [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
28 LETTER dated 4/11/95 from Elizabeth Cabraser re: defenants letter dated 4/10/95 [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
29 LETTER dated 4/17/95 from Thomas P. Brown IV re: plaintiffs letter dated 4/11/95. [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
30 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R. Walker striking notice of new proposed class representatives [24−1] ( Date Entered: 4/21/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/21/1995)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 8 of 53

04/24/1995 05/05/1995
05/05/1995 05/05/1995
05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/05/1995 05/09/1995 05/09/1995 05/09/1995
05/11/1995
05/26/1995 05/26/1995
05/26/1995
05/26/1995
05/26/1995

31 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of withdrawal of Jamie Wilson as a proposed class representative [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/26/1995)
32 MOTION before Judge Vaughn R. Walker by Plaintiffs to certify class action with Notice set for 6/23/95 at [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
33 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
34 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE by Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
35 APPENDIX of unpublished cases cited, filed by Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
36 DECLARATION by William Bielby on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
37 DECLARATION by James Finberg on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
38 DECLARATION by Morris Baller on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
39 DECLARATION by Lisa Dungan on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
40 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
41 DECLARATION by Jamie Greenblatt on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
42 DECLARATION of 55 Class Members on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1995)
43 LETTER BRIEF dated 5/4/95 from Thomas P. Brown IV re: deposition of Jamie Wilson [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
44 LETTER dated 5/4/95 from James M. Finberg re: deposition of Jamie Wilson [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
45 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R. Walker granting defendants motion to compel deposition of Jamie Wilson. (Date Entered: 5/10/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
46 MINUTES: (C/R by counsels own) Telephonic conference call re: scope of Ms. Wilson's deposition and answers thereto. Court directed Ms. Wilson to respond to questions concerning medication, if any, she was taking via a doctors prescription. [3:94−cv−04335] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/12/1995)
49 MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot in opposition to motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
50 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT by defendant Home Depot in support of opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
51 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
52 DECLARATIONS by Thirty−one witnesses and two experts on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
53 DECLARATION by Janet Morgan on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 9 of 53

05/26/1995 05/26/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995
06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/09/1995 06/12/1995 06/14/1995 06/19/1995

06/20/1995)
54 OBJECTIONS by defendant Home Depot to the 63 declarations filed in support of motion for class certification [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
55 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of document nos. 49 thru 54 [3:94−cv−04335] (pb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
56 REPLY Memorandum by Plaintiff to opposition to motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
57 SUMMARY of Argument by Plaintiffs in support of motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
58 APPENDIX of Unpublished cases filed by Plaintiff re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
59 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
60 DECLARATIONS of 9 Additional Class Members and 4 Supplemental Declarations from Class Members on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) Modified on 06/20/1995 (Entered: 06/20/1995)
61 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by James M. Finberg on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
62 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
63 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Jacqueline Genero on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
64 DECLARATION by Jonathan S. Leonard on behalf of Plaintiff re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
65 DECLARATION by Elizabeth J. Cabraser on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
66 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by William T. Bielby on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [56−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
67 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs re objections to Declarations of 55 Class Members [54−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
68 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiffs re adequacy of Representation [67−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) Modified on 06/20/1995 (Entered: 06/20/1995)
69 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs re and request to strike Stoikov and Shihabi Declarations [54−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
70 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of reply and support papers [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
47 ORDER by Assignment Committee Case reassigned to Judge Susan Illston ( Date Entered: 6/19/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
48 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiffs setting motion to certify class action [32−1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/28/95 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 10 of 53

06/19/1995 06/23/1995 06/23/1995 06/23/1995 06/23/1995 06/23/1995 06/26/1995 06/26/1995
06/26/1995 06/26/1995 06/26/1995 06/26/1995 06/28/1995 07/11/1995 07/14/1995 07/21/1995
07/25/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995

71 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of Re−Notice of Motion for Class Certification [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
72 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot to recuse with Notice set for 7/21/95 10:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
73 MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot in support of motion to recuse [72−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
74 DECLARATION by Cynthia E. Gitt on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion to recuse [72−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
75 DECLARATION by Guadalupe Sanchez on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion to recuse [72−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
76 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of Motion for Recusal and support papers [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
77 DECLARATION by Cynthia E. Gitt on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion to recuse [72−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
78 DECLARATION by Carol L. Beaumont on behalf of defendant Home Depot clarifying exhibits to the Declarations of Janet Morgan and Thomas P. Brown IV re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
79 EXHIBITS 5−A to the Declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
80 EXHIBITS 9−A to the Declaration of Janet Morgan re opposition memorandum [49−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
81 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by Home Depot of Motion for Recusal and support papers. Served to Barry L. Goldstein. [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
82 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of Motion for Recusal and support papers. Served on James M. Finberg [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
83 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying motion to recuse [72−1] ( Date Entered: 6/29/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
84 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston relating cases; 3:94−cv−4335 with member cases 3:95−cv−2182 ( Date Entered: 7/11/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
85 NOTICE by Plaintiffs re firm name change [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
86 CLERK'S NOTICE setting hearing on motion to certify class action [32−1] 8/18/95 10:00 Status conference set for 8/18/95 10:00; joint status conference statement due 8/8/95 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/24/1995 (Entered: 07/24/1995)
87 CLERK'S NOTICE setting hearing on motion to certify class action [32−1] 10:30 8/30/95 Status conference set for 10:30 8/30/95 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
88 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiffs and defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
90 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff in 3:94−cv−04335 of Joint Status Conference Statement [3:94−cv−04335] (lh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 11 of 53

08/22/1995 08/31/1995
09/05/1995 09/08/1995 09/08/1995 09/11/1995 09/11/1995 09/11/1995 09/18/1995 10/11/1995 11/29/1995 11/30/1995 12/05/1995 12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/22/1995 01/25/1996
01/25/1996

89 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of Lodging Additional Case Authority [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
91 MINUTES: ( C/R Carl Pline) Pltfs' Motion for class certification held 8/30/95; that the motion to certify class action [32−1] is submitted; further status conference to be scheduled by the Court after ruling of motion; pltfs' counsel to submit further briefing on B2 &B3 issues no later than 9/8/95; deft's counsel to submit further briefing on issue of same jury hearing bifurcated issues no later than 9/8/95 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
92 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 8/30/95 ( C/R: Carl R. Pline) minutes [91−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/1995)
93 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot in opposition to motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
94 DECLARATION by Kathleen E. Justice on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition memorandum [93−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
95 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs on certification of class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
96 DECLARATION by Brad Seligman on behalf of Plaintiffs re memorandum [95−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
97 APPENDIX of unpublished cases cited filed by Plaintiffs re memorandum [95−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
98 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of subsequent history re case previously submitted to Court [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
99 NOTICE by defendant of subsequent history re case previously submitted to the court [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
100 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of stipulation re extension of time and confidentiality [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
101 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston for protective order SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS ( Date Entered: 12/1/95) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/01/1995)
102 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of lodging additional case authority [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
103 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot in opposition to motion to certify class action [32−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
104 NOTICE by Plaintiffs re orders re confidentiality and class certification [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
105 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of notice [104−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
106 LETTER dated 12/22/95 from Jonathan D. Selbin and David Borgen on behalf of plts re post−hearing supplementary material [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/27/1995)
107 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting motion to certify class action [32−1] consolidating cases 3:94−cv−4335 with member cases 3:95−cv−2182 ( Date Entered: 1/26/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1996)
108 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement is due 3/1/96 ; Case Management Conference set for 2:00 3/8/96 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1996)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 12 of 53

01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/31/1996 02/02/1996 02/05/1996 02/05/1996 02/06/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996

109 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Louisiana Pltfs/Intervenors to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order with Notice set for 3/5/96 9:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
110 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [109−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
111 DECLARATION by William H. Brown III re motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [109−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
112 DECLARATION by Lisa S. Smith re motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [109−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
113 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT and evidence in support of motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [109−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
114 PROOF OF SERVICE of statement [113−1], declaration [112−1], declaration [111−1], memorandum [110−1], motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [109−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
115 LETTER dated 1/30/96 from Jonathan D. Selbin and David Borgen requesting publication of Court's 1/25/96 order [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
116 REQUEST before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot for certification with Notice set for 3/1/96 9:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
117 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Susan Illston to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order with Notice set for 3/29/96 9:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
118 PROOF OF SERVICE by LA pltfs/intervenors of motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [117−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
119 CLERK'S NOTICE resetting hearing on motion for certification [116−1] 9:00 3/29/96 Case Management Conference reset for 2:00 4/5/96; jt stmts due one week prior to conference [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/07/1996)
120 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice with Notice set for 3/29/96 9:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
121 DECLARATION by William H. Brown III on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
122 DECLARATION by M. Christine Carty on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
123 DECLARATION by Gary M. Tocci on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
124 DECLARATION by Lisa S. Smith on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 13 of 53

02/27/1996
02/27/1996
02/28/1996
03/07/1996 03/07/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/11/1996 03/14/1996 03/14/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996

02/28/1996)
125 DECLARATION by James M. Finberg on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
126 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [125−1], declaration [124−1], declaration [123−1], declaration [122−1], declaration [121−1], motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
127 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting motion for attorneys William H. Brown III, M. Christine Carty, Gary M. Tocci, and Lisa S. Smith to appear pro hac vice [120−1] ( Date Entered: 2/29/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/29/1996)
128 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to motion for certification [116−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
129 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of opposition memorandum [128−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
130 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [117−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
131 DECLARATION by Suzan Shihabi on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition [130−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
132 DECLARATION by John F. Wymer, III on behalf of defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
133 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : designating additional Class Representatives (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/1996)
134 NOTICE by Plaintiffs and defendant of issuance of order designating additional class representatives [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
135 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [134−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
136 REPLY by LA Pltfs−intervenors to opposition to motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [117−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
137 PROOF OF SERVICE of motion reply [136−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
138 REPLY by defendant Home Depot to opposition to motion for certification [116−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
139 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion reply [138−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
140 STATEMENT of recent decision in support of motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [117−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
141 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of statement [140−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
142 STATEMENT OF NON−OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to use of generic documents by New Orleans pltfs and ntc of mootness [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1996)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 14 of 53

03/26/1996 03/26/1996 03/26/1996 03/29/1996
04/01/1996 04/02/1996 04/02/1996 04/08/1996 04/08/1996 04/12/1996 04/12/1996 04/22/1996 04/26/1996
04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996

143 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of lodging additional case authority in support of request for certification of class certification order [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
144 RESPONSE by Louisiana Pltfs−Intervenors re opposition [142−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
145 PROOF OF SERVICE of response [144−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
146 MINUTES: ( C/R L. Mankiewicz) Mtns hearing held 3/29/96; finding the motion to intervene to seek modification of confidentiality order [117−1] moot.; that the motion for certification [116−1] is submitted; Court to prepare order [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
147 LETTER dated 3/28/96 from Lisa S. Smith re settlement of confidentiality order issue [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
148 THIRD JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
149 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of statement case mangement [148−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
150 MINUTES: ( C/R none) case mgmt conference held 4/4/96 Deadline for all motion filings is 4/26/96; opposition due 5/3/96; All motions will be heard by 11:00 5/17/96 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/1996)
151 MODIFIED STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : for protective order SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/1996)
152 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of issuance of stipulated order re modified confidentiality [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
153 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [152−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
154 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of lodging additional case authority [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
155 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification with Notice set for 5/17/96 9:00 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
156 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
157 MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot re ntc to and communication with class members and projected milestone dates for discovery and trial [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
RECEIVED Order ( defendant Home Depot ) re: [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
158 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff memorandum [157−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
159 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
160 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff re pretrial and trial procedures [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
161 DECLARATION by Lisa Dungan on behalf of Plaintiff re memorandum [160−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 15 of 53

04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/29/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/17/1996 05/20/1996 05/21/1996 05/21/1996
05/22/1996 05/22/1996 05/22/1996 05/23/1996 05/23/1996 05/24/1996

162 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT and evidence by Plaintiff re pltfs' briefs submitted after 4/5/96 case mgmt conference [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
163 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of memorandum [158−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
164 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
165 REPLY by Plaintiff re memorandum re pre−trial and trial procedures [157−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
166 REPLY by Plaintiff re motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
167 REPLY by Plaintiff re memorandum re communications with class members [157−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
168 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of reply [167−1], reply [166−1], reply [165−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
169 REPLY by defendant Home Depot re memorandum re trial scheduling proposal [157−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
170 BRIEF FILED by defendant Home Depot regarding ntc to class members [157−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
171 REPLY by defendant Home Depot to opposition to motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
172 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
173 MINUTES: ( C/R Roberta Rogers) Mtn hearing held 5/17/96; granting motion for permission to depose declarants in support of class certification [155−1]; Court will issue notice [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/1996)
174 PROPOSED NOTICES to the class by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1996)
175 DECLARATION by Cynthia E. Gitt on behalf of defendant Home Depot re correspondence between counsel and misrepresentations of pltf's counsel and re consent to interview Dept. Supervisor T. Green [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1996)
176 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of lodging additional case authority in support of certification of class [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
177 LETTER dated 5/21/96 from James M. Finberg re modification of consent to interview form [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
178 LETTER dated 5/22/96 from Thomas P. Brown IV and Cynthia E. Gitt re ntc and consent to be interviewed forms [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
179 RESPONSE by Plaintiff re declaration [175−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
180 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of response [179−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
181 NOTICE by defendant of lodging of additional case authority re: class certification motion [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/28/1996)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 16 of 53

05/28/1996 05/30/1996
05/30/1996 06/05/1996 06/10/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996 06/20/1996 06/25/1996 06/25/1996 06/26/1996
07/02/1996 07/02/1996

182 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of additional authority re: class certification [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
183 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying motion for certification [116−1] denying request for bifurcating , Discovery cutoff set for 4/4/97 ; Pretrial conference set for 9/2/97 ; Jury trial will be held 9/22/97 ; ( Date Entered: 5/31/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
184 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston for proper notice regulating communications with class members ( Date Entered: 5/31/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
185 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/17/96 ( C/R: Roberta L. Rogers) minutes [173−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
186 LETTER dated 6/6/96 from James M. Finberg requesting Mag−Judge Brazil to oversee discovery matters [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1996)
187 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot to stay of order directing notice to class members memorandum thereof attached [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
188 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Home Depot ) re: motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
189 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of order received [0−0], declaration [188−1], motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
190 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
191 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiff re opposition [190−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
192 LETTER dated 6/19/96 from Thomas P. Brown IV requesting Court to grant deft's mtn for stay of order directing notice to class [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
193 REPLY by defendant Home Depot to opposition to motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
194 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying motion to stay of order directing notice to class members [187−1] ( Date Entered: 6/26/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1996)
195 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of stipulation and proposed order incorporating claims alleged in amended and supplemental EEOC charges [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/1996)
196 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : for incorporation of claims alleged in Plaintiffs Butler, Ellis, et al.'s amended and supplemental EEOC charges into complaint (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
197 NOTICE by Plaintiff of change of firm name [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
198 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [197−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/03/1996)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 17 of 53

07/28/1996 07/29/1996 08/08/1996 08/21/1996 09/18/1996
09/27/1996 09/27/1996 09/27/1996 10/24/1996 10/24/1996 11/01/1996 11/05/1996 11/05/1996
11/25/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/30/1996 01/02/1997 01/02/1997 01/03/1997

429 TRIAL EXHIBIT list of Stage I by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
420 SUMMARY of Argument and evidence by Plaintiff in support of opposition [417−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
199 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2:30 9/27/96 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
200 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 3:30 10/30/96 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
201 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: denying defendant's motion for leave to file additional case authority; denying CA Employment Law Council's motion for leave to file amici curiae brief; denying petition for writ of mandamus [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1996)
202 DESIGNATION OF ANTICIPATED STAGE I NON−EXPERT TRIAL WITNESS(ES) submitted by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
203 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of list [202−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
204 DESIGNATION OF LIST OF ANTICIPATED STAGE I WITNESS(ES) submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
205 FOURTH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed. [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
206 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of statement case mangement [205−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
207 MINUTES: ( C/R K. Wyatt) Case management conference held 10/31/96; plaintiff to file amended witness list 11/22/96; defendant's list due 1/31/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
208 AMENDED MINUTES: ( C/R K. Wyatt) Further case managment conference held 10/31/96 [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
209 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 4th Case management conference by Judge Susan Illston Case Management Conference set for 2:30 1/31/97 SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS ( Date Entered: 11/6/96) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
210 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiff re list [202−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
211 JOINT REPORT by Plaintiff and defendant re suggestions of Court−appointed expert, streamlined presentation of evidence for trial, and status of rule 30 depositions [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
212 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of report [211−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
213 LETTER dated 12/24/96 from Thomas P. Brown IV re ex parte communication between plaintiff's counsel &court [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/31/1996)
RECEIVED stipulation re consent to be interviewed forms &schedule for expert reports &lay discovery cut−off submitted by Plaintiff, defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
216 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of stipulation re consent [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
214 ADDENDUM filed by Plaintiff to [210−1], list [202−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/06/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 18 of 53

01/06/1997 01/06/1997 01/08/1997 01/08/1997 01/16/1997 01/17/1997 01/21/1997 01/24/1997 01/24/1997 01/24/1997 01/24/1997 01/28/1997
01/29/1997 01/29/1997 02/03/1997 02/10/1997
02/14/1997 02/19/1997 02/27/1997

215 LETTER dated 1/2/97 from Thomas P. Brown IV and James M. Finberg re proposed discovery order [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
217 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : Discovery cutoff set for 4/18/97 ; cutoff date for expert discovery is 3/21/97 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
218 NOTICE by Plaintiff and defendant of issuance of order re consent to be interviewed forms &schedule for expert reports &lay discovery cut−off [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
219 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [218−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
220 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [217−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
221 AMENDMENT by defendant Home Depot to list [204−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
222 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : re trial witness disclosure &timing of exchange of expert report (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
223 FIFTH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed. [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
224 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of statement case mangement [223−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
225 NOTICE by Plaintiffs and defendant of issuance of order re trial witness disclosure [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
226 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [225−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
227 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: granting Michael A. Scarlett's application for exemption from restriction on practice; Scarlett may participate in litigation; denying Scarlett's application for exemption from restriction on practice in appeal #96−70495 as moot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
228 LETTER dated 1/22/97 from Mary Chlopecki re amicus curiae brief [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
229 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2:30 2/7/97 ; [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/1997)
230 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Home Depot re statement case mangement [223−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
231 MINUTES: (C/R Judi Dudeck) Further case management conference − held, case continued to 3/26/97 at 3:00 p.m. for hearing regarding evidentiary/scope of phase 1 issues/further conference ; the court will specially schedule any Daubert motions; plaintiff will respond to the contention interrogatories this week; once defendant has had a chance to review the interrogatories, they will be in a better position to discuss further scheduling issues [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
232 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/7/97 ( C/R: J. Dudeck) minutes [231−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/1997)
233 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL by defendant Home Depot re list [204−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
234 SECOND SUPPLEMENT by defendant Home Depot re list [204−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 19 of 53

03/03/1997 03/06/1997 03/11/1997 03/18/1997
03/18/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997

235 LETTER dated /19/96 from Thomas P. Brown IV re petition for writ of mandamus [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
236 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENT by defendant Home Depot re witness list [204−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
237 LETTER dated 3/7/97 from Morris J. Baller re writ of certiorari [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/1997)
238 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : Discovery cutoff set for 4/18/97 ; Deadline for DAUBERT motions re sociology experts is 5/7/97; opposition due 5/21/97; reply due 5/28/97 ; All motions will be heard by 3:00 6/11/97 ; cutoff date for expert discovery is 5/30/97; summary judgment motions due 6/20/97; DAUBERT motions re experts due 5/21/97; opposition due 6/4/97; replies due 6/11/97; motion hearing on 7/9/97 3:00 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
239 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [238−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
240 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/30/96 ( C/R: K. Wyatt) minutes [207−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
RECEIVED Memorandum of Points &Authorities re evidentiary issues submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
241 FIRST DECLARATION by Angel Manzano Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot re memorandum re evidentiary issues [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
242 SECOND DECLARATION by Angel Manzano Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot re memorandum re evidentiary issues [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
243 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of declaration [242−1], declaration [241−1], document received [0−0] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
244 NOTICE by Plaintiff, defendant of issuance of order re modifying pretrial schedule [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
245 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [244−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
246 MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot re evidentiary issues [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
247 EXHIBITS re memorandum [246−1] VIDEO TAPE EXCERPTS [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
248 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot for attorney Marian Exall to appear pro hac vice [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
249 DECLARATION by Marian Exall on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for attorney Marian Exall to appear pro hac vice [248−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
250 REPORT of Richard Drogin Ph.D. by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) Modified on 03/24/1997 (Entered: 03/24/1997)
251 REPORT of William T. Bielby Ph.D by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
252 REPORT of Professor Susan T. Fiske by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
253 REPORT of Marc Bendick Jr. Ph.D by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 20 of 53

03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997
03/21/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997
03/25/1997 03/25/1997 03/26/1997 03/31/1997
03/31/1997 03/31/1997 04/04/1997 04/07/1997
04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/23/1997 04/23/1997

254 REPORT of Mary C. Gentile Ph.D by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
255 REPORT of Carl C. Hoffman Ph.D by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
256 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [255−1], notice [254−1], notice [253−1], notice [252−1], notice [251−1], notice [250−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
263 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : re evidentiary hearing (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
257 RESPONSE by Plaintiff re memorandum [246−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
258 DECLARATION by Jonathan D. Selbin on behalf of Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
259 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [258−1], response [257−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
260 REPORT of Carl C. Hoffman Ph.D by Plaintiff [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
261 LETTER dated 3/24/97 from Jamie Daniels re original signatures for expert reports [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
262 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting motion for attorney Marian Exall to appear pro hac vice [248−1] ( Date Entered: 3/25/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
264 SECOND SUPPLEMENT &amendment by Plaintiff re list [202−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
265 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of [264−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
266 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot re evidence of diversity initiative [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1997)
267 MINUTES: (C/R Judi Dudeck) defendant's motions in limine re: evidence − submitted; order to be prepared by court [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1997)
268 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs regarding evidentiary issues [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1997)
269 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of supplemental memorandum [268−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1997)
270 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [262−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
271 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant re: evidence of sexual harassment [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
272 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1997)
273 REPORTS OF EXPERTS by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1997)
274 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/26/97 ( C/R: M. Barron) minutes [267−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
275 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston Deadline for motion for summary judgment re applicant class is 6/2/97; opposition due 6/16/97; reply due 6/23/97; motion will be heard by 9:00 7/11/97; Summary judgment motion re successful applicants and/or for class decertification due 7/15/97; opposition due 7/29/97; reply due 8/5/97;

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 21 of 53

04/24/1997 04/28/1997 04/30/1997 05/05/1997 05/05/1997 05/05/1997 05/07/1997
05/07/1997
05/08/1997 05/09/1997 05/19/1997 05/20/1997 05/20/1997 05/20/1997 05/20/1997 05/20/1997

hearing held 8/22/97 9:00; Plaintiffs' Stage I trial statements, trial witnesses and exhibits due 7/25/97; Stage I motions in limine due 8/22/97 ( Date Entered: 4/25/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
276 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston: denying defendant's motion to exclude categories of evidence identified in its brief ( Date Entered: 4/25/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
277 LETTER dated 4/24/97 from Cynthia E. Gitt re decision from 5th Circuit Court of Appeals re CHEVRON USA INC. [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
278 LETTER dated 4/30/97 from James M. Finberg re discovery dispute [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
RECEIVED stipulation modifying pretrial schedule submitted by Plaintiff, defendant, [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
279 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of document received [0−0] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
280 LETTER dated 5/2/97 from Thomas P. Brown IV re plaintiff's request for defendant's database [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
281 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston for defendants to provide access to computerized application data on condition that plaintiffs pay $100,000.00 in costs for database ( Date Entered: 5/8/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
282 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : further modifying pretrial schedule; Defendant's limited supplemental expert reports from Drs. GUTEK, CULBERT, SAAD &STOIKOV due 5/19/97; DAUBERT motions due 6/4/97; Defendants rebuttals re FISKE &GENTILE analyses due 6/9/97; opposition to DAUBERT motions due 6/18/97; plaintiffs' supplemental &rebuttal expert reports due 6/18/97; replys re DAUBERT motions due 6/25/97; plaintiffs' rebuttal reports from Drs. FISKE OR GENTILE due 6/30/97; defendant's sur−rebuttal expert report due 7/3/97; motion hearing will be held 7/9/97 3:00; deadline to depose experts is 7/31/97 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
283 LETTER dated 5/7/97 from James M. Finberg re production of computerized data [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
284 OBJECTIONS by defendant Home Depot to [264−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
285 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Home Depot re notice [273−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
286 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff to compel continuance of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
287 DECLARATION by Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to compel continuance of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant [286−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
288 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff to compel discovery [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
289 DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to compel discovery [288−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
290 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [289−1], motion to compel discovery [288−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (wk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 22 of 53

05/27/1997 05/27/1997 05/27/1997 05/27/1997 05/27/1997 05/29/1997 05/29/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997
06/02/1997

291 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to expedited motion to re−open the rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Home Depot, Inc. [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1997)
292 DECLARATION of Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its opposition [291−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1997)
293 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to expedited motion to compel production of photograph of Randy Womack [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1997)
294 DECLARATION of Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its opposition [293−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1997)
295 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. of documents #:291−294 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1997)
296 REPLY by Plaintiff re motion to compel continuance of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant [286−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
297 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiff re reply [296−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
298 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of association of attorney Fred T. Alvarez of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &ROSATI [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
299 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot for partial summary judgment , and/or decertification of applicant class claims with Notice set for 7/11/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
300 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], of motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
301 STATEMENT of uncontroverted facts and supporting evidence by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], in support of motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
302 DECLARATION by Suzan N. Shibahi on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], re motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
303 DECLARATION by Marian Exall on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], re motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
304 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown IV on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], re motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
305 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of declaration [304−1], declaration [303−1], declaration [302−1], statement [301−1], memorandum [300−1], motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2], attorney [298−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Home Depot ) granting motion for partial summary judgment and/or decertificaion of applicant class claims. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 23 of 53

06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/05/1997 06/05/1997

306 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. with Notice set for 3:00 p.m. on 7/9/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
307 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 1: motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
308 DECLARATION of Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 1: motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
309 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. with Notice set 3:00 p.m. on 7/9/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
310 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 2: motion to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. [309−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
311 DECLARATION of Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 2: motion to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. [309−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
312 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. with Notice set 3:00 p.m. on 7/9/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
313 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 3: motion to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. [312−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
314 DECLARATION of Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No.3: motion to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. [312−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
315 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. with Notice set 3:00 p.m. on 7/9/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
316 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 4: motion to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. [315−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
317 DECLARATION of Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its Daubert Motion No. 4: motion to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. [315−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
318 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. of documents #: 306−317 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
319 LETTER dated 5/29/97 from Frank Sarro re motion in related action in Fresno [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/06/1997)
320 Supplemental OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion to expedited motion to re−open of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant [286−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
321 DECLARATION by I. Benjamin Blady on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition [320−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/09/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 24 of 53

06/05/1997 06/05/1997 06/05/1997 06/05/1997 06/06/1997 06/09/1997
06/13/1997 06/13/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997
06/16/1997
06/16/1997
06/16/1997
06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997

322 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of opposition [320−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
324 SUPPLEMENTAL by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to its opposition [291−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
325 DECLARATION of I. Benjamin Blady on behalf of defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in support of its opposition [291−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
326 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. of documents #:324−325 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
323 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston re length and timing of Daubert Motion: (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
327 REQUEST by defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Mike Rockhold for interpretation of whether class certification order bars claims of plaintiffs Tammi Fiori and Rosie Terrones in accordance with the order and directive of the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of California [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
328 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of order [323−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
RECEIVED Stipulation re plaintiffs' opposition to Daubert motions [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
329 COUNTER−MOTION by Plaintiffs based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
330 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Plaintiffs in support of counter−motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) Modified on 06/18/1997 (Entered: 06/18/1997)
331 SUMMARY of Argument by Plaintiffs in support of counter− motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) Modified on 06/18/1997 (Entered: 06/18/1997)
332 DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiff re counter−motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
333 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1], memorandum [330−1], summary of argument [331−1], declaration [332−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
334 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendant's statement of uncontroverted facts [301−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
335 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
336 SUMMARY of Argument by Plaintiffs re defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], in support of motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
337 DECLARATION by Richard Drogin, Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
338 DECLARATION by Carl C. Hoffmann, Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 25 of 53

06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/17/1997 06/17/1997 06/17/1997 06/17/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997

339 DECLARATION by Michelle Alexander on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
340 DECLARATION by William T. Bielby on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
341 DECLARATION by Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
342 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of response [334−1], opposition memorandum [335−1], summary of argument [336−1], declaration [337−1], declaration [338−1], declaration [339−1], declaration [340−1], declaration [341−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
343 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
377 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge : Plaintiffs may file a single brief not to exceed 65 pages in opposition to defendant Home Depot's four Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Vicki Butler ) granting plaintiffs' counter−motion for an inference in favor of pla's based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) denying Home Depot's motion for partial summary judgment and/or decertificaiton of applicant class claims. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
344 DECLARATION by Marc Bendick on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
345 DECLARATION by Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [299−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
346 NOTICE by defendant of issuance of order re: plaintiffs' opposition to Daubert motions [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
347 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of notice [346−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
348 CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to defendant Home Depot's Four Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
349 DECLARATION of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of their opposition [348−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
350 DECLARATION of Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of their opposition [348−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
351 DECLARATION of Jonathan D. Selbin on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of their opposition [348−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 26 of 53

06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/20/1997 06/20/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/24/1997 06/24/1997 06/24/1997 06/25/1997
06/25/1997 06/27/1997

352 SUMMARY OR ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition [348−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
353 DECLARATION of David A. Thomas, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to Home Depot's Daubert motion re Dr. Mary Gentile [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
354 DECLARATION of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to Home Depot's Daubert Motion No. 3 to exclude his expert testimony [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
355 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of documents #:348−354 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
356 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of stipulation &proposed order further modifying schedule for rebuttal, sur−rebuttal &supplemental expert reports [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
724 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and/or class decertification. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
725 amended DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of pla's opposition. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
360 RESPONSE by defendant to motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
361 OBJECTIONS by defendant to evidence re: class decertification or summary judgment [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
362 REPLY by defendant to opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [299−1], motion decertification of applicant class claims [299−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
363 DECLARATION by Thomas P. Brown on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion reply [362−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
364 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of declaration [363−1], motion reply [362−1], objection [361−1], motion response [360−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
357 STATEMENT of recent decision by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
358 DECLARATION by David S. Thomas Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to Home Depot's Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
359 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [358−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
365 CONSOLIDATED REPLY by defendant Home Depot to opposition to motion to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. [315−1], motion to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. [312−1], motion to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. [309−1], motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order to exceed page limit( defendant Home Depot ) re: motion reply [365−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1997)
366 REPLY by Plaintiffs re counter−motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 27 of 53

06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/30/1997
06/30/1997 06/30/1997 07/01/1997 07/01/1997 07/02/1997
07/02/1997 07/03/1997 07/03/1997 07/07/1997 07/08/1997 07/08/1997 07/11/1997

367 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of reply [366−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
368 SUPPLEMENTAL AND REBUTTAL REPORT of Marc Bendick, Jr. Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
369 SUPPLEMENTAL AND REBUTTAL REPORT of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
370 REBUTTAL REPORT of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
371 REBUTTAL REPORT of Carl C. Hoffmann, Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
372 REPORT of Kathleen K. Lundquist, Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
373 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of report [372−1], report [371−1], report [370−1], report [369−1], report [368−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
374 STATEMENT by defendant Home Depot re request for interpretation of whether the class certification order bars the claims of Tammy Fiori and Rosie Terrones presently pending in the Eastern District [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
375 REBUTTAL REPORT of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
376 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of report [375−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
378 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : modifying schedule for rebuttal, sur−rebuttal, and supplemental expert reports (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
379 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : that Home Depot may file a single brief not to exceed 35 pages (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
380 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying plaintiffs' motion to compel production of photo, granting plaintiff's motion to compel continuance of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant [286−1] ( Date Entered: 7/9/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
381 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston re request for interpretation of class certification order (see Order for specifics) ( Date Entered: 7/9/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
382 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of issuance of order re further modifying schedule for rebuttal, sur−rebuttal, and supplemental expert reports [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
383 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [382−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
384 RESPONSE by Plaintiff to defendants' statement re request for interpretation of order [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
385 LETTER dated 7/7/97 from Thomas P. Brown IV re discovery dispute, with attachments [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
386 LETTER dated 7/8/97 from Jonathan Selbin re: case cite [3:94−cv−04335] (ml, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/11/1997)
387 SUPPLEMENTAL POST−HEARING CITATIONS by defendant Home Depot re daubert motion re Susan Fiske [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/14/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 28 of 53

07/14/1997 07/14/1997 07/14/1997 07/14/1997
07/14/1997 07/14/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997
07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997

388 LETTER dated 7/11/97 from James M. Finberg in response to Home Depot's letter of 7/7/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
389 LETTER dated 7/14/97 from Jonathan Selbin in response to supplemental post hearing citations of deft. [3:94−cv−04335] (mt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
390 MINUTES: ( C/R Judi Dudeck) hearing held on 7/11/97 and the motion for partial summary judgment [299−1] is submitted [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
391 MINUTES: ( C/R Kathy Wyatt)hearing held on 7/9/97, and that the motion to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. [315−1] is submitted, that the motion to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. [312−1] is submitted, that the motion to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. [309−1] is submitted, that the motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] is submitted [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
392 DEPOSITION of Alba Laura Flores Ruiz taken on the following date(s): March 11, 1997 in Los Angeles, California. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
393 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of letter brief [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
394 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot for summary judgment , and/or to decertify class action with Notice set for 8/22/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
395 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for summary judgment [394−1], of motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
396 MEMORANDUM by defendant Home Depot in support of motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
397 STATEMENT of facts and supporting evidence by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for summary judgment [394−1], in support of motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
398 DECLARATION by Cynthia E. Gitt on behalf of defendant Home Depot re motion for summary judgment [394−1], re motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
399 VOLUME I OF EXHIBITS re declaration [398−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
400 VOLUME II OF EXHIBITS re declaration [398−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
401 VOLUME III OF EXHIBITS re declaration [398−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
402 VOLUME IV OF EXHIBITS re declaration [398−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
403 VOLUME V OF EXHIBITS re declaration [398−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Home Depot ) re: motion for summary judgment [394−1], re: motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
404 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of order received [0−0], exhibits [403−1], exhibits [402−1], exhibits [401−1], exhibits [400−1], exhibits [399−1], declaration [398−1], statement [397−1], memorandum [396−1], memorandum [395−1], motion for summary judgment [394−1], motion to decertify class action

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 29 of 53

07/16/1997 07/17/1997 07/18/1997 07/21/1997 07/21/1997
07/23/1997
07/25/1997 07/28/1997 07/28/1997 07/29/1997
07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997

[394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
407 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of Scheduling order extending cutoff date for deposition of expert witnesses [406−1], order [406−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
405 corrected MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for summary judgment [394−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
406 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : extending cutoff date for deposition of expert witnesses (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
408 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of supplemental declaration of Trina N. Parker in support of counter−motion [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
409 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiff re motion based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applications for an inference in favor of plaintiffs [329−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
410 LETTER dated 7/15/97from Sandra L. Siciliano, Office Administrator re confirmation of telephone conversation to allow Epstein Becker &Green access to Courtroom 4 on Wednesday, September 3, 1997 from noon until 5:00p.m. and Thursday, September 4, 1997 from 9:00a.m. to 5:00p.m. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
411 LIST OF STAGE I WITNESS(ES) submitted by Plaintiff and trial statements. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
412 AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED LIST OF STAGE I WITNESS(ES) submitted by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
413 PROOF OF SERVICE of stipulation and proposed order further modifying pretrial schedule. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
414 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : Plaintiffs shall file and serve Stage I list of trial witness for class representative and class members on July 25, 1997; Plaintiffs shall file and serve Stage I list of trial statements of anticipated witnesses on July 28, 1997; Defendants shall file and serve Stage I list of trial statements and witnesses on August 11, 1997 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
417 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
418 DECLARATION by Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiffs re opposition [417−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
419 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiffs of Federal cases not included in official reporter's and cited in Plaintiffs opposition. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
421 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of documents [419−1], declaration [418−1], opposition [417−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
422 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to Home Depot's statement [397−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
423 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to Home Depot's motion for summary judgment [394−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
424 SUMMARY of Argument and evidence by Plaintiffs in support of opposition memorandum [423−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 30 of 53

07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/29/1997 07/30/1997 07/31/1997
07/31/1997
07/31/1997 07/31/1997 08/04/1997 08/05/1997
08/06/1997 08/06/1997 08/06/1997 08/06/1997 08/06/1997 08/06/1997

07/31/1997)
425 DECLARATION by Richard Drogin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
426 DECLARATION by Rosanne Mah on behalf of Plaintiffs re opposition memorandum [423−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
427 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [426−1], declaration [425−1], statement [424−1], opposition memorandum [423−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
430 LETTER dated 7/28/97 from Morris J. Baller re informing that Aaron D. Kaufman will be joining their firm as an associate. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
428 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
415 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston re: Plaintiff's Kathleen Lundquist, Ph.D rebuttal report. The Court agrees that Dr. Lundquist expresses opinions in her report that my properly be described as rebuttal opinions. The Court therefore declines to strike Dr. Lundquist's report in its entirety. ( Date Entered: 7/31/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
416 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying motion to exclude the testimony of Carl C. Hoffman, Ph.D. [315−1], denying motion to exclude the testimony of William T. Bielby, Ph.D. [312−1], denying motion to exclude the testimony of Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D. [309−1], denying motion to exclude the testimony of Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D. [306−1] ( Date Entered: 7/31/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
431 REQUEST by Plaintiffs to file supplemental evidence in opposition to Home Depot's Four Daubert Motions [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
432 DECLARATION by Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiff re request [431−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
434 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of stipulation and order [433−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/07/1997)
433 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : continuing date to 8/6/97 for Home Depot to file and serve a reply brief in support of Home Depot's motion for summary judgment ; discovery cutoff for depositions of expert witnesses shall be continued to 9/5/97 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/07/1997)
435 REPLY by Home Depot in support of it's motion for summary judgment [394−1] motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
436 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Home Depot in support of motion for summary judgment [394−1], of motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
437 SUMMARY of Argument by defendant Home Depot in support of response [435−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
438 DECLARATION by Suzan N. Shihabi on behalf of defendant Home Depot re response [435−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
439 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Cynthia E. Gitt on behalf of defendant Home Depot re response [435−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) Modified on 08/11/1997 (Entered: 08/11/1997)
440 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of declaration [438−1], statement [437−1], memorandum [436−1], response [435−1], declaration [439−1]

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 31 of 53

08/06/1997 08/07/1997 08/07/1997 08/07/1997 08/07/1997 08/14/1997
08/15/1997 08/18/1997 08/18/1997 08/18/1997 08/18/1997 08/19/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

[3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
441 OBJECTIONS/RESPONSES by defendant Home Depot to motion for summary judgment [394−1], motion to decertify class action [394−2] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
442 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of issuance of stipulation and order. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
443 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of notice [442−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
444 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Rosanne Mah on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' opposition to Home Depot's motion for summary judgment. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
445 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [444−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
446 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : Pre−Trial dates shall be modified as follows: 8/11/97 − Defendant shall provide plaintiffs with its Stage I Trial Witnesses; Plaintiffs will serve defendant with proposed jury instructions; 8/13/97 − Defendant shall provide plaintiffs with its Stage I Trial Exhibits; 8/15/97 − Defendants shall provide plaintiffs with its witness list with required witness statements, and exhibit list with sponsoring party; 8/18/97 − Parties to file and serve pre−trial conference order, with jury instructions, objections to exhibits, Motions in Limine; 8/25/97 − Parties to file statement of agreement/dispute as to proposed jury instructions; 8/29/97 − Parties to serve list of exhibits admissible by stipulation and exhibits which are objected to; 9/2/97 (no change) 9:30a.m. Pre−Trial Conference; 9/15/97 − Parties to serve Pre−Trial Briefs. (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1997)
447 AMENDED TRIAL WITNESS(ES) LIST submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
448 PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law on their disparate impact case. Illston (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
449 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiffs. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
450 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of jury [449−1], findings of fact [448−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
451 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS list of Stage I by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
452 JOINT FINAL PRE−TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiffs and defendant. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
453 SUBMISSION OF AND REQUEST by defendant Home Depot to file supplemental briefing and evidence re : defendant's applicant summary judgment motion [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
459 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff in limine No. 1 to exclude Annette Verschuren evidence [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
460 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiff re motion in limine No. 1 to exclude Annette Verschuren evidence [459−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
461 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of alleged solicitation and pecuniary motivation of plaintiffs' counsel [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
462 DECLARATION by Morris J. Baller on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of alleged solicitation and pecuniary motivation of

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 32 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

plaintiffs' counsel [461−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
463 DECLARATION by James M. Finberg on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of alleged solicitation and pecuniary motivation of plaintiffs' counsel [461−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
464 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of alleged solicitation and pecuniary motivation of plaintiffs' counsel [461−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
465 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 3 to exclude certain statements by non−testifying class members [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
466 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 3 to exclude certain statements by non−testifying class members [465−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
467 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 4 to exclude statements that plaintiffs seek, or references to "Quotas" [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
468 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 4 to exclude statements that plaintiffs seek, or references to "Quotas" [467−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
469 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 5 to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Samuel A. Culbert, Ph.D. [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
470 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 5 to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Samuel A. Culbert, Ph.D. [469−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
471 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 6 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's comminity service programs and its treatment of persons with disabilities [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
472 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 6 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's comminity service programs and its treatment of persons with disabilities [471−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
473 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 7 to exclude videotapes narrated by Dana Weinman [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
474 DECLARATION by Debra A. Smith on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 7 to exclude videotapes narrated by Dana Weinman [473−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
475 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 7 to exclude videotapes narrated by Dana Weinman [473−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
476 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 8 to exclude evidence of plaintiff Jacqueline Genero's alleged falsification of facts re: her pre−Home Depot Macy's Employment [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
477 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 8 to exclude evidence of plaintiff Jacqueline Genero's alleged falsification of facts re: her pre−Home Depot Macy's Employment [476−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 33 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

478 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 9 to exclude certain evidence re: plaintiff Sheryle Jones [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
479 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 9 to exclude certain evidence re: plaintiff Sheryle Jones [478−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
480 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff in limine No. 10 to exclude evidence of Cheryl Williams' prior criminal conviction(s) [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
481 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 10 to exclude evidence of Cheryl Williams' prior criminal conviction(s) [480−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
482 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff in limine No. 11 to exclude evidence of evidence of plaintiff Jamie Wilson's prior claims [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
483 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 11 to exclude evidence of evidence of plaintiff Jamie Wilson's prior claims [482−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
484 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 12 to exclude evidence of class member Denise Adams' consensual relationships [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
485 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 12 to exclude evidence of class member Denise Adams' consensual relationships [484−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
486 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 13 to exclude evidence re: class member Lisa Hubbard−Snook's post−Home Depot employment [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
487 DECLARATION by Lisa M. Dungan on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 13 to exclude evidence re: class member Lisa Hubbard−Snook's post−Home Depot employment [486−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
488 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiffs setting motions in limine No. 1 through No. 13 [459−1], [461−1], [465−1], [467−1], [469−1], [471−1], [473−1], [476−1], [478−1], [480−1], [482−1], [484−1], [486−1]; hearing set for 10:00 9/2/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
489 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of thirteen motions in limine [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
490 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 14 to exclude evidence, comment or argument by defendant Home Depot that Home Depot relies on prior pay to make compensation decisions [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
491 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 15 to exclude the testimony of defense witnesses who were never previously identified on defendant's trial witness list [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
492 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff in limine No. 16 to exclude the testimony of defenses witnesses whom defendant failed to make available for deposition despite plaintiffs' requests to depose them [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
493 DECLARATION by Kelly M. Dermody on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 16 to exclude the testimony of defenses witnesses whom defendant failed to make available for deposition despite plaintiffs' requests to depose them [492−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 34 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

494 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 17 to prohibit defendant from introducing into evidence or making comment or argument re: documents defendant Home Depot failed to produce to plaintiffs until 8/14/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
495 DECLARATION by Kelly M. Dermody on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 17 to prohibit defendant from introducing into evidence or making comment or argument re: documents defendant Home Depot failed to produce to plaintiffs until 8/14/97 [494−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
496 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 18 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's overall hiring rate of women being greater than applicant flow [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
497 DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 18 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's overall hiring rate of women being greater than applicant flow [496−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
498 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 19 to admit second supplemental and amended report of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Marc Bendick, Jr. [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
499 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 20 for an inference in favor of plaintiffs based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applicants [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
500 DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 20 for an inference in favor of plaintiffs based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applicants [499−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
501 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 21 to exclude surrebuttal report to Dr. Lundquist and to limit the opinions and analyses of Drs. Rosen and Lazear to those set forth in their reports dated 4/18/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
502 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine No. 22 to exclude Home Depot's expert witness Janis Martinez [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
503 DECLARATION by Trina N. Parker on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion in limine No. 22 to exclude Home Depot's expert witness Janis Martinez [502−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
504 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff in limine No. 23 to (1) strike trial witnesses; or (2) make trial witnesses available for deposition [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
505 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiffs setting motions in limine No. 14 through No. 23 [490−1], [491−1], [492−1], [494−1], [496−1], [498−1], [499−1], [501−1], [502−1], [504−1]; hearing set for 10:00 9/2/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
506 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of motions in limine No. 14 through No. 23 [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
507 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND REBUTTAL REPORT of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
508 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine to excluding expert testimony concerning "chilling" [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
509 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine re: order of expert testimony [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 35 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

510 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Carl C. Hoffman concering plaintiffs' interests [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
511 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of motions in limine [508−1], [509−1], [510−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
512 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 1 to exclude certain testimony by Kerry Ashby [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
513 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 2 to exclude certain testimony by Melissa Aguirre [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
514 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 3 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Blackerby [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
515 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 4 to exclude certain testimony by Vicki Butler [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
516 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 5 to exclude certain testimony by Maria Caiola [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
517 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 6 to exclude certain testimony by Barbara Cassidy [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
518 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 7 to exclude certain testimony by Kimberly Cordova [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
519 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 8 to exclude certain testimony by Sherry Dennis [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
520 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 9 to exclude certain testimony by Shelley Edwards [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
521 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 10 to exclude certain testimony by Dave English [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
522 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 11 to exclude certain testimony by Teresa Frank [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
523 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 12 to exclude certain testimony by Bettina Geissler [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
524 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 13 to exclude certain testimony by Jacqueline Genero [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
525 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 14 to exclude certain testimony by Charlotte Giles [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
526 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 15 to exclude certain testimony by Heidi Giles [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
527 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 16 to exclude certain testimony by Nancy Grassy [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 36 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

528 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 17 to exclude certain testimonmy by Mark Hanna [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
529 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 18 to exclude certain testimony by Jean Hart [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
530 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 19 to exclude certain testimony by Greg Heck [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
531 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 20 to exclude certain testimony by David Jaber [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
532 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 21 to exclude certain testimony by Alan Jang [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
533 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 22 to exclude certain testimony by Sheryle Jones [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
534 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 23 to exclude certain testimony by Vicki Long [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
535 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 24 to exclude certain testimony by Karen Mathews [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
536 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 25 to exclude certain testimony by Dolline Murphy [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
537 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 26 to exclude certain testimony by Linda Nilsson [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
538 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 27 to exclude certain testimony by Callista Metzger Olivares [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
539 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 28 to exclude certain testimony by Sherry Payne [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
540 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 29 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Portzer [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
541 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 30 to exclude certain testimony by Denise Restivo [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
542 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 31 to exclude certain testimony by Cheryl Rogers [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
543 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No 32 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Ruffer [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
544 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 33 to exclude certain testimony by Deborah Russell [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 37 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997

545 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 34 to exclude certain testimony by Robin Russell [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
546 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 35 to exclude certain testimony by Dolores Salomon [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
547 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 36 to exclude certain testimony by Elizabeth Schinkel [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
548 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 37 to exclude certain testimony by Melody Sirias [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
549 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 38 to exclude certain testimony by Tracy Smith [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
550 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 39 to exclude certain testimony by Lisa Hubbard−Snook [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
551 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 40 to exclude certain testimony by Kimberly Stoddard [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
552 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 41 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Thompson [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
553 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 42 to exclude certain testimony by Katherine Toma [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
554 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 43 to exclude certain testimony by Kristine Vega [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
555 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 44 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Walker [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
556 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 45 to exclude certain testimony by Janet Watson [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
557 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 46 to exclude certain testimony by Reagan Wisham [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
558 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 47 to exclude certain testimony by Kathleen York [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
559 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 48 to exclude certain testimony by Monica Zubiate [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
560 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 49 to exclude certain testimony about Judith Stoidov's involvement in the Roberts v. Texaco litigation [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
561 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 50 to exclude expert testimony of Richard Drogin, Ph.D [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 38 of 53

08/22/1997 08/22/1997
08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/25/1997 08/25/1997 08/25/1997 08/25/1997 08/25/1997
08/25/1997

562 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 51 to exclude certain testimony by Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
563 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant re motion in limine No. 51 to exclude certain testimony by Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D [562−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
564 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 52 to exclude certain testimony by William T. Bielby, Ph.D [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
565 DECLARATION by Angel Manzano, Jr. on behalf of defendant re motion in limine No. 52 to exclude certain testimony by William T. Bielby, Ph.D [564−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
566 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 53 to exclude evidence relating to its diversity initiative or lack of affirmative action program [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
567 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 54 to exclude any questioning or testimony re: Home Depot, Inc. senior executives' compensation or stock holdings [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
568 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 55 to exclude certain testimony by Michael Rodr [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
569 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant in limine No. 56 to exclude expert testimony of marc Bendick, Jr. Ph.D [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
570 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by defendant in support of defendant's motions in limine re: anecdotal witnesses [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
571 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of motions in limine No. 1 through No. 56, memorandum [570−] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
572 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant for leave to file motion in limine under seal [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
573 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of [507−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
454 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to Home Depot's supplemental briefing re : defendant's applicant summary judgment motion [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
455 DECLARATION by Richard Drogin on behalf of Plaintiffs re response [454−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
456 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [455−1], response [454−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
457 SEPARATE JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
458 MINUTES: ( C/R Judi Dudeck) ( Hearing Date: 8/22/97) that defendant's motion for summary judgment [394−1] is submitted, that defendant's motion to decertify class action [394−2] is submitted [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
574 SEPARATE AND UNAGREED JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 39 of 53

08/25/1997 08/25/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 08/27/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

575 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to separate jury instructions [574−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
576 AGREED UPON JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiffs, defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
577 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot to file motion in limine under seal [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
578 AMENDED SEPARATE AND UNAGREED JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
579 OBJECTIONS AND REPLY by defendant Home Depot to plaintiffs' supplemental briefing re : defendant's applicant summary judgment motion [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
580 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by defendant Home Depot re : certification of the class because of limited remedies in mixed−motive cases [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
581 Sealed document by defendant Home Depot (Ex parte motion to file motion in limine) (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/1997)
583 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion in limine No. 1 to exclude certain testimony by Kerry Ashby [512−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
584 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 2 to exclude certain testimony by Melissa Aguirre [513−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
585 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 3 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Blackerby [514−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying defendant's motion in limine No. 3 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Blackerby [514−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
586 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 4 to exclude certain testimony by Vicki Butler [515−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
587 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 5 to exclude certain testimony by Maria Caiola [516−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 5 to exclude certain testimony by Maria Caiola [516−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
588 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 6 to exclude certain testimony by Barbara Cassidy [517−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 6 to exclude certain testimony by Barbara Cassidy [517−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
589 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 7 to exclude certain testimony by Kimberly Cordova [518−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 7 to exclude certain testimony by Kimberly Cordova [518−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 40 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

590 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 8 to exclude certain testimony by Sherry Dennis [519−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 8 to exclude certain testimony by Sherry Dennis [519−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
591 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 9 to exclude certain testimony by Shelley Edwards [520−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 9 to exclude certain testimony by Shelley Edwards [520−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
592 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 10 to exclude certain testimony by Dave English [521−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
593 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 11 to exclude certain testimony by Teresa Frank [522−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
594 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 12 to exclude certain testimony by Bettina Geissler [523−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 12 to exclude certain testimony by Bettina Geissler [523−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
595 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 13 to exclude certain testimony by Jacqueline Genero [524−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 13 to exclude certain testimony by Jacqueline Genero [524−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
596 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 14 to exclude certain testimony by Charlotte Giles [525−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 14 to exclude certain testimony by Charlotte Giles [525−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
597 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 15 to exclude certain testimony by Heidi Giles [526−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 15 to exclude certain testimony by Heidi Giles [526−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
598 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 16 to exclude certain testimony by Nancy Grassy [527−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 16 to exclude certain testimony by Nancy Grassy [527−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
599 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 17 to exclude certain testimonmy by Mark Hanna [528−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 41 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 17 to exclude certain testimonmy by Mark Hanna [528−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
600 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 18 to exclude certain testimony by Jean Hart [529−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 18 to exclude certain testimony by Jean Hart [529−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
601 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 19 to exclude certain testimony by Greg Heck [530−1] ; attched declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 19 to exclude certain testimony by Greg Heck [530−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
602 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 20 to exclude certain testimony by David Jaber [531−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 20 to exclude certain testimony by David Jaber [531−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
603 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 21 to exclude certain testimony by Alan Jang [532−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 21 to exclude certain testimony by Alan Jang [532−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
604 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 22 to exclude certain testimony by Sheryle Jones [533−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 22 to exclude certain testimony by Sheryle Jones [533−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
605 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 23 to exclude certain testimony by Vicki Long [534−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 23 to exclude certain testimony by Vicki Long [534−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
606 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 24 to exclude certain testimony by Karen Mathews [535−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 24 to exclude certain testimony by Karen Mathews [535−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
607 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 25 to exclude certain testimony by Dolline Murphy [536−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
608 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 26 to exclude certain testimony by Linda Nilsson [537−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 42 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

609 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 27 to exclude certain testimony by Callista Metzger Olivares [538−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
610 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 28 to exclude certain testimony by Sherry Payne [539−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
611 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 29 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Portzer [540−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 29 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Portzer [540−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
612 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 30 to exclude certain testimony by Denise Restivo [541−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 30 to exclude certain testimony by Denise Restivo [541−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
613 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 31 to exclude certain testimony by Cheryl Rogers [542−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 31 to exclude certain testimony by Cheryl Rogers [542−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
614 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No 32 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Ruffer [543−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
615 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No 32 to exclude certain testimony by Donna Ruffer [543−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
616 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 33 to exclude certain testimony by Deborah Russell [544−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
617 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 34 to exclude certain testimony by Robin Russell [545−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
618 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 35 to exclude certain testimony by Dolores Salomon [546−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 35 to exclude certain testimony by Dolores Salomon [546−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
619 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 36 to exclude certain testimony by Elizabeth Schinkel [547−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
620 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 37 to exclude certain testimony by Melody Sirias [548−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 37 to exclude certain testimony by Melody Sirias [548−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 43 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

621 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 38 to exclude certain testimony by Tracy Smith [549−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
622 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 39 to exclude certain testimony by Lisa Hubbard−Snook [550−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 39 to exclude certain testimony by Lisa Hubbard−Snook [550−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
623 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 40 to exclude certain testimony by Kimberly Stoddard [551−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
624 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 41 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Thompson [552−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 41 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Thompson [552−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
625 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 42 to exclude certain testimony by Katherine Toma [553−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
626 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 43 to exclude certain testimony by Kristine Vega [554−1] ; attached declaration of Kelly M. Dermody [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
627 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 44 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Walker [555−1] ; attached declaration of Trina N. Parker [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
628 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 44 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Walker [555−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 44 to exclude certain testimony by Annette Walker [555−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
629 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 45 to exclude certain testimony by Janet Watson [556−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 45 to exclude certain testimony by Janet Watson [556−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
630 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 46 to exclude certain testimony by Reagan Wisham [557−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 46 to exclude certain testimony by Reagan Wisham [557−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
631 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 47 to exclude certain testimony by Kathleen York [558−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 47 to exclude certain testimony by Kathleen York [558−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 44 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997
08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997
08/28/1997
08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

632 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 48 to exclude certain testimony by Monica Zubiate [559−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 48 to exclude certain testimony by Monica Zubiate [559−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
633 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 49 to exclude certain testimony about Judith Stoidov's involvement in the Roberts v. Texaco litigation [560−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 49 to exclude certain testimony about Judith Stoidov's involvement in the Roberts v. Texaco litigation [560−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
634 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 50 to exclude expert testimony of Richard Drogin, Ph.D [561−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 50 to exclude expert testimony of Richard Drogin, Ph.D [561−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
635 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 51 to exclude certain testimony by Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D [562−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
636 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 52 to exclude certain testimony by William T. Bielby, Ph.D [564−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
637 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 53 to exclude evidence relating to its diversity initiative or lack of affirmative action program [566−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 53 to exclude evidence relating to its diversity initiative or lack of affirmative action program [566−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
638 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 54 to exclude any questioning or testimony re: Home Depot, Inc. senior executives' compensation or stock holdings [567−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 54 to exclude any questioning or testimony re: Home Depot, Inc. senior executives' compensation or stock holdings [567−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
639 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion in limine No. 55 to exclude certain testimony by Michael Rodr [568−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) denying motion in limine No. 55 to exclude certain testimony by Michael Rodr [568−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
640 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 56 to exclude expert testimony of marc Bendick, Jr. Ph.D [569−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
641 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Carl C. Hoffman concerning plaintiffs' interests [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
642 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine No. 59 to exclude expert testimony concerning "Chilling" [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 45 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997
08/28/1997
08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) denying motion in limine No. 59 to exclude expert testimony concerning "Chilling" [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
643 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion in limine regarding order of expert testimony [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) denying motion in limine regarding order of expert testimony [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
644 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of oppositions to motions in limine and proposed Orders (see documents no. 583−643). [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
645 MEMORANDUM of law by Plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' oppositions to defendant's motions in limine Nos. 1 − 48 re plaintiffs' anecdotal witnesses [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
647 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by Plaintiff in opposition to Home Depot's supplemental brief re : decertification of the class because of limited remedies in mixed−motive cases [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/04/1997 (Entered: 09/04/1997)
648 AMENDMENT by Plaintiffs to amended and consolidated list of Stage I trial witnesses and trial statements pursuant to Local Rule 16−15(b) (4) (A) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/04/1997 (Entered: 09/04/1997)
646 DECLARATION by David Borgen on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of memorandum [645−1] and memoranda in oposition to defendant's motions in limine nos. 3,5,7,13,16,17,18,20,22,23,24,29,30,31,35,37,39,41,44,45,46 , 47,48,49,50,53,54,55,58 [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
649 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs' oppositions to defendant's motions in limine nos. 1−48 re plaintiffs' anecdotal witnesses and memorandum in opposition to defendant's motions in limine nos. 3,5,7,13,16,17,18,20,22,23,24,29,30,31,35,37,38,41,44,45,46 , 47,48,49,50,53,54,55,58 and declaration of David Borgen in support of oppositions. [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/04/1997 (Entered: 09/04/1997)
650 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 1 to exclude Annette Verschuren evidence [459−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
651 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of alleged solicitation and pecuniary motivation of plaintiffs' counsel [461−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
652 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 3 to exclude certain statements by non−testifying class members [465−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
653 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 4 to exclude statements that plaintiffs seek, or references to "Quotas" [467−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
654 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 5 to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Samuel A. Culbert, Ph.D. [469−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 46 of 53

08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997
08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997

655 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 6 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's comminity service programs and its treatment of persons with disabilities [471−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
656 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 7 to exclude videotapes narrated by Dana Weinman [473−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
657 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 8 to exclude evidence of plaintiff Jacqueline Genero's alleged falsification of facts re: her pre−Home Depot Macy's Employment [476−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
658 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 9 to exclude certain evidence re: plaintiff Sheryle Jones [478−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
659 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 10 to exclude evidence of Cheryl Williams' prior criminal conviction(s) [480−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
660 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 11 to exclude evidence of evidence of plaintiff Jamie Wilson's prior claims [482−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
661 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 12 to exclude evidence of class member Denise Adams' consensual relationships [484−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
662 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 13 to exclude evidence re: class member Lisa Hubbard−Snook's post−Home Depot employment [486−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
663 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 14 to exclude evidence, comment or argument by defendant Home Depot that Home Depot relies on prior pay to make compensation decisions [490−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
664 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 15 to exclude the testimony of defense witnesses who were never previously identified on defendant's trial witness list [491−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
665 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 16 to exclude the testimony of defenses witnesses whom defendant failed to make available for deposition despite plaintiffs' requests to depose them [492−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
666 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 18 to exclude certain testimony by Jean Hart [529−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
667 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 20 to exclude certain testimony by David Jaber [531−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
668 DECLARATION by Marian Exall on behalf of defendant Home Depot re opposition [667−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
669 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 21 to exclude surrebuttal report to Dr. Lundquist and to limit the opinions and analyses of Drs. Rosen and Lazear to those set forth in their reports dated 4/18/97 [501−1]

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 47 of 53

08/28/1997
08/28/1997
08/28/1997 08/29/1997
08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997 09/02/1997
09/03/1997 09/03/1997 09/03/1997 09/04/1997

[3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
670 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 22 to exclude Home Depot's expert witness Janis Martinez [502−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
671 OPPOSITION by defendant Home Depot to motion in limine No. 23 to (1) strike trial witnesses; or (2) make trial witnesses available for deposition [504−1] ; attached declaration of Thomas P. Brown IV [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
676 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motions in limine (see above #650 − #671) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
582 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying defendant's motion for summary judgment [394−1], denying defendant's motion to decertify class action [394−2], granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on employee class claims [299 1−2] ( Date Entered: 9/3/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
Text not available. (Entered: 09/03/1997)
672 OBJECTIONS by defendant Home Depot to plaintiffs' list of Stage I trial exhibits [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
673 Plaintiffs' list of Stage I trial exhibits NOT objected to by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
674 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendant's trial exhibits. [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
675 TRIAL EXHIBIT list by defendant Home Depot subject only to plaintiffs' general objections [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
677 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff to defendant's trial exhibits. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/05/1997)
RECEIVED defendant's proposed jury verdict form submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
RECEIVED defendant's proposed jury verdict form submitted by defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
680 MINUTES: ( C/R Rhonda L. Aquilina) ( Hearing Date: 9/2/97) Defendant's motion to exclude testimony re Chilling, Dr. Carl, C. Hoffman, re: order of expert testimony − Held. Pre−trial conference and motions in limine − Held in part. Counsel shall advise the court by 3:30p.m. today of their joint top 10 list of motions in limine. Additionally, counsel are to advise the court of their short list of potential mediators. Juror questionares shall be given to the prospective jury pool on the Monday prior to trial. Counsel shall bear cost of copying the juror questionaires. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
678 AMENDED SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendant's trial exhibits. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/05/1997)
679 AMENDED TRIAL EXHIBITS by defendant subject only to plaintiffs' general objections. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/05/1997)
681 STIPULATION AND JOINT PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONNAIRE submitted by Plaintiffs. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
682 REQUEST for a jury to Jury Division. Type of case: Class Action/Employment discrimination. This trial will begin on Monday, 9/22/97 at 8:30a.m. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 48 of 53

09/04/1997 09/05/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/08/1997 09/09/1997 09/09/1997
09/10/1997

683 LETTER dated 8/26/97 from Sandra L. Siciliano, Office Manager, confirming a telephone conversation wherein it was agreed that Epstein Becker &Green and its vendors will have access to Courtroom 4 on 8/27/97. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
684 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: September 2, 1997 ( C/R: Rhonda L. Aquilina) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
685 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Susan Illston by defendant Home Depot in limine to exclude evidence re the denial of opportunities outside of the Home Depot stores with Notice set for September 22, 1997 [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
686 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Vicki Butler in support of motion in limine No. 20 for an inference in favor of plaintiffs based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applicants [499−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
687 DECLARATION by Kelly M. Dermody on behalf of Plaintiffs re response [686−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
688 DECLARATION by Richard M. Drogin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs re response [686−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
689 SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion in limine re: order of expert testimony [509−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
690 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of opposition [689−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)
691 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [688−1], declaration [687−1], response [686−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
692 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of Frank Landy declaration and report [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
693 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting defendant's motion in limine No. 56 to exclude expert testimony of marc Bendick, Jr. Ph.D [569−1], denying defendant's motion in limine No. 53 to exclude evidence relating to its diversity initiative or lack of affirmative action program [566−1], granting in part defendant's motion in limine No. 52 to exclude certain testimony by William T. Bielby, Ph.D [564−1], denying plaintiff's motion in limine No. 23 to (1) strike trial witnesses; or (2) make trial witnesses available for deposition [504−1], denying plaintiff's motion in limine No. 14 to exclude evidence, comment or argument by defendant Home Depot that Home Depot relies on prior pay to make compensation decisions [490−1], granting plaintiff's motion in limine No. 6 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's comminity service programs and its treatment of persons with disabilities [471−1] (see Order for specifics) ( Date Entered: 9/12/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
694 MINUTES: ( C/R Diane Freeman) ( Hearing Date: 9/8/97) Further pretrial conference set for 1:30 9/15/97 ; denying defendant's motion in limine no. 59, that defendant's motion in limine no. 57 is submitted, granting defendant's motion in limine No. 56 to exclude expert testimony of marc Bendick, Jr. Ph.D [569−1], denying defendant's motion in limine No. 53 to exclude evidence relating to its diversity initiative or lack of affirmative action program [566−1], granting in part defendant's motion in limine No. 52 to exclude certain testimony by William T. Bielby, Ph.D [564−1], that plaintiff's motion in limine No. 51 to exclude certain testimony by Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D [562−1] is submitted, denying plaintiff's motion in limine No. 23 to (1) strike trial witnesses; or (2) make trial witnesses available for deposition [504−1], denying in part plaintiff's motion in limine No. 21 to exclude surrebuttal report to Dr. Lundquist and to limit the opinions and analyses of Drs. Rosen and Lazear to those set forth in their reports dated 4/18/97 [501−1], granting in part plaintiff's motion in limine No. 20 for an inference in favor of plaintiffs based on Home Depot's destruction of relevant applicants [499−1], denying plaintiff's motion in limine No. 14 to exclude evidence, comment or

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 49 of 53

09/10/1997 09/10/1997 09/12/1997 09/12/1997 09/15/1997
09/15/1997
09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/16/1997 09/16/1997 09/17/1997 09/17/1997

argument by defendant Home Depot that Home Depot relies on prior pay to make compensation decisions [490−1] granting plaintiff's motion in limine No. 6 to exclude evidence re: Home Depot's comminity service programs and its treatment of persons with disabilities [471−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
695 REPLY by defendant Home Depot re plaintiffs' supplemental opposition [689−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
696 DECLARATION AND REPORT by Frank J. Landy on behalf of defendant Home Depot [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
697 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion in limine to exclude evidence re the denial of opportunities outside of the Home Depot stores [685−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
698 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of opposition [697−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
699 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : directing parties to discuss the following motions at the hearing on 9/15/97 : A. Defendant's motion in limine no. 51 ; B. Defendant's motion in limine no. 52 ; C. Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 3 ; D. Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 8 ; E. Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 16 ( Date Entered: 9/16/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
700 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Home Depot in support of motion to reconsider the Court's 8/29/97 Order denying Home Depot's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' applicant class hiring and initial placement claims [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
701 DECLARATION by Seth R. Weissman on behalf of defendant Home Depot re memorandum [700−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
702 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of declaration [701−1], memorandum [700−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
703 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston re bringing equipment into the Courtroom ( Date Entered: 9/17/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
704 LETTER dated 9/12/97 from Morris J. Baller to Judge Illston re plaintiffs' Stage I trial witnesses. [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
705 FINAL AMENDED LIST OF CLASS MEMBER STAGE I TRIAL WITNESS(ES) submitted by Plaintiffs [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
706 GENERAL OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendants' trial exhibit list [675−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
707 AGREED UPON PRELIMINARY JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS and PRELIMINARY STATEMENT submitted by Plaintiffs, defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
708 MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs in limine to exclude argument regarding the reason for its destruction of relevant employment applications [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
709 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of motion in limine to exclude argument regarding the reason for its destruction of relevant employment applications [708−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
MINUTES: ( C/R Kim Schroeder) ( Hearing Date: 9/15/97) COntinued pretrial conference − held [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1997)
711 STATEMENT of agreed upon joint undisputed facts by Plaintiffs, defendant [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1997)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 50 of 53

09/17/1997 09/22/1997
09/22/1997 09/22/1997 09/22/1997 09/24/1997 09/25/1997
09/25/1997 10/02/1997 10/06/1997
10/07/1997
11/04/1997 12/10/1997
12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997

712 LETTER dated 9/16/97 from Cynthia E. Gitt to Judge Illston FILED UNDER SEAL [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/22/1997)
713 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Plaintiffs for preliminary approval of consent decree with Notice set for 11:00 a.m. on 9/23/97 [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
714 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of their motion for preliminary approval of consent decree [713−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
715 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 9/8/97 (C/R: Diane L. Freeman) [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
716 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 9/11/97 (C/R: Diane L. Freeman) [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
717 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston of preliminary approval of proposed consent decree (see document) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
718 MINUTES: ( C/R Roberta Rogers) ( Hearing Date: 9/23/97) Hearing re preliminary approval of class settlement held ; Case continued to 3:00 1/14/98 for final approval of consent decree. The Court adopted counsel's proposed scheduling on approval of the consent decree [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
719 APPLICATION by defendant Home Depot of non−resident attorney to appear pro hac vice [3:94−cv−04335] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
720 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of stipulation and proposed order modifying preliminary approval order. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
721 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : The Modified Proposed Consent Decree attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is preliminarily approved. The Notices and Claim Forms attached to the Modified Proposed Consent Decree are approved as to form. The Claims Administrator shall have until 10/10/97 to mail notice. The published notice may be published on 10/12/97 and 10/15/97. (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
722 LETTER dated 10/7/97 from James M. Finberg enclosing the original signatures of John Wymer, Larry Smith and Fred Alvarez, counsel for Home Depot on the revised proposed consent decree attached as Exhibit 2. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
723 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/7/97 ( C/R: Judith N. Dudeck) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
726 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiff for final approval of consent decree with Notice set for Jan. 14, 1998 at 3:00p.m. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
727 DECLARATION by Hunter R. Hughes on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
728 DECLARATION by James M. Finberg on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
729 DECLARATION by Barry Goldstein on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
730 DECLARATION by Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 51 of 53

12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997
12/12/1997 12/15/1997 12/16/1997 12/16/1997 12/16/1997 12/16/1997 12/18/1997
12/29/1997 01/05/1998 01/05/1998 01/09/1998 01/09/1998 01/14/1998
01/14/1998

(Entered: 12/16/1997)
731 DECLARATION by Barbara Chvany on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
732 DECLARATION by Daniel Rosentahl on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
733 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order received [0−0], declaration [732−1], declaration [731−1], declaration [730−1], declaration [729−1], declaration [728−1], declaration [727−1], motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
RECEIVED letter requesting names of the attorneys in the Home Depot case from Patricia M. Marsh, Certified Legal Assistant for Dines, Wilson, Gross &Esquivel, PC. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1998)
734 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order received [0−0] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
RECEIVED Stipulation and Proposed Order adding class member declarant and deponent Kwynn Rentfro to exhibit G of the consent decree. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
735 EXHIBITS to declaration by Hunter R. Hughes [727−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
736 EXHIBITS to declaration of Barbara Chvany [731−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
737 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of exhibits [736−1], exhibits [735−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
738 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : adding class member declarant and deponent Kwynn Rentfro to Exhibit G of the Consent Decree [737−1]. (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/24/1997)
739 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Home Depot in support of plaintiff's motion for final approval of consent decree [726−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
740 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of entry of order re adding class member. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
741 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of notice [740−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
742 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Daniel Rosenthal on behalf of Plaintiffs. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1998)
743 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [742−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1998)
744 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston approving consent decree. Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Court finds that the proposed Consent Decree is reasonable, fair, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. The proposed Consent Decree is therefore GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL, and shall be entered as the court's judgment. ( Date Entered: 1/15/98) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
745 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Susan Illston : It is so Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed this 14th day of January, 1998. (cc: all counsel) ( Date Entered: 1/15/98) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/15/1998)

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 52 of 53

01/14/1998 01/14/1998 01/21/1998 01/27/1998 02/02/1998 02/03/1998 02/09/1998 02/09/1998 03/10/1998 08/25/1998 09/17/1998
09/17/1998 09/23/1998 09/30/1998 03/02/1999 12/22/1999 04/21/2000 08/24/2000 08/28/2000

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [744−1] dismissing case [3:94−cv−04335] (dcap, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
746 MINUTES: ( C/R J. Yeomans) ( Hearing Date: 1/14/98) Final Approval hearing re: Class settlement − Held/Granted. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
747 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 8/22/97 ( C/R: Jo Ann Bryce) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
748 DECLARATION by Daniel J. Slottje, Ph.D. on behalf of defendant Home Depot re final approval of consent decree [744−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
750 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of order [749−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
749 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston : regarding point allocations for monetary awards to certain applicant class members is approved. (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
751 NOTICE by defendant Home Depot of issuance of order re stipulation and order regarding point allocations for monetary awards to certain applicant class members. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
752 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Home Depot of notice [751−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
753 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: Jan. 14, 1998 ( C/R: James Yeomans) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
754 LETTER dated 8/24/98 from James M. Finberg addressing Elaine Farrington's letter of 8/10/98 to the court. [3:94−cv−04335] (RS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1998)
755 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Susan Illston to reschedule deadline : Deadline to determine initial benchmarks shall be extended to 10/16/98 with Home Depot's report due 30 days thereafter, or 11/16/98. The deadline for Associates to register for Job Preference Process (JPP) is 10/16/98. Only those deadlines set forth in Sections XIII.A.3.b and XIII.D.2.b,c shall be affected by this stipulation; all other deadlines shall remain unchanged. (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
756 PROOF OF SERVICE of order [755−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
757 NOTICE by Plaintiffs class counsel of issuance of order. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/24/1998)
758 LETTER dated 9/17/98 from Terri Moreland. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
759 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of Joint Report to the Court re: status of the implementation of the consent decree and the distribution of the settlement fund [3:94−cv−04335] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
760 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of change of address [3:94−cv−04335] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
761 NOTICE of change of address of John F. Wymerr, III, attorney for defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. to: King &Spalding, 191 Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30303−1763 [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
762 SECOND JOINT REPORT regarding the status of the implementation of the Consent Decree. [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
763 STIPULATION and ORDER Adjusting Certain Consent Decree Provisions by Judge Susan Illston : The parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The Benchmarks described in Section XIII.D. of the Decree will be calculated by measuring the Benchmarks at least monthly and averaging the monthly figures

Case: 3:94-cv-4335 As of: 08/05/2010 08:15 AM PDT 53 of 53

08/29/2000 09/06/2001
09/06/2001
09/06/2001 09/06/2001
06/18/2002 06/18/2002 06/20/2002 06/20/2002 06/24/2002
06/24/2002
08/02/2002
12/14/2009 12/16/2009 12/29/2009

over a six month period; 2. The minimum prior experience qualification for the Merchandising Department Supervisor Position, set forth in Exh. A to the Decree, shall be expanded from "satisfactory performance as reflected on most recent review as a Sales Associate" to "Satisfactory performance as reflected on most recent review as Sales Associate or Operations Supervisor." That change shall be made in relevant communications with employees regarding the Jobs Preference Process, including in the Home Depot Jobs Brochure and the computer kiosks. 3. Section XIII.A.3.a. of the Decree shall be amended to substitute "appropriate technology proposed by Home Depot and consented to by Class Counsel" for Interactive Voice Response ("IVR").(cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
764 NOTICE by Plaintiffs' Class Counsel of [763−1] order [3:94−cv−04335] (cgd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
765 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Susan Illston for attorney Jonathan L. Alpert to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
RECEIVED Proposed Order (by plaintiffs) re: motion for attorney Jonathan L. Alpert to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [765−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
766 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Home Depot by Jonathan L. Alpert [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
767 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying motion for attorney Jonathan L. Alpert to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [765−1] ( Date Entered: 9/12/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
768 JOINT MOTION before Judge Susan Illston by Plaintiffs, defendant to terminate consent decree [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
769 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff, defendants of motion to terminate consent decree [768−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order terminating Consent Decree ( Plaintiffs) [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
770 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of proposed order. [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
771 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston terminating consent decree ( Date Entered: 6/25/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
772 MINUTES: ( C/R Sahar Demos) ( Hearing Date: 6/24/02) granting motion to terminate consent decree [768−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
773 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 6/24/02 ( C/R: Sahar McVickar) minutes [772−1] [3:94−cv−04335] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
CLERKS NOTICE − FILE REQUESTED FROM FRC. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
CLERKS NOTICE − FILE RECEIVED FROM FRC. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
CLERKS NOTICE − FILE RETURNED TO FRC. ACCESSION NUMBER: 021−02−0017; BOX NUMBER: 15−31; LOCATION NUMBER: 714784. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2010)