Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation
Defendant.

) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ) ) Case No.: ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Samantha Vasich (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges the following upon information and belief against Defendant, the City of Chicago (“City” or “Defendant”): I. NATURE OF THE CLAIM
1. This is an action brought to remedy discrimination in employment on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and back pay and other equitable make whole relief both to secure future protection and to redress the past deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and the Class under Title VII.
2. The City hires and employs firefighters for the Chicago Fire Department (“CFD”). 3. Twenty five years ago, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, the City hired its first ever female firefighters. On information and belief, today, twenty five years later, there are only 116 women in the CFD, “representing just over 2 percent of the department of more than 5,000” members. “25 Years of Courage,” Chicago Tribune, June 26, 2011. 4. A major impediment to the appointment of female firefighters is the physical abilities test (“PAT”) that the City administers to firefighter candidates.

280118-10

1
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

5. The current PAT is comprised of four “events,” three of which the City has used in its

hiring test since 1996. In 2007, the City added a fourth component to the PAT that was transplanted

from the CFD paramedics hiring test which also had significant adverse impact on women.

6. The PAT has an adverse impact upon female applicants, is not job related for the

position in question, is not justified by any legitimate business need or interest of the City, does not

otherwise meet the requirements of Title VII, and accordingly, violates Title VII.

7. The City has been aware of this adverse impact since as early as 1996, prior to the initial

administration of the current PAT to firefighter applicants. Yet, the City chose to administer the PAT

and utilize its results for hiring firefighters, despite its adverse impact on women. Since learning of the

PAT’s adverse impact on women, the City has continued to administer it from 1996 to the present

despite the availability of less discriminatory alternatives. In fact, the City chose to add an additional

component to the PAT even though it knew that the additional component had significant adverse

impact on women.

8. Every administration of the PAT since 1996 has resulted in a disparate impact on women.

9. On information and belief, the City has never explored or considered less discriminatory

alternatives to the PAT.

10. At the time the City decided to adopt and began using the PAT, there were less

discriminatory alternative PATs available which the City refused to adopt.

11. Moreover, the City has continued to use and refused to adopt a less discriminatory PAT

even though less discriminatory PATs which are at least as job related are available.

12. On information and belief, the City has utilized the PAT with the intention of

discriminating against female applicants or with reckless disregard of the fact that the PAT and its use

have that unlawful effect.

13. Plaintiff seeks: (a) declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to the

issuance of a classwide judgment declaring that the policies, practices, and/or customs described herein

violate federal law; (b) injunctive relief to halt the practice of using a selection procedure—the PAT—

which adversely impacts female applicants; (c) an order establishing procedures to correct the present

effects of the City’s discriminatory policies and practices; and (d) back pay and other equitable relief to

280118-10

2
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

make whole female applicants for CFD firefighter positions who have been injured by Defendant’s unlawful hiring practices. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). 15. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff has been at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. The acts that gave rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint occurred in Illinois and in this District. III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT 16. Plaintiff has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action. 17. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff Vasich filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex by administering a PAT that disqualified her and a disproportionate number of other women. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Vasich’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 18. On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff Vasich received notification of right to sue from the EEOC. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Vasich’s right to sue notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. IV. PARTIES A. Plaintiff 19. Plaintiff Samantha Vasich is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. B. Defendant 20. The City is and was at all times relevant herein a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of Illinois. The City is and was at all times relevant herein an employer as defined by Title VII. V. GENERAL POLICES OR PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION 21. In order to obtain a firefighter position with the City, a candidate must meet all other requirements and take and pass a PAT.

280118-10

3
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
22. The current PAT, involves four components: arm lift; arm endurance; hose drag/high rise pack carry; and leg lift. The arm lift, arm endurance and hose drag/high rise pack carry have been used in the PAT since 1996. The leg lift was transplanted into the PAT from the paramedics test in 2007. The City set a minimum cut-off score and fails applicants whose scores fall below the cut-off.
23. On average, female applicants for the firefighter position fail the PAT at a higher rate than male applicants. This observed disparity in pass/fail rates by gender is statistically significant both in the aggregate and for each PAT the City has administered.
24. There is no empirical data demonstrating that the PAT is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance. The individual physical abilities tested by the PAT have not been proven to be underlying factors for performing essential or critical physical functions of the job of firefighter (that is, the PAT does not have demonstrated construct validity).
25. The PAT has not been shown to be predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance. The individual physical abilities tested by the PAT have not been proven to be underlying factors for performing essential or critical physical functions of the job of firefighter (that is, the PAT does not have demonstrated construct validity).
26. The PAT has not been shown to be predictive of who can and cannot perform the essential or critical physical functions of the job of firefighter (that is, the PAT does not have demonstrated criterion validity).
27. The PAT has not been scientifically validated as it neither has construct validity, criterion validity, nor has been shown to be an accurate and reliable measure of the fitness areas tested.
28. The City has a long history of denying equal employment opportunity through the use of discriminatory testing procedures in the CFD, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Chicago, Case No. 98-C-5596 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005); United States v. Albrecht, Nos. 73 C 661, 80 C 1590 (N.D. Ill.). VI. CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF
29. Plaintiff applied to be a firefighter with CFD in 2006.

280118-10

4
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

30. Plaintiff met all of the eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter subject to further processing.
31. Plaintiff is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter.
32. In 2009, Plaintiff was directed to report for the PAT test on January 13, 2010. 33. To prepare for the PAT, Plaintiff hired a personal trainer who devised a training plan that would allow her to successfully perform the different test components as described in the City’s pre-test materials. For example, Plaintiff, under the supervision of her trainer, wore a vest filled with weights while working out on a stair climber to prepare for the PAT’s modified stair climb. Plaintiff also dragged a bag of sand around a gym floor to prepare for the PAT’s hose drag test. Plaintiff was able to successfully perform these training activities. 34. Because the testing booklet that the City sent to Plaintiff in preparation for the PAT stated that viewing a test preparation DVD was “extremely important,” Plaintiff also viewed the test preparation DVD. The DVD showed both men and women performing stretching and other exercises and the PAT. However, the actual footage of firefighters on the job appeared to portray only male firefighters. 35. On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff took the PAT. Plaintiff performed each of the testing activities according to the specified guidelines. 36. On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff received a letter stating that she had failed the physical abilities test and would be removed from the firefighter eligibility list. The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed. 37. Because the February 2, 2010 letter contained no information about her test results, Plaintiff called the CFD’s personnel department. The person with whom Plaintiff spoke told Plaintiff that she could not provide any additional information about Plaintiff’s test results, that a private company handled the testing, and that she would not tell Plaintiff the name of that private company.

280118-10

5
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

38. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff was not hired as a

firefighter and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment.

VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

39. Plaintiff brings this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),

(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4) on behalf of a Class of all female applicants for the CFD firefighter position

who took and failed the PAT at any time from June 27, 2009 and continuing to the present (“the class

liability period”).

40. Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.

41. The members of the Class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members

is impracticable. Although Plaintiff does not know precisely how many women have failed to receive

firefighter positions due to the adverse impact of the PAT, their number is far greater than can be

feasibly addressed through joinder. Identification of the individual class members can be determined

from the City’s testing records.

42. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, among

others: (1) whether the City used a discriminatory employment practice by administering a PAT that

had a disparate impact on female applicants for the firefighter position; (2) whether the City’s use of the

PAT was job related for the firefighter position; (3) whether the cut-off score used by the City to

determine whether an applicant passed or failed the PAT was a business necessity; (4) whether the City

failed to consider and has refused to use an available less discriminatory alternative PAT; (5) whether

the City has intentionally discriminated against female applicants by using the PAT; (6) whether the

City’s policies and/or practices violate Title VII; and (7) whether equitable and injunctive relief for the

Class is warranted.

43. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff, like other members of

the Class, has suffered from the City’s discriminatory hiring practices in that she was prevented in

obtaining employment as a firefighter with the CFD.

44. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of

the Class. The named Plaintiff has a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action, has no

280118-10

6
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

conflicts of interest with members of the Class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment

discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof. Counsel for Plaintiff have the resources,

expertise, and experience to prosecute this action.

45. Plaintiff and the Class she seeks to 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. Plaintiff and the Class she seeks to represent are

now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from the City’s discriminatory acts and

omissions.

46. The City’s actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff and all Class members

substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.

47. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)

because the City has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making

appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole. The

Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end the City’s common, uniform, unfair, and

discriminatory polices and/or practices.

48. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for

determination of the damage claims of individual class members because the issue of liability is

common to the class and the common nucleus of operative facts forms the central issue which

predominates over individualized issues of proof. The primary question common to the class is whether

the City discriminated on the basis of sex by utilizing the PAT. This question is so central to the case

that it predominates over any individual issues among the members of the proposed class. The City also

engaged in a common course of conduct—administering the PAT to firefighter applicants—against all

members of the proposed class. Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) would be superior to other

methods for fair and efficient resolution of conflict because certification would avoid the need for

repeated litigation by each individual class member.

49. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) for

determination of particular issues of classwide liability raised by Plaintiff’s disparate impact and

280118-10

7
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

disparate treatment claims. Class certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) is also appropriate to litigate Plaintiff’s claims for prospective classwide compliance and affirmative injunctive relief necessary to eliminate the City’s discrimination against female firefighter applicants.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Impact)
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 51. This Claim is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Class she seeks to represent. 52. Throughout the class liability period, the City has used an employment practice, i.e., the PAT, that has a disparate impact on the basis of sex that is neither job related for the firefighter position nor consistent with business necessity. The foregoing conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq. 53. Throughout the class liability period, the City has failed and refused to use available alternative PATs that are valid and less discriminatory.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment)
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 55. This Claim is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Class she seeks to represent. 56. Throughout the class liability period the City has discriminated against female applicants on the basis of sex by knowingly using an employment practice, i.e., the PAT, that causes a disparate impact on the basis of sex that is neither job related for the firefighter position, nor consistent with business necessity with the intended result that otherwise qualified female applicants for the firefighter position have been disproportionately prevented from becoming firefighters for the City. The foregoing conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.

280118-10

8
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for relief as follows: 57. Certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (3), and (c)(4); 58. Designation of Plaintiff Vasich as a representative on behalf of the Class; 59. Designation of Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel; 60. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; 61. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the City and its officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth herein; 62. An order requiring the City to adopt a valid, non-discriminatory method for determining whether firefighter candidates are physically capable of performing the job; 63. An order requiring the City to hire Plaintiff and Class members as firefighters with retroactive seniority and benefits to the date on which they would have been hired but for the City’s actions, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay and benefits; 64. An order awarding Plaintiff and the Class back pay (including interest and benefits); 65. An order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); 66. An order awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 67. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

280118-10

9
COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

Dated: July 19, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s Marni Willenson MARNI WILLENSON WILLENSON LAW, LLC marni@willensonlaw.com 542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 (312) 546-4910; (312) 261-9977 (Fax)
TERESA DEMCHAK, CA Bar No. 123989 tdemchak@gdblegal.com DAVID BORGEN, CA Bar No. 099354 dborgen@gdblegal.com LIN CHAN, CA Bar No. 255027 lchan@gdbelgal.com GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN &
DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax)
SUSAN P. MALONE malonelaw@sbcglobal.net 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1725 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 726-2638
Attorneys for Plaintiff

280118-10

10
COMPLAINT

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 1 of 92 PageID #:887

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY and HAYLEY STAFEN individually
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation
Defendant.

CLASS ACTION Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Judge John J. Tharp THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic,

and Jessica Evans (the “Representative Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, and Kimberly Bailey and Hayley Stafen (the “Individual Plaintiffs”), on behalf

of themselves individually, (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), allege the following upon information

and belief against Defendant, the City of Chicago (hereafter “City” or “Defendant”):

I.

NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. This is an action brought to remedy discrimination in employment on the basis of

gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter “Title VII”), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and

back pay and other equitable make whole relief both to secure future protection and to redress

the past deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiffs and the Class under Title VII.

2. Plaintiffs file this Third Amended Complaint upon leave of the Court.

3. The City hires and employs firefighter/Emergency Medical Technicians (hereafter

“firefighter/EMT”) for the Chicago Fire Department (hereafter “CFD”), a department of the City.

429478-7

1
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 2 of 92 PageID #:888

4. Twenty five years ago, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, the City hired its first ever female firefighters. On information and belief, today, twenty five years later, there are only 116 women in the CFD, “representing just over 2 percent of the department of more than 5,000” members. “25 Years of Courage,” Chicago Tribune, June 26, 2011.
5. A major impediment to the appointment of female firefighter/EMTs is the physical abilities test that the City administers to firefighter/EMT candidates. The firefighter/EMT physical abilities test that the City administers to firefighter/EMT candidates has a disparate impact on women. As used in this Third Amended Complaint (hereafter “TAC”), “disparate impact” means that the pass rate for female candidates who are administered the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test is more than two standard deviations lower than the pass rate for male candidates who are administered the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test.
6. The current physical abilities test for firefighter/EMT candidates is comprised of four “events,” three of which the City has used in its firefighter/EMT physical abilities test since 1996. In 2007, the City added a fourth component to the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test that also is a component of the CFD’s paramedic physical abilities test. The CFD’s paramedic physical abilities test also has a disparate impact on women.
7. The firefighter/EMT physical abilities test is not “job related” for the firefighter/EMT position, or “consistent with business necessity” of the City, as those terms are used in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, § 105, 105 Stat. 1071, 1074-75 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)), does not otherwise meet the requirements of Title VII, and accordingly, violates Title VII.
8. The City has been aware that the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test has a disparate impact on women since as early as 1996, prior to the initial administration of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test to firefighter/EMT applicants. Yet, the City chose to administer the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and utilize its results for selecting firefighter/EMTs, despite its disparate impact on women. Since learning of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test’s disparate impact on women, the City has continued to administer it from

429478-7

2
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 3 of 92 PageID #:889
1996 to the present despite the availability of less discriminatory alternatives, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). In fact, the City chose to add an additional component to the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test even though it knew that the additional component had a disparate impact on female paramedic applicants and thus would likely also have a disparate impact on female firefighter/EMT applicants.
9. Every administration of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test since 1996 has resulted in a disparate impact on female firefighter/EMT applicants.
10. On information and belief, the City has never explored or considered less discriminatory alternatives to the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(k)(1)(A)(i).
11. At the time the City decided to adopt and began using the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, there were less discriminatory alternative physical abilities tests for firefighter/EMT applicants available which the City refused or failed to adopt.
12. Moreover, the City has continued to use and refused or failed to adopt a less discriminatory firefighter/EMT physical abilities test even though less discriminatory physical abilities tests for firefighter/EMTs which are at least as job related are available.
13. On information and belief, the City has utilized the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test with the intention of discriminating against female firefighter/EMT applicants or with reckless disregard of the fact that the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and its use have that unlawful effect.
14. Plaintiffs seek: (a) declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to the issuance of a classwide judgment declaring that the policies, practices, and/or customs described herein violate federal law; (b) injunctive relief to halt the practice of using a selection procedure—the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test—which adversely impacts female applicants; (c) an order establishing procedures to correct the present effects of the City’s discriminatory policies and practices; and (d) back pay and other equitable relief to make whole

429478-7

3
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 4 of 92 PageID #:890
female applicants for CFD firefighter/EMT positions who have been injured by the City’s unlawful hiring practices.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(3). 16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiffs have been at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. The acts that gave rise to the claims alleged in this TAC occurred in Illinois and in this District.
III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT A. Plaintiff Vasich
17. Plaintiff Vasich has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
18. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff Vasich filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter “EEOC”) charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex by administering a firefighter/EMT physical abilities test that disqualified her and a disproportionate number of other women. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Vasich’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
19. On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Vasich sent a letter to the EEOC requesting issuance of a notice of right to sue on her charge of discrimination. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Vasich’s request for notification of right to sue is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
20. On June 28, 2011, Plaintiff Vasich received notification of right to sue from the EEOC. A true and accurate copy of the EEOC’s right to sue notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

429478-7

4
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 5 of 92 PageID #:891
21. On July 19, 2011, Plaintiff Vasich received a letter from the EEOC stating that the right to sue notice issued on June 28, 2011 was issued as a clerical error. A true and accurate copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
22. On August 2, 2011, Plaintiff Vasich received a notification of right to sue from the United States Department of Justice (hereafter “DOJ”). A true and accurate copy of the DOJ’s right to sue notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. B. Plaintiff Minnick
23. Plaintiff Minnick has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
24. On October 8, 2008, Plaintiff Minnik filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Minnick’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Ms. Minnick drafted the complaint without the assistance of a lawyer and filed it pro se (only later securing the representation of her undersigned counsel).
25. In addition to filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Ms. Minnick also completed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire on which she explained that the nature of the discriminatory act on the part of the City about which she was complaining was her failure to “pass test” referring to the firefighter/EMT test. Ms. Minnick also identified three other women who also “were in the same situation as” her. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Minnick’s EEOC Intake Questionnaire is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
26. On October 19, 2011, more than 180 days after she filed her charge of discrimination, Plaintiff Minnick, through her counsel, sent a letter to the EEOC requesting issuance of a notice of right to sue on her charge of discrimination. Ms. Minnick’s counsel copied the DOJ on this letter. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Minnick’s request for notification of right to sue is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

429478-7

5
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 6 of 92 PageID #:892
27. Despite the requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(d)(2) (requiring the Attorney General to issue a right to sue notice when requested by a party who has filed a charge of discrimination against a government), Ms. Minnick has not received a notification of right to sue from the EEOC. C. Plaintiff Theeke
28. Plaintiff Theeke has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
29. On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff Theeke filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Theeke’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Ms. Theeke drafted the complaint without the assistance of a lawyer and filed it pro se (only later securing the representation of her undersigned counsel).
30. On or about August 2, 2012, Plaintiff Theeke received a notification of right to sue from the EEOC. D. Plaintiff Evans
31. Plaintiff Evans has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
32. On April 10, 2008, Plaintiff Evans filed a timely pro se charge of discrimination with the EEOC charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex by administering a firefighter/EMT physical abilities test that disqualified her and a disproportionate number of other women. The charge alleged:
In or about March 2006, I applied for a Firefighter/EMT position. In Decem ber 2007, I took the Physical Abilities T est. On January 9, 2008, I was told that [I] would not be considered for the position. I believe that I was d iscriminated against because of my sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Evans’ EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

429478-7

6
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 7 of 92 PageID #:893
33. The City’s response to the charge, filed on May 13, 2008, stated that Evans “took the [PAT],” that “Human Performance Systems, Inc. . . . created the standards for the [PAT],” Evans “was told that she would not be considered for a Firefighter/ EMT position” following the test, “each applicant must be able to demonstrate these physical abilities by passing the [PAT],” and Evans “was denied further consideration for the position of Firefighter/EMT with the Chicago Fire Department because she failed to meet the minimum physical qualifications necessary for employment as a Firefighter/EMT with the Chicago Fire Department.” A true and accurate copy of the City’s response to the charge is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
34. The nature of the EEOC’s investigation of Evans’ EEOC charge considered the disparate impact of the City’s firefighter/EMT physical abilities test on female firefighter/EMT candidates as a class.
35. On July 3, 2008, the EEOC, in connection with Evans’ charge, requested classwide information regarding the City’s firefighter/EMT hiring. The request asked for information concerning: “[a]ll individuals who were selected for the Firefighter/EMT position for the period January 1, 2006 to the present by . . . gender/sex” and “[a]ll individuals who were not selected for the Firefighter/EMT position for the period January 1, 2006 to present by . . . gender/sex.” A true and accurate copy of the EEOC’s request is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
36. Between two and five days after August 4, 2008, the City provided to the EEOC class-wide hiring information for the firefighter/EMT position by gender. A true and accurate copy of the City’s response to the EEOC is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
37. On December 30, 2010, the EEOC issued a subpoena for based on Evans’ charge and other similarly situated female firefighter/EMT applicants who had filed charges of discrimination, to the City requesting class-related information, including job analysis reports and data regarding the physical ability requirements and reasons for, validation of, and other documents related to the administration of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. A true and accurate copy of the EEOC’s subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 14.

429478-7

7
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 8 of 92 PageID #:894
38. Between two and seven days after August 2, 2012, Evans received a notice of right to sue on her charge of discrimination from the EEOC. A true and accurate copy of the EEOC’s notification of right to sue is attached hereto as Exhibit 15. E. Plaintiff Bailey
39. Plaintiff Bailey has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
40. On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff Bailey filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Bailey’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 16. Ms. Bailey drafted the complaint without the assistance of a lawyer and filed it pro se (only later securing the representation of her undersigned counsel).
41. On or about August 2, 2012, Plaintiff Bailey received a notification of right to sue from the EEOC. F. Plaintiff Stafen
42. Plaintiff Stafen has fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to maintain this action.
43. On August 6, 2008, Plaintiff Stafen filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC charging the City with discrimination against her on the basis of sex. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Stafen’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 17. Ms. Stafen drafted the complaint without the assistance of a lawyer and filed it pro se (only later securing the representation of her undersigned counsel).
44. On or about August 2, 2012, Plaintiff Stafen received a notification of right to sue from the EEOC.
45. On information and belief, Plaintiffs Vasich, Bailey, Minnick, Theeke, Stafen, and Evans’ EEOC charges were all assigned to the same EEOC investigator, Janel McCullomSmith, at the EEOC Chicago District Office.

429478-7

8
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 9 of 92 PageID #:895

46. On information and belief, the nature of the EEOC’s investigation of Plaintiffs Vasich, Bailey, Minnick, Theeke, Stafen, and Evans’ EEOC charges considered the disparate impact of the City’s firefighter/EMT physical abilities test on female firefighter/EMT candidates. G. Plaintiffs Dooley and Basic

47. Plaintiffs Dooley and Basic’s claims of discrimination arise out of the same or

similar discriminatory conduct, committed in the same period as Plaintiffs Bailey, Minnick,

Stafen, and Theeke’s claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs Dooley and Basic are not required to exhaust

their administrative remedies. Horton v. Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 343 F.3d 897,

899-900 (7th Cir. 2003).

A. Plaintiffs

IV. PARTIES

48. Plaintiff Vasich is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
49. Plaintiff Dooley is female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
50. Plaintiff Minnick is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
51. Plaintiff Theeke is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
52. Plaintiff Basic is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
53. Plaintiff Evans is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
54. Plaintiff Bailey is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
55. Plaintiff Stafen is a female. She is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.

429478-7

9
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 10 of 92 PageID #:896
B. Defendant 56. The City is and was at all times relevant herein a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Illinois. The City is and was at all times relevant herein an employer as defined by Title VII.
V. GENERAL POLICES OR PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION 57. Since at least 1996 and continuing to the present time, in order to obtain a firefighter/EMT position with the City, a candidate must meet all other requirements and take and pass a firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. 58. The current firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, involves four components: arm lift; arm endurance; hose drag/high rise pack carry; and modified stair climb. The arm lift, arm endurance and hose drag/high rise pack carry have been used in the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test since 1996. The modified stair climb component was added to the PAT in 2007. The City set a minimum cut-off score for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and applicants whose scores fall below the cut-off are removed the firefighter/EMT eligibility list. 59. Female applicants for the firefighter/EMT position fail the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test at a higher rate than male applicants. This observed disparity in pass/fail rates by gender is statistically significant both in the aggregate and for each firefighter/EMT physical abilities test the City has administered. 60. There is no empirical data demonstrating that the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance. The individual physical abilities tested by the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test have not been proven to be representative of important aspects of performance of the job of firefighter/EMT (that is, the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test does not have demonstrated “content validity” as that term is defined in the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 107.16(D)).

429478-7

10
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 11 of 92 PageID #:897

61. The firefighter/EMT physical abilities test has not been shown to be predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance. The individual physical abilities tested by the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test have not been proven to measures the degree to which candidates have identifiable characteristics which have been determined to be important for successful job performance as a firefighter/EMT (that is, the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test does not have demonstrated “construct validity” as that term is defined in the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 107.16(E)).
62. The firefighter/EMT physical abilities test has not been shown to be predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior of the job of firefighter/EMT (that is, the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test does not have demonstrated “criterion validity” as that term is defined in the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 107.16(F)).
63. The firefighter/EMT physical abilities test has not been scientifically validated as it neither has construct validity, criterion validity, nor has been shown to be an accurate and reliable measure of the fitness areas tested.
64. The City has a long history of denying equal employment opportunity through the use of discriminatory testing procedures in the CFD, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Chicago, Case No. 98-C-5596 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005); United States v. Albrecht, Case Nos. 73 C 661, 80 C 1590 (N.D. Ill.).
VI. CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS A. Plaintiff Vasich
65. Plaintiff Vasich applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2006. 66. Plaintiff Vasich met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 67. Plaintiff Vasich is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT.

429478-7

11
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 12 of 92 PageID #:898

68. In 2009, the City sent Plaintiff Vasich a letter which stated, in part, that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was January 13, 2010.
69. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Vasich hired a personal trainer who devised a training plan that would allow her to successfully perform the different test components as described in the City’s pre-test materials. For example, Plaintiff Vasich, under the supervision of her trainer, wore a vest filled with weights while working out on a stair climber to prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test’s modified stair climb. Plaintiff Vasich also dragged a bag of sand around a gym floor to prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test’s hose drag test. Plaintiff Vasich was able to successfully perform these training activities.
70. Because the pamphlet entitled “Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” that the City sent to Plaintiff Vasich in preparation for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test stated, in part, that viewing a DVD entitled “Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” was “extremely important,” Plaintiff Vasich also viewed the DVD. The DVD showed both men and women performing stretching and other exercises and the PAT. However, the actual footage of firefighter/EMTs on the job appeared to portray only male firefighter/EMTs.
71. On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff Vasich took the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. Plaintiff Vasich performed each of the test components according to the instructions she was given by the test administrator.
72. On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff Vasich received a letter from the City dated January 25, 2010, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.
73. Because the January 25, 2010 letter contained no other information about her test results, such as her score on the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Vasich called the

429478-7

12
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 13 of 92 PageID #:899
CFD’s personnel department. The person with whom Plaintiff Vasich spoke told Plaintiff Vasich that she could not provide any additional information about Plaintiff Vasich’s test results, that a private company handled the testing, and that she would not tell Plaintiff Vasich the name of that private company.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Vasich was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT. B. Plaintiff Dooley
75. Plaintiff Dooley applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in or around 2006. 76. Plaintiff Dooley met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 77. Plaintiff Dooley is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT. 78. The City sent Plaintiff Dooley a letter which stated, in part, that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was March 2009. 79. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Dooley went to the CFD firehouse and practiced dragging a fire hose up and down the stairs repeatedly. She also trained at the gym and ran regularly. 80. Plaintiff Dooley took the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test in March 2009. 81. Plaintiff Dooley received a letter from the City dated April 6, 2009, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.

429478-7

13
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 14 of 92 PageID #:900
82. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Dooley was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT. C. Plaintiff Minnick
83. Plaintiff Minnick has been a paramedic licensed by the State of Illinois since 1997 and at all times relevant herein.
84. In addition, Plaintiff Minnick has been a certified Firefighter II with the State of Illinois since 1999. Between 1999 and 2000, Ms. Minnick worked as a firefighter/paramedic for the Tri-State Fire Protection District in Darien, Illinois.
85. Plaintiff Minnick has been employed by the CFD as a paramedic since on or around December 1, 2000. In 2003, Ms. Minnick was promoted to the position of Paramedic in Charge (hereafter “PIC”).
86. Plaintiff Minnick applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2006. 87. Plaintiff Minnick met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 88. Plaintiff Minnick is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT. 89. The City sent Plaintiff Minnick a letter advising her that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was December 12, 2007. 90. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Minnick, in addition to working as a paramedic for and with the CFD, obtained all available materials for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and trained and prepared for the test as directed in such materials. 91. Plaintiff Minnick received a letter from the City dated January 9, 2008, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities

429478-7

14
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 15 of 92 PageID #:901
Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.
92. Because the January 9, 2008 letter contained no other information about her test results, such as her score on the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, on September 4, 2008, Plaintiff Minnick submitted a written request for her “test results,” “what the performance standard for each task was” and “how [her] score was calculated,” to Kevin Sullivan, thenDeputy Chief Paramedic, Field Division South, Fire Department of the City of Chicago.
93. Plaintiff Minnick received no response to her request. 94. In November 2008, while in her job as a CFD PIC, Chief McKillop of the CFD Fire Academy South invited Plaintiff Minnick to serve as an instructor at the Fire Academy. In April 2009, CFD sent Plaintiff Minnick to a week-long training class with the American Council on Exercise (ACE) where she became an ACE certified peer fitness trainer. After receiving her ACE certification, Plaintiff Minnick trained CFD firefighter/EMT candidates at the Fire Academy. Thus, the CFD engaged Ms. Minnick to provide physical training in the Fire Academy to firefighter/EMT candidates even after refusing to hire her as a firefighter/EMT because she failed the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Minnick was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT. D. Plaintiff Basic 96. Plaintiff Basic has been a paramedic licensed by the State of Illinois since prior to 2002 and at all times relevant herein. 97. In addition, since in or around 2005, Plaintiff Basic has been a certified Firefighter II with the State of Illinois. Ms. Basic was previously employed as a firefighter with the Central Stickney and Marionette Park (Illinois) fire departments.

429478-7

15
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 16 of 92 PageID #:902
98. Since on or around March 18, 2002, Plaintiff Basic has been employed by the CFD as a paramedic.
99. Plaintiff Basic applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2006. 100. When she applied to be a CFD firefighter/EMT, Plaintiff Basic served on the CFD’s health and fitness committee and was an ACE certified peer fitness trainer. 101. Plaintiff Basic met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 102. Plaintiff Basic is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT. 103. The City sent Plaintiff Basic a letter advising her that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was on or around December 7, 2007. 104. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Basic, in addition to performing her duties as a CFD paramedic, obtained available materials on the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and trained for the test as directed in those materials. 105. After taking the PAT, Plaintiff Basic received a letter from the City in January 2008, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed. 106. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Basic was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT.

429478-7

16
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 17 of 92 PageID #:903
E. Plaintiff Theeke 107. Plaintiff Theeke has been a paramedic licensed by the State of Illinois since
before 2000 and at all times relevant herein. 108. Plaintiff Theeke has been employed by the CFD as a paramedic since on or
around December 1, 2000. She was promoted to the position of PIC prior to 2006. 109. Plaintiff Theeke applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2006. 110. Plaintiff Theeke met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a
firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing.
111. Plaintiff Theeke is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT.
112. The City sent Plaintiff Theeke a letter advising her that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was December 12, 2007.
113. Plaintiff Theeke is and was prior to 2007 a certified firefighter in Illinois, having passed all licensing and certification requirements established by the State of Illinois. Prior to 2007, Plaintiff Theeke served as a firefighter with the Village of Carpentersville (Illinois) Fire Department.
114. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Theeke, in addition to performing her duties as a CFD paramedic and a firefighter/paramedic with the Carpentersville Fire Department obtained the available materials concerning the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test and trained for the test as directed in those materials.
115. After taking the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Theeke received a letter from the City, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not

429478-7

17
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 18 of 92 PageID #:904
identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.
116. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Theeke was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT. F. Plaintiff Evans
117. Plaintiff Evans applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in March 2006. 118. Plaintiff Evans met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 119. Plaintiff Evans is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT. 120. In or around January 2008, Plaintiff took the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. Plaintiff was one of the first applicants processed. Her number was 317 of approximately 17,000 firefighter/EMT applicants. 121. At the time Plaintiff Evans applied for the firefighter/EMT position and took the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, she was a “fan” of the Chicago Fire Department, riding with the firefighters of Engine 22 to go out on fire suppression and emergency medical services calls. She rode with Engine 22 for five years. 122. While riding with Engine 22, Plaintiff Evans played Division I softball at DePaul University. When she took the CFD firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Evans was in her fifth year at DePaul and did regular strength and conditioning training. 123. Before Plaintiff Evans took the CFD firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, she had already taken and passed the physical abilities test administered by Elk Grove Village, Illinois to screen applicants for the job of firefighter. Unlike the Chicago firefighter/EMT

429478-7

18
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 19 of 92 PageID #:905
physical abilities test, the Elk Grove Village physical abilities test involved simulated firefighter tasks such as dragging a dummy and hoisting a ladder.
124. Plaintiff Evans has also taken and passed the Candidate Physical Abilities Test (CPAT) licensed by the International Association of Firefighters three times. The passing time on the CPAT is 10 minutes and 20 seconds. Plaintiff Evans’ best CPAT time is 7 minutes and 40 seconds.
125. Plaintiff Evans currently works as a firefighter/paramedic for a municipality near Chicago.
126. When she took the CFD Firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Evans performed each of the test components according to the instructions she was given by the test administrator.
127. On or around January 9, 2008, Plaintiff Evans received a letter from the City which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.
128. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Evans was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT.
VII. CLAIMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS A. Plaintiff Bailey
129. Plaintiff Bailey is and has been a paramedic licensed by the State of Illinois since before 2000 and at all times relevant herein.
130. Plaintiff Bailey has been employed by the CFD as a paramedic since December 2000.
131. Plaintiff Bailey applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2006.

429478-7

19
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 20 of 92 PageID #:906

132. Plaintiff Bailey met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing.
133. Plaintiff Bailey is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT.
134. Plaintiff Bailey is and has been since prior to 2006, a licensed firefighter in the State of Illinois and has served as a firefighter in a fire department other than Chicago prior to 2007.
135. In 2007, the City sent Plaintiff Bailey a letter advising her that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was December 7, 2007.
136. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Bailey, in addition to performing her duties as a paramedic with Chicago and her duties as a firefighter with another department, reviewed all available materials concerning the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. Bailey trained for the test as directed in such materials.
137. On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff Bailey took the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. Plaintiff Bailey performed each of the testing activities according to the instructions she was given by the test administrator.
138. Plaintiff Bailey subsequently received a letter from the City, which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.
139. Because the letter contained no other information about her test results, such as her score on the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Bailey submitted a written request for her “test results,” “what the performance standard for each task was,” and “how [her] score was calculated” to Kevin Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief Paramedic, Field Division South, CFD.

429478-7

20
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 21 of 92 PageID #:907
140. Ms. Bailey received no response to her request. 141. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Bailey was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT. B. Plaintiff Stafen 142. Plaintiff Stafen has been a paramedic licensed by the State of Illinois since prior to August 2000 and at all times relevant herein. 143. Plaintiff Stafen has been employed by the CFD as a paramedic since on or around August 2000. 144. Plaintiff Stafen applied to be a firefighter/EMT with the CFD in 2007. 145. Plaintiff Stafen met all of the initial eligibility criteria for becoming a firefighter/EMT, passed the written examination, and was placed on a list of persons eligible for hire as a firefighter/EMT subject to further processing. 146. Plaintiff Stafen is and was fully capable of all physical requirements to perform the job of a City of Chicago firefighter/EMT. 147. The City sent Plaintiff Stafen a letter advising her that the date of her firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was in or around December 4, 2007. 148. To prepare for the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Stafen worked out regularly at the gym. Additionally, Plaintiff Stafen trained at the CFD firehouse, wearing men’s firefighter equipment while running up and down the stairs. 149. Following the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, Plaintiff Stafen received a letter from the City which stated, in part, that she “did not receive a passing score on the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test” and the CFD “will notify the Department of Human Resources to remove [her] name from Firefighter/EMT eligibility list.” The letter did not identify her overall score or her score on any component part of the test or indicate which component(s) she had allegedly failed.

429478-7

21
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 22 of 92 PageID #:908
150. As a direct and proximate result of the action of the City, Plaintiff Stafen was not hired as a firefighter/EMT and has sustained and continues to sustain lost wages and other benefits of employment she would have been eligible for as a CFD firefighter/EMT.
VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 151. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4) on behalf of a Class of all female applicants for the CFD firefighter/EMT position who took and failed the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test at any time from June 15, 2007 and continuing to the present (hereafter “the class liability period”). 152. Representative Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent. 153. The members of the Class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although Plaintiffs do not know precisely how many women have failed to receive firefighter/EMT positions due to the adverse impact of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, their number is far greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder. Identification of the individual class members can be determined from the City’s firefighter/EMT physical abilities test records. 154. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, among others: (1) whether the City used a discriminatory employment practice by administering a firefighter/EMT physical abilities test that had a disparate impact on female applicants for the firefighter/EMT position; (2) whether the City’s use of the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was job related for the firefighter/EMT position; (3) whether the cut-off score used by the City to determine whether an applicant passed or failed the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test was a business necessity; (4) whether the City failed to consider and has refused to use an available less discriminatory alternative firefighter/EMT physical abilities test; (5) whether the City has intentionally discriminated against female applicants by using the firefighter/EMT physical

429478-7

22
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 23 of 92 PageID #:909
abilities test; (6) whether the City’s policies and/or practices violate Title VII; and (7) whether equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted.
155. Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Representative Plaintiffs, like other members of the Class, have suffered from the City’s discriminatory hiring practices in that they were prevented in obtaining employment as firefighter/EMTs with the CFD.
156. Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. The named Plaintiffs have strong personal interests in the outcome of this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof. Counsel for Plaintiffs have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action.
157. Representative Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to 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. Representative Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from the City’s discriminatory acts and omissions.
158. The City’s actions and omissions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and all Class members substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits for which they would be eligible as CFD firefighter/EMTs.
159. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because the City 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. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end the City’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory polices and/or practices.

429478-7

23
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 24 of 92 PageID #:910

160. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for determination of the back pay claims of individual class members because the issue of liability is common to the class and the common nucleus of operative facts forms the central issue which predominates over individualized issues of proof. The primary question common to the class is whether the City discriminated on the basis of sex by utilizing the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test. This question is so central to the case that it predominates over any individual issues among the members of the proposed class. The City also engaged in a common course of conduct—administering the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test to firefighter/EMT applicants—against all members of the proposed class. Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) would be superior to other methods for fair and efficient resolution of conflict because certification would avoid the need for repeated litigation by each individual class member.
161. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) for determination of particular issues of classwide liability raised by Plaintiffs’ disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. Class certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) is also appropriate to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective classwide compliance and affirmative injunctive relief necessary to eliminate the City’s discrimination against female firefighter/EMT applicants.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Impact)
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.) (On Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class)
162. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 163. This Claim is brought by Individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and by Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class they seek to represent. 164. Throughout the class liability period, the City has used an employment practice, i.e., the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, that has a disparate impact on the basis of sex that is neither job related for the firefighter/EMT position nor consistent with business necessity. The foregoing conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.

429478-7

24
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 25 of 92 PageID #:911
165. Throughout the class liability period, the City has failed and refused to use available alternative firefighter/EMT physical abilities tests that are valid and less discriminatory.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment)
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.) (On Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class)
166. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as alleged above. 167. This Claim is brought by Individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and by Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class they seek to represent. 168. Throughout the class liability period the City has discriminated against female applicants on the basis of sex by knowingly using an employment practice, i.e., the firefighter/EMT physical abilities test, that causes a disparate impact on the basis of sex that is neither job related for the firefighter/EMT position, nor consistent with business necessity with the intended result that otherwise qualified female applicants for the firefighter/EMT position have been disproportionately prevented from becoming firefighter/EMTs for the City. The foregoing conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as follows: 169. Certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (3), and (c)(4); 170. Designation of Plaintiffs Vasich, Dooley, Minnick, Basic, and Evans as representatives on behalf of the Class; 171. Designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel; 172. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.;

429478-7

25
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 26 of 92 PageID #:912

173. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the City and its officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth herein;
174. An order requiring the City to adopt a valid, non-discriminatory method for determining whether firefighter/EMT candidates are physically capable of performing the job;
175. An order requiring the City to hire Plaintiffs and Class members as firefighter/EMTs with retroactive seniority and benefits to the date on which they would have been selected but for the City’s actions, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay and benefits;
176. An order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class back pay (including interest and employee benefits);
177. An order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k);
178. An order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and
179. Such other and further equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Dated: October 16, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

s/Teresa Demchak
MARNI WILLENSON
WILLENSON LAW, LLC
marni@willensonlaw.com 542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 (312) 546-4910; (312) 261-9977 (Fax)

429478-7

26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 27 of 92 PageID #:913
TERESA DEMCHAK, CA Bar No. 123989 tdemchak@gdblegal.com DAVID BORGEN, CA Bar No. 099354 dborgen@gdblegal.com LIN CHAN, CA Bar No. 255027 lchan@gdbelgal.com GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN &
DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax)
SUSAN P. MALONE smalonelaw@sbcglobal.net 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1725 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 726-2638
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

429478-7

27
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 28 of 92 PageID #:914

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 29 of 92 PageID #:915

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 30 of 92 PageID #:916

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 31 of 92 PageID #:917

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 32 of 92 PageID #:918

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 33 of 92 PageID #:919

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 34 of 92 PageID #:920

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 35 of 92 PageID #:921

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 36 of 92 PageID #:922

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 37 of 92 PageID #:923

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 38 of 92 PageID #:924

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 39 of 92 PageID #:925

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 40 of 92 PageID #:926

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 41 of 92 PageID #:927

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 42 of 92 PageID #:928

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 43 of 92 PageID #:929

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 44 of 92 PageID #:930

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 45 of 92 PageID #:931

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 46 of 92 PageID #:932

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 47 of 92 PageID #:933

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 48 of 92 PageID #:934

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 49 of 92 PageID #:935

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 50 of 92 PageID #:936

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 51 of 92 PageID #:937

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 52 of 92 PageID #:938

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 53 of 92 PageID #:939

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 54 of 92 PageID #:940

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 55 of 92 PageID #:941

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 56 of 92 PageID #:942

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 57 of 92 PageID #:943

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 58 of 92 PageID #:944

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 59 of 92 PageID #:945

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 60 of 92 PageID #:946

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 61 of 92 PageID #:947

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 62 of 92 PageID #:948

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 63 of 92 PageID #:949

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 64 of 92 PageID #:950

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 65 of 92 PageID #:951

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 66 of 92 PageID #:952

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 67 of 92 PageID #:953

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 68 of 92 PageID #:954

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 69 of 92 PageID #:955

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 70 of 92 PageID #:956

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 71 of 92 PageID #:957

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 72 of 92 PageID #:958

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 73 of 92 PageID #:959

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 74 of 92 PageID #:960

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 75 of 92 PageID #:961

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 76 of 92 PageID #:962

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 77 of 92 PageID #:963

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 78 of 92 PageID #:964

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 79 of 92 PageID #:965

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 80 of 92 PageID #:966

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 81 of 92 PageID #:967

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 82 of 92 PageID #:968

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 83 of 92 PageID #:969

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 84 of 92 PageID #:970

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 85 of 92 PageID #:971

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 86 of 92 PageID #:972

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 87 of 92 PageID #:973

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 88 of 92 PageID #:974

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 89 of 92 PageID #:975

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 90 of 92 PageID #:976

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 91 of 92 PageID #:977

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 78 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 92 of 92 PageID #:978

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

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS, individually and as the representatives of all other similarly-situated persons, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFER ROCCASALVA as individuals
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11 C 04843 ) ) Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are defendant City of Chicago’s motions (1) for partial

summary judgment seeking to narrow the c lass period and to dismiss fo r lack of standing the

plaintiffs’ request for mandatory prospective injunctive relief; and (2) to dismiss the intentional

discrimination claims from the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons that

follow, the Court grants the summary-judgment motion as to the class period and denies it as to

the request for an injunction. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Background

This putative class action alleges sex discrimination by the Cit y of Chicago. The

plaintiffs allege that the Physical Abilities Test formerly administered to f irefighter/EMT

candidates discriminated against female applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. The plaintiffs are Sam antha Vasich, Rashuanda Doole y, Angela Minnick, J aniece

Theeke, Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans (as of October 16, 2012), on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated, and Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen, and Jennifer Roccasalva (joined
as of October 23, 2012) individually. The Court refers to them collectively as the “plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs’ two- count Second Amended Com plaint1 and Third Amended Complaint
allege both disparate impact upon and disparate treatment of female firefighter applicants. The
plaintiffs wish to certif y a class of women a pplicants who took and faile d the firefi ghter/EMT
PAT at any time from September 11, 2007, to the pres ent. (As we will see, the basis for this date
is somewhat mysterious.) They seek a de claratory judgment that that the City unlawfully
discriminated against female firefighter-EMT applicants and an injunction prohibiting the
continuation of the discriminatory practices and ordering the City to “adopt a valid, non -
discriminatory method for determining whether firefighter/EMT candidates are physically
capable of p erforming the job.” As damages, they seek back pay and benefits, as w ell as thei r
costs and attorney’s fees. They further request an order requiring the City to hire them and award
them retroactive seniority and benefits, or alternatively, requiring the City to pay them front pay
and benefits without hiring them.
I. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The City’s motion f or partial summary judgment seeks to ( 1) limit the class period to
events occurring on or a fter June 27, 2009—300 da ys (roughly) before named plaintiff Vasich
filed an EEOC c harge making allegations of class-wide discrimination; and (2) strike the
plaintiffs’ request for a mandatory injunction requiring the Cit y to develop a new, non-
1 The Complaint was amended with le ave of court after the summary-judgment motion was filed and bri efed; however, t he amendment (adding a new pl aintiff) has no bearing on t he substantive claims or the arguments raised in the motion. The Third Amended Complaint (part of which the defendants moved to dismiss and the refore have not yet answered in full) is now th e only operative pleading. See French v. Wachovia Bank, 574 F.3d 830, 835 (7th Cir. 2009 ). For consistency between this opinion and the parties’ submissions, the Court cites the par agraphs of the Second Amend ed Complaint in addressing the summary-judgment motion, but its ruling s apply substantively to the parallel allegations and claims in the operative complaint.
2

discriminatory physical evaluation for firefighter-EMT candidates. As t o the first part of the

motion, the Cit y contends that the various admin istrative charges filed before Vasich’s did not

allege class-wide discrimination based on the use of the PAT in hiring F irefighter-EMTs; the

plaintiffs, on the other h and, argue that the “pre-Vasich charges” and ensuing investigation gave

notice of class-wide claims. In the second part of its motion, the City argues that these plaintiffs

lack standing to obtain mandatory injunctive relief because there is no im mediate threat of a

concrete injury. The plaintiffs contend that their standing is evident in light of their intention to

seek employment as Firefighter-EMTs in the future.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the mova nt shows that there is no g enuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a); Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F .3d 560, 566 (7th Cir. 2012). In assessing the Cit y’s

motion, the Court cons trues the facts and makes all reasonable inferences in f avor of the

plaintiffs. Jajeh, 678 F.3d at 566.

Facts2

The Chicago Fire Department required all Firefighter-EMT applicants to ta ke and pass

the PAT to proceed to the further stages of t he hiring process. IT administered the PAT to

applicants three times b etween December 2007 and March 2009. From April to O ctober of

2008, at least five administrative charges of sex discrimination were filed by unsuccessful female

applicants. The charges were as follows:

x On April 10, 2008, J essica Evans filed a charge of sex discrimination w ith the

EEOC. Her charge states that she applied to become a Firefighter-EMT in March

2 The Court considers only those facts properly submitted and supported with citations to admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Court disregards any facts in the plaintiffs’ statement of additional material facts that rely exclusively on the hearsay testimony of their attorney Teresa Demchek. See Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C).
3

2006, took the P AT in December 2007, and w as told in January 2008 t hat she would not be considered for the position. Sh e further stated: “I believe that I was discriminated against because of my sex, female.” x On July 7, 2008, Plainti ff Bailey, already a Chicago paramedic, filed an EEOC charge of sex discrimination stating that she “did not pa ss the Firefighter/EMT Physical Abilities Test.” She further stated: “I believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my sex, female.” x On July 7, 2008, Plaintif f Theeke, already a Chicago paramedic, filed an EEOC charge of sex discrimination stating that she was not selected for the position of Firefighter-EMT and asserting: “I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female.” The charge does not mention the PAT. x On August 6, 2008, Plaintiff Stafen, alr eady a Chicago paramedic, filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC. He r charge states: “I applied for the position of F irefighter/EMT. In or around January 2008, I learned I was not selected. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female.” The charge does not mention the PAT. x On October 8, 2008, Pl aintiff Minnick, al ready a Chicag o paramedic, filed a charge of sex discrimination alleging that she was not pr omoted to F irefightEMT. Her charge states: “I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex.” The charge does not mention the PAT. Howeve r the EEOC’s Intake Questionnaire reflects that Minnick reported: “[I] didn’t pass t est” and “[I] don’t know what standards we re or why I failed.” She listed three other women “in the
4

same situation,” includi ng plaintiffs Stafen and Theeke, but did not answer the question who was treated worse, better, or the same as she. Then on April 20, 201 0 (a year-and-a-half after Minnick’s char ge), named plaintiff Vasich filed a char ge that e xpressly included allegations of cla ss-wide discrimination, specifically based on t he use of the PAT to exclude otherwise qualifi ed female applicants. Vasich brought her charge on behalf of “female firefighter candidates who have been and will in the future be removed from the [Chicago Fire Department] eligibility list and refused hire based on the (alle ged) results of physical abilities test.” On October 1, 2010, Jennifer Roccasalva (newly joined as a plaintiff in this case) filed a charge that also challenged the fairness of t he PAT; she alleged that she “did not fail” the PAT “despite the City’s assertion” to the contrary. The EEOC investigated all the charges and so ught discovery from the Cit y at various times. On July 3, 2008, in connection with Evan s’ charge (the only one filed at that time) the agency asked the City to provide information “by gender/sex” for “all individuals” selected and not selected as Firefighter-EMTs after January 1, 2006. 3 The EEOC did not request any information relating to the PAT. The City provided the requested information in August 2008. At some point thereafter, the EEOC consolidated its investigation of the Evans charge with the other 2008 charges (by Bailey, Stefen, The eke, and Minnick). In connection with all five cha rges, it issued a subpoena on M arch 25, 2010, for data about the PAT scores fo r “all individuals” who applied for Firefighter-EMT jobs and br eaking down those selected and not selected by their scores and gender.
3 Emphasizing the words “all individuals,” the pl aintiffs repeatedly characterize this and later requests as “class-wide discovery” by the EEOC. The City disputes this characterization of the requests for hiring statistics.
5

Later, the five 2008 charges under investigation were consolidated with three mor e charges, including Vasich’s April 2010 charge. On December 29, 2010, the EEOC subpoenaed records from the Cit y about its ph ysical ability requirements for Firefighter-EMTs and its use and administration of th e PAT to applicants fo r that job. About a year after filing her EEOC charge, Vasich requested and re ceived a right-to-sue notice. The i nstant lawsuit was fi led on July 19, 2011.
All of the named plaintiffs intend to seek positions as Chicago Firefighter-EMTs in the future. The City stopped using the PAT in 201 1 and has no plans to u se the PAT for future hiring. It has not imple mented a new test, but it intends to. The City issued a Task Order Proposal Request on Ap ril 30, 2012, to find a v endor to “conduct a sea rch for an altern ative physical ability test.” It has received proposals from two vendors, but it had not selected a vendor as of the time the instant motion was briefed.
Discussion A. Applicable Class Period The City moves to restrict the class period to eliminate any allegedly discriminatory acts occurring before June 27, 2009, which is 300 d ays before Vasich filed her charge of class-wide sex discrimination with the EEOC. The City argues that Vasich’s charge is the first and only one that alleged discrimination against all female applicants based upon the use of the PAT. The City points to the absence of any mention of the PAT in most of the pre-Vasich charges, the exclusive use of fi rst-person pronouns in all of the charges (e.g., “I was discriminated against”), and the failure of any charge to refer to any other individuals, let alone a class. On the other hand, the plaintiffs identif y the start of the class period as September 11, 2007, a date the y say derives from J essica Evans’s EEOC char ge. They claim that this charge
6

and the ensuing EEOC investigation placed the City on notice that the alleged discrimination was much broader than any individual’s experience not getting hired or promoted.
Claims of discrimination under Title VII are subject to a 180- or a 300-day window for filing an EEOC charge. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e); Turner v. The Saloon, L td., 595 F.3d 679, 684 & n.5 (7th Cir. 2010). The longer period applies where the claimant f iles a char ge with the appropriate state or local agency. See Moore v. Vi tal Products, Inc., 641 F.3d 253, 256 (7th Cir. 2011). Any complaint of conduct that occurred more than the 180 or 300 days before the relevant charge (depending upon which period applies) is time-barred. Id. Here, there is no indication that any plaintiff went first to the Illinois Human Rights Commission or other local authority; the record contains only charges filed with the EEOC. Yet the City applies the longer 300-day limit to calculate the start of the class period. As for the plaintiffs, it is unclear how they arrived at the start of their proposed class pe riod: September 7, 2007 is neither 180 nor 3 00 days from the date of Evans’s April 8, 20 08, charge. (The plaintiffs argue that Ev ans’s charge “serves as the temporal beginning” of the class p eriod. Memorandum, Dkt. #62 at 2 n.1.) Presumably the parties will clarify their calculations going forward. But the legal issues before the Court require it only to decide which charge(s) the time period should be pegged to.
That question comes down to whether the claims in the class-action complaint are fairly within the scope of any pre-Vasich EEOC charge. Only claims that were originally included in the EEOC charges may be asserted in a lawsuit under Title V II. Moore, 641 F.3d at 256. This is not a completely rigid determination; a plaintiff can include in a lawsuit any claims that are “like or reasonably related to the a llegations of the [ EEOC] charge and g rowing out of such allegations.” Id. This means that the claim and the EEOC charge “must, at minimum, describe the same conduct and i mplicate the same individuals.” Id. at 257. “Disc rete discriminatory acts
7

are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to ac ts alleged in time ly filed charges. Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger C orp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). Whether the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims fall within the scope of their EEOC c harges is a pur e question of law. Moore, 641 F.3d at 257.
Any charge of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin necessarily implicates the claimant’s membership in a protected class of persons. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982). (“W e cannot disagree with the p roposition underlying the across-the-board rule—that racial discrimination is b y definition class discrimination”). It does not follow, however, that any charge of discrimination against a member of the protected class signals discrimination against the class as a whole, let alone that the procedural device of a class action is an appropriate way to litigate it. See id. Otherwise, every discrimination charge would be a class action.
Therefore, the charge itself must give notice in some fashion that the discrimination was against not onl y the cl aimant but an entire group or class of people. Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F .2d 124, 127-128 (7th Cir. 1 989). Relevant considerations are whether the allegations in the char ge “referred to a spe cific individual instance of discrimination,” and whether the ensuing EEOC investigation was sufficiently broad “to put the defendants on notice that the plaintiffs intende d to file a co mplaint alleging class-based discrimination.” Id. at 128. If the administrative proceedings do not g ive the defendant sufficient notice of class-wide claims, then the lawsuit ex ceeds the scope of the EEOC ch arge(s) and cannot be maintained as a class action. See id. (affirming dismissal of class claims); Bluford v. Swift Transp., 2012 WL 1755772, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2012) (dismissing class claims); Metz v. Joe Ri zza Imports, Inc., 700 F.
8

Supp. 2d 983, 991-92 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (narrowing class claims); White v. Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 1994 W L 249545, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 1994) (dismissing class claims); Latuga v. Hooters, Inc., 1994 W L 113079, at * 2 (N.D. I ll. April 1, 1994) (dismissing class claims). However, when notice is explicit or can be fairl y gleaned from the ch arge or investigation, the class claims may remain. See Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 852 F.2d 1008, 1017 (7th Cir. 1988) (charge gave sufficient notice under ADEA); EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 2007 WL 2198363 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2007) (EEOC investigation gave sufficient notice of class claims); Buie v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 1998 WL 729614, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (charge gave fair notice of “pattern or practice” claim); Levine v. Bryant, 700 F. Supp. 949, 956 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (charge “clearly” alleged class-wide discrimination).
In this case, the earliest charges of discrimination did not suf fice to give the City notice of class-wide claims bas ed on the PAT. Each charge spoke only of discr imination against the charging woman herself, using the pronouns “I” and “my,” exclusively. Not one of them referred to any other applicants or to discrimination against women in general. The plaintiffs’ only retort is that Minnick’s EEOC intake form lists three “similarly situated” women, but they do not dispute that the City did not see that document until this lawsuit was filed, so it could not have given the City prior notice of class claims. And the purpose for whi ch Minnick listed the other women is far from clear because she did not completely answer the form’s question—a question which, in a ny case, could be intended to ide ntify “similarly situated” comparators who w ere treated more favorably, as required by the indirect method of proof, no t “similarly situated” discrimination victims, which is wha t the plaintiffs say Minnick was doing. The form is too ambiguous to be the basis of notice of class-wide claims, even if the City had seen it.
9

In concluding that the pre-Vasich charges contain no hint of class-wide claims, the Court is not holding the plaintiffs to a “magic words” standard. The Seventh Circuit has said, in the comparable ADEA context, “we do not believe that such an ex plicit mention that a representative action is contemplated is necessary.” Anderson, 852 F.2d at 1017. This Court does not suggest otherwise, and would not require an “explicit mention” of class action if the complainants otherwise signaled the existence of a broade r class of plaintiffs. Here, ev en mentioning that the universally administered PAT test was unf air to wo men could have tipped off the City that it might be in trouble with a whole class of applicants. But the pre -Vasich charges do not complain about the PAT in any way—its scoring, its administration, or even its existence. The plaintiffs ar gue that the Cit y’s responses to the charges reflect its understanding that the plaintiffs were challenging the PAT. But raising the PAT as a defense doesn’t signal that the City knew that the PAT itself was being challenged (to the contrary, it suggests that the City did not understand the pre-V asich charges to be cha llenging the PAT). The Cit y equally could have invoked the PAT as a def ense to a general charge that it failed to hire the complainant because of her gender. The bare-bones charges, each of which complains in general terms of the failure to hire or promote the charging woman alone, and most of which do not even mention, let alone criticize, the pre-hire test currently challenged on a class-wide basis, did not give the City reason to anticipate this class action.
The plaintiffs also point to the sheer number of charges made within a short time period and insist that the C ity must have had notice of class-wide claims. The Court disag rees. First, only five charges preceded Vasich’s (by well over a year). That number is not insignificant, but it does not give notice of a potential lawsuit by a class of all female applicants. Also, the number of 2008 charges in itself d id not for ecast a class-action based on the test for physical abilities.
10

Although all five claimants charged discrimination based on sex , only two even mentioned the PAT—now the sole basi s of the cl ass-wide discrimination claims in the plaintiffs’ complaint. And only one of these women, Bailey, indicated that she failed the test; Evans simply listed her test date in a timeline of her application process. The City could not necessarily anticipate, based upon the five p re-Vasich charges, that it would b e subject to suit b y all female applicants who failed the PAT.
The plaintiffs also argue that allegations of class-wide discrimination were suggested by the EEOC’s investigation—in particular, the “class-wide” discovery sought by the agency. First, the Court is mindful of the Seventh Circuit’s ex planation that “although the investig ation may help define the scope of the ch arge, it is primaril y the charge to which we look in determining whether the scope requirement is satisfied.” Schnellbaecher, 887 F.2d at 127. Here, as discussed above, the charges themselves give no su ggestion of class -wide claims. Second, “cl ass-wide” discovery is the plaintiffs’ label, not the agency’s. The plaintiffs do not suppl y any communications from the EEOC tha t indicate it wa s investigating discrimination against a “class” based on the pre-Vasich charges. The July 2008 request for information refers only to the Evans charge and does not use the label “class” or otherwise sig nal a broader investigation. Requesting general hiring statistics does not give notice than an individua l claim has become a class action. Id. at 128 (“To be sure, the EEOC . . . sou ght payroll records for all sal es persons and an explanation for the differences between the salaries of male and female sales persons”). True, the case here is slightly stronger because the EEOC later consolidated the charges, which gave notice of the overlap between multiple claims. But although this f oreshadows joinder of claims, it is not enough to give notice of a potential class action. And, at any rate, the EEOC did not issue a consolidated discovery request until March 25, 2010, just a w eek before Vasich filed
11

her charge. Therefore, even if this s ubpoena counts as “notic e,” it came almost contemporaneously with Vasich’s class-wide charge, and does not justify extending the class period back into 2007.4
A few more points bear brief m ention. First, the plaintiffs’ reliance on McDonald v. United Airlines, Inc., 587 F .2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1978), for the proposition that the City’s “notice of and liability before class claims is triggered by the first filed charge” is misplaced. The case states only the uncontroversial proposition that the class p eriod begins “when one member of the class initiates the grievance mechanism” (emphasis added). An individual is not a “member of the class” if his or her claim falls outside the class period. The McDonald court’s ultimate definition of the class period rested on when a charge first put the defendant “on notice . . . that aggrieved stewardesses were challenging its no-marriage rule policy.” Id. at 361. That is the same approach this Court takes here.
Second, the Court is unpersuaded by the ar gument that the Ci ty was on notice because same EEOC investigator was assi gned to all of the pre-Vasich charges (even assuming that plaintiffs adequately supported this purported fa ct, which the Cit y disputes). How the EEOC staffed its investigation says nothing about whether the City reasonably could have anticipated a class action. And the Court has alr eady addressed the argument that the ch arges were so numerous as to inherently constitute notice of class-wide claims.
4 The plaintiffs do not argue or ci te any authority to the effect that a charge, once consolidated with an earlier one(s), “relates back” to the date of the earliest consolidated charge. The EEOC’s re gulations include a “relation bac k” provision, but i t concerns amendments to a charge that clarify or amplify the allegations in that charge, not another person’s charge. See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). Ev en that provision, howev er, does not allow a dditional allegations in any amendment to expand the scope of the original charge. E.g., Cheek v. W. & Sn. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 503 (7th C ir. 1994). Adding class allega tions would be an e xpansion, not a mere clarification or amplification.
12

Finally, the Court rejects outright the plaintiffs’ argument that City officials (CFD
Assistant Commissioner for Labor Relations Charles Killman, Jr. and First Deputy Chief Charles
Stewart III) “admitted” knowing of class-wide cl aims before Vasich’s charge was filed. Th e
“admissions” the plaintiffs cite are selective quotations artfully patched together. See Local Rule
56.1 Statement of Additional F acts, Dkt. # 62- 1 at ¶¶ 22-24. When viewed in contex t, the
testimony does not bear the weight plaintiffs place on it. Indeed, Deputy Chief Stewart took care
to disavow plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement that each char ge claimed “that the ph ysical abilities
test being used to screen firefighter/EMT candidates discriminated against women”; he st ated:
“No. I understood the claim to be that ‘I’d been discriminated because of my sex, female, with
respect to not b eing selected.” Stewart Deposition, Defendant’s Reply Exhibit 4, Dkt. # 67- 1 at
89-90. As for Killman, f ar from admitting, as the plaintiffs assert, that he received “class-wide”
discovery from the EEOC, at his deposition all he did was respond “I do” when asked whether he
could see that the March 2010 subpoena requested “information about t he final test scores of
applicants who completed the PAT, as well as eligibility lists compiled as a result of the PAT.”
Plaintiffs’ Response, Exhibit 11, Dkt. # 62-2, at 54. This is not an admission that the Cit y had notice of “class-wide ” allegations.5 Again, that phrasing belongs to the pl aintiffs’ counsel, not
the City (or the EEOC).
5 As noted, even if the March 2010 subpoena finally constituted no tice to the Cit y, Vasich’s charge was filed very shortly afterward, so the difference in timing would be negligible. And Plaintiffs fail to support their argument (in a footnote, see Dkt. #62 at 9 n.12) that when an investigation, not a cha rge, is the sour ce of the d efendant’s notice, that no tice “relates back” to the date of the charge. The cited case is not c ontrolling, but, mor eover, it doe s not ma ke this point. Instead, Magistrate Judge Nolan ex plained, and this Court ag rees, that: “W hen the EEOC’s actual investigation is broader than the underl ying charge and the employer has notice of the natur e of the b roader claims and an opportunity to conciliate those claims, the purposes behind the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement are met and the employee should not be barred from filing a judicial complaint addressing the broader investigated claims or claims reasonably related to the investigated claims.” EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 2007 WL
13

Requiring Title V II plaintiffs to connect a lawsuit to an earlier admini strative charge serves a purpos e: notifying the de fendant of th e allegedly discriminatory conduct to facilitate conciliation and voluntary compliance with anti-discrimination laws without litigation. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F .3d 1074, 1089 (7th Cir. 2008); Hottenroth v. Vill/ of Slinger, 388 F.3d 1015, 1035 (7th Cir. 20 04); Cheek v. W . & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F .3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.1994); Schnellbaecher, 887 F.2d at 127. Class-a ction plaintiffs, like an y others, cannot “bypass the EEOC and head strai ght for the courts” without giving notice of the c lass-wide claims and affording the d efendant an opportunit y to con ciliate on that basis. See Hottenroth, 338 F .3d at 1015. Once lost, the opp ortunity to efficiently resolve the grievance through cooperation cannot be created retroactively. None of the plaintiffs’ arguments persuade the Court that the purpose of the Title VII “exhaustion” requirement would be served by allowing the class period to extend back to the first 2008 charge. (Indeed, why stop there? If Evans’s general charge of sex discrimination gives adequate notice o f a class action about the PAT, then any earlier charge against the fire department mentioning “discrimination based on sex” did the same.)
Because it was not until Vasich’s 2010 charge that any woman complained about classwide discrimination based on the use of the PAT, her charge must define the class period. The class period therefore begins 180 or 300 da ys before Vasich’s charge of April 10, 2010. For that reason, the Court grants this portion of the City’s motion for partial summary judgment.
B. Standing to Seek a Mandatory Injunction The City next argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to obtain the mandatory injunction they request in ¶ 156 of the Second Amende d Complaint (and ¶ 174 of the Third Amended
2198363, at *4 (N. D. Ill. July 31, 2007). Roadway Express says nothing about “relation back,” and the Court further notes that, unlike here, in that case, the EEOC explicitly found “reasonable cause to believe Roadway engaged in class-wide discrimination.” See id.
14

Complaint): “An order requiring the Cit y to adopt a valid, non-discri minatory method for determining where firefighter/EMT candidates are physically capable of performing the job.” Thereafter in its brief, the City intermittently refers to a propos ed injunction requiring the plaintiffs’ participation in the formulation of a new test. Memorandum, Dkt. # 47 at 13, 14 -15. The Court does not see any such request in the Complaint, however, and it therefore disregards these confusing references in addressing the standing argument.
A plaintiff must demonstrate standing “separately for each form of relief sought.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167, 185 (2000); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons , 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983) (plaintiff had standing to seek damages but not injunctive relief); Pavarti Corp. v. City of Oak F orest, 630 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2010). “To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of sufferin g ‘injury in fa ct’ that is c oncrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not c onjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will preve nt or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 180-81.
Here, the City primarily argues that there is no threat of a concrete injury to the plaintiffs, let alone one that is actual and imminent. The remainder of the City’s arguments against standing actually address whether the Plaintiffs can show their entitlement to injunc tive relief by satisfying the elements of (1) irreparable harm, (2) the inadequacy of monetary damages as a remedy; (3) a favorable balance of hardships; and (4) service of the public interest. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The Cit y’s arguments that the plaintiffs will be unable to s atisfy these elements do not suppo rt their claim that standi ng is lacking, and they will not be considered in tha t context. See Arreola v. Godinez , 546 F .3d 788, 794–95 (7t h
15

Cir.2008) (“Although the two concepts unfor tunately are blurred at times, standing and entitlement to r elief are not the same thing. Standing is a pr erequisite to filing suit, while the underlying merits of a claim ... determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief”) (emphasis in original).6
In its main argument against standing, the City states, and has evidence to support, that it “has no plans to us e” the PAT in th e future, and that it has requested proposals from testing vendors to develop a replacement test. There fore, it sa ys, the plaintiffs cannot show an immediate threat of suff ering a concrete injury. The plaintiffs (understandably) took the Cit y to be arguing mootness, and their response brief attempts to show the existence of a live controversy. In its reply brief, however, the City stridently insists that it is not arguing mootness by cessation of conduct, only standing and “ripe[ness].” The gist is that there isn’t a si gnificant likelihood of an immed iate, concrete injury because whatever (as yet unannounced) hiring process the City uses in the future should not be presumed to be discriminatory.
Weighing the some what convoluted ar guments, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have standing to seek an injunction requiring the City to develop a non-discriminatory physical abilities test. Title VII specifically contemplates equitable relief, including injunctions, to remedy intentional discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g). And, as the plaintiffs point out, injunctions related to testin g or hiri ng standards have been found appropriate. E.g., Bates v. United Parc el Serv., Inc., 465 F.3d 1069, 1093 (9th Cir. 2006); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1233 (9th Cir. 1991); Guardians Ass’n of New York City Police Dep’t., Inc. v. C ivil Service Comm’n, 630 F.2d 79, 108-109 (2d Cir. 1980). There does not appear to be anything special about this c ase
6 The plaintiffs fall into the same trap of conflating standing with the merits in arguing that “the question of the propriety of injunctive relief is also premature because Plaintiffs have not conducted the discovery necessary.” Memorandum, Dkt. #62, at 13 n.16. As noted, standing is a prerequisite to filing suit; thus, discovery should not factor in.
16

that would pr eclude the plaintiffs from requesting this r elief in the ir complaint. Whether they will ultimately be entitled to tha t relief is a n open question that is not be fore the Court at this stage. But because all the named plaintiffs attest that they intend to seek positions as FirefighterEMTs in the future, their allegations are sufficient to plead a likelihood of imminent, conc rete injury (assuming that the plaintiffs prove that the PAT is discriminatory).
If the City had establish ed beyond dispute that it has discontinued the use of the PAT altogether, then the Court’s decision might be different.7 Voluntary cessation of the challeng ed conduct can render action for an injunction moot, but onl y where the defendant clearly demonstrates that there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated. Friends of Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189. If it were cle arly shown that, for ex ample, that physical ability testing had been abandoned altogether, then perhaps the plaintiffs could not maintain an action for an injunction. But all the evidence shows is that the City presently “has no plan” to use th e PAT again. This consistent, very careful, choice language by the City leaves room for the use of that test in the future—so long as the use is not planned as of this moment. (That the City has not made, and explicitly rejects, a mootness argument further suggests a possibility of repeating the alleged injury.) Moreover, the Cit y has not sa id that no new hiring will be done until the new testing protocol is in place; nor has it provided evidence of how it will evaluate Firefighter-EMT candidates pending the development of that new t est by outside vendors. As of now, the Cit y is merely “in the process of selecting a vendor.”8 The Court cannot assume, with no evidence in the record, that a future test will not adversely impact women, inherently or through the manner of
7 In a way, it is the City’s argument that is not yet “ripe.” It asks the Court to c huck the request for injunctive r elief based upon a replacement test for the PAT that is as- yet only hypothetical and in the early stages of investigation.
8 The City reports in a supplemental filing that it has now engaged a vendor, but this fact does not change the analysis; the new test has not yet been designed or implemented.
17

its administration and scoring . In short, the City has not closed the door on the repetition of the plaintiffs’ injury in the future simply because it says it “has no plan” to give the PAT.
Although the Court concludes that there is standing in this case, a potential problem with the prospective injunctive relief sought in ¶ 156 is that it would essentially require the City to follow the law. The City already has a legal obligation to emplo y a “valid, non-discriminatory method for determining where firefighter/EMT candidates are physically capable of performing the job.” Federal law prohibits discrimination in hi ring based on sex, including by using testing procedures that dispropo rtionately affect women. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e -2(h)(“professionally developed ability . . . te st, its administration or action upon the results” cannot be “desi gned, intended or used to discriminate because o f race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”) Issuing a mandatory injunction that says, in essence, “follow the law,” is not t ypically a fitting remedy when the defendant is a lleged to have broken the law in the past. That said, use of such prospective injunctions is some times allowed as part of the remedy for past intentional discrimination. “Affirmative injunctive relief for past discriminat ory practices is appropri ate where the court believes that ‘the vestiges of prior discrimination linger and remain to be eliminated.’” United States v. Di Mucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1498 (7th Cir. 1 989) (quoting United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 219 (4th Cir.)). A court may order injunctive relief onc e it finds “that the defendant intentionally engaged in an unl awful employment practice” if “the discriminatory conduct could possibly persist in the future. ” EEOC v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 108 F.3d 1569, 1578–79 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court fla gs this issue now because, although they have survived the ch allenge to standing , going forward, the plaintiffs be ar the bu rden to show that any past discrimination they prove may also persist in the future; this fact is not assumed.
18

II. Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint With leave of this Court , the plaintiffs further amended their complaint on October 16,
2012. The Third Amen ded Complaint reprises th e disparate impact a nd disparate treatment claims alleged in the earlier pleadings. The main difference is the addition of plaintiff Jessica Evans. Now the Cit y moves to dismiss the dispar ate treatment claim, Count II, arguing that the plaintiffs fail to set forth sufficient facts to plausibly state a claim of intentional discrimination.
As noted, the alle gations of disparate tr eatment are not ne w to the Th ird Amended Complaint. The City previously answered that claim. See Answers, Dkt. # 45 at 40, Dkt. # 26 at 27-28. But it c laims that ne w law—the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2012) (“McReynolds II”)—establishes a pleading standard for intentional discrimination cases that the plaintiffs have failed to me et. The Court does not view McReynolds II as creating or ev en clarifying a pleading standard. Instead, the case straightforwardly applies the existing Twombly / Iqbal standard to a complaint that alleges intentional discrimination. Id. at 885-86; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). The City’s argument against Count II was available long before the McReynolds II decision (as evidenced by the defendants’ arguments in that case, among other things). But that doesn’t matter; the City does not r equire new law to justify its current motion. The Third Amended Complaint completely supersedes all prior pleadings, and it is well-settled that defendants are entitled to use the same clean slate that plaintiffs are afforded when amendment is permitted. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999). Given that the City previously saw fit to answer the same allegations the first few times they were made, its current motion c hafes at the spirit, if not the le tter, of Rule 12. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (instructing that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading
19

is allowed). But the City’s approach, however inefficient, appears to be permissible (and in any event the plaintiffs have not objected to it).
In reviewing the City’s motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all factual allegations as true and draws all re asonable inferences in favor of t he plaintiffs. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 , 127 (2007); McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 637 (7th Cir. 2010). However, the Court does not accept as true any allegations that are mere legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679–80.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (a)(2) requires a federal complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This means the complaint must contain sufficient detail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. A complaint contains enoug h detail if it presents “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and the required level of factual specificity “rises with the complexity of the claim,” McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616–17 (7th Cir. 2011).
The defendants base their motion to di smiss solely on McReynolds II, in whic h the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an intentional-discrimination claim alleging that Merrell Lynch’s use of a retent ion bonus prog ram with a disparate eff ect on black emplo yees was intended to cause black emplo yees to leave the firm at hig h rates. 694 F .3d at 885. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to a llege sufficient facts to ma ke their contention of intentional discrimination plausible. Id. at 887. The disparate treatment claim consisted of four repetitive sentences that concluded, without any factual detail, that the defendants intended to discriminate. Id. at 886. Notably, the plaintiffs did not alleg e that the bonus prog ram itself was creat ed or
20

maintained with a discriminatory motive—it was the resultant attrition of black employees that the plaintiffs alleged to be intentional. Id. at 887.
Drawing on McReynolds II, City argues here that the only allegations in the Third Amended Complaint that r elate to inte ntional discrimination are conclusory statements of law that must be disreg arded under Iqbal—for example, the assertion that the City used the PAT “with the intention of discriminating against female firefighter/EMT applicants or with reckless disregard of the fact that the firefight/EMT [PAT] and its use have that unlawful effect.” 3d Am. Comp., Dkt. # 78 ¶ 13. The Court agrees that this allegation and others like it cannot be taken as true on a motion to dismiss; they are the sort of legal conclusions that Iqbal says the Court need not accept.
But the defendants are wrong to su ggest that the only relevant allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are bare legal conclusions. The complaint contains several factual allegations that, if true , would permit an inferen ce of inte nt under the law g overning disparate treatment claims. The pl aintiffs specifically allege, for ex ample, that the City of C hicago historically discriminated against qualified women in its hir ing of firefighters, and that it h as historically used discriminatory tests to screen applicants to the fire department. 3d Am. Compl., Dkt. # 78 at ¶¶ 4, 64. A history of similar discr imination can be probativ e of the defendant’s motives or intent in a given case. See, e.g., Good v. Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670, 678 (7th Cir. 2012) (“history of discrimination” would be probative of discriminatory motive for disparate treatment); Hossack v. Floor Covering Assocs. of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 863 (7th Cir 2007) (evidence th at employer had never before discriminated in the manner alleged supported defense to claim of in tentional discrimination). Under the indire ct method of proving intentional discrimination, a histor y of past discrimination is relevant to the element of pretext.
21

See, e.g., Sublett v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 463 F.3d 731, 739 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus, the plaintiffs’ factual allegations pertaining to the fire department’s history of discrimination are among the allegations relevant to their disparate treatment claim.
The plaintiffs also allege an obvious statistical shortage of female firefighters long known to the City and a statistically significant difference in PAT passage rates. 3d Am. Comp., Dkt. # 78 ¶¶ 4, 59. Although statistical disparities are not dispositive, th ey can be evidence of intentional discrimination. See, e.g., McNamara v. City of Chicago , 138 F.3d 1219, 1223 (7th Cir. 1998) (discussing statistical evidence while noting that it is not alon e probative of intent); Coates v. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524, 540 (7th Cir. 1985) (“statistical disparities between black and white discharge rates may be a telltale sign of purposeful discrimination”); Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857, 867-68 (7th Cir. 1985) (“Supreme Court ac ceptance of statistical proof is well established.”). Indeed, the Supreme Court called it “unmistakably clear” that statistics play an “important role” in pr oving discrimination. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 339 (1977)(collecting cases). It is even possible to establish a prima facie case of discrimination just with statistical evidence. See Babrocky, 773 F.2d at 868.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs directly challenge the PAT itself as a device deliberately used to screen out female app licants and unjustified by any legitimate purpose. 3d Am. Comp., Dkt. # 78 ¶¶ 4, 7-8, 12-13, 60-63. They do not appear to allege that th e PAT was created or adopted for that purpose, but it suffices to allege that the test was “selected or reaffirmed” to keep women out of the Fire Department. See Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). The plaintiffs allege that there is no e mpirical evidence that the PAT gauges abilities that positively correlate with job pe rformance, nor any studies showing that the PAT accurately measures the physical abilities it purports to a ssess. They each allege that they were and are
22

physically capable of b eing firefighters but we re nevertheless were told they failed the PAT (although they claim not to have been told how they fell short). The plaintiffs’ direct challenge to the PAT a s a discriminatory device that lacks a valid purpose distinguishes this c ase from McReynolds II, where the Seventh Circuit repe atedly emphasized that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts suggesting that “the retention program itself was intentionally discriminatory.” 694 F.3d at 877 (emphasis in original). Here, the plaintiffs say just that about the PAT.
McReynolds II, like other cases before it, holds that to state a disparate treatment claim it is not enough to alle ge that a hirin g practice was maintained d espite its disparate impa ct on minorities. Id. at 887. T his Court’s decision does not de part from that principle: althoug h the plaintiffs do assert that the City knowingly retained a hiring practice with a discriminatory effect, their factual allegations throughout the complaint go further. Thus, reading the Third Am ended Complaint in its entirety, the Court does not agree with the City that the plaintiffs “fail to allege an intentional effort by the City to e liminate women . . . thr ough the use of the [PAT].” That intentional effort is alleg ed by way of a hist ory of disc rimination, a continuing statistical shortage of women hire s, and th e continued us e of a test that has been not been proven to positively identify successful applicants but im pedes female applicants. Taking these as-yet unproved allegations as true, the plaintiffs plausibly state a claim that the City intended the PAT to screen out otherwise qualified female applicants. Of course, it remains for plaintiffs to marshal evidence and prove discriminatory intent.
*** For the re asons explained above, the Cour t GRANTS the City’s partial summary judgment motion se eking limitation of the class period and DENIES the motion insof ar as it
23

seeks dismissal of the request for prospective, mandatory injunctive relief. The motion to dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Entered: January 7, 2013

____________________________________ John J. Tharp, Jr. United States District Judge

24

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:2400

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFER ROCCASALVA, individually,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke,

Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans (the “Settlement Class Representatives”), individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, and Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer

Roccasalva, individually (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant

the City of Chicago (“Defendant”; collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), having filed a

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (collectively, the “Motion”), seeking an

order granting final approval of the proposed settlement of the Action (the “Settlement”), in

accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) entered into by

the Parties;

Plaintiffs having also filed the Affidavit of the Claims Administrator (the “CAA

Affidavit”) and the Affidavit of Settlement Class Counsel; due and adequate notice having been

given to the Settlement Class; and the Court being otherwise advised;

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2401
After review and consideration of the Stipulation, the Motion, the CAA Affidavit, and the Affidavit of Settlement Class Counsel, all other pleadings filed with the Court and the Exhibits annexed thereto, any comments received regarding the proposed Settlement, and having reviewed the entire record in the Action and good cause appearing, after due deliberation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. The Court, for purposes of this Final Judgment and Order (the “Order”), adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members, and Defendant.
3. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice and Proof of Claim form, and publication of the Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, as provided for in the Stipulation and Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to apprise all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action and their rights in it, the terms of the proposed Settlement of the Action, and afforded Settlement Class Members with an opportunity to present their objections, if any, to the Settlement. The Court finds that the provision of notice to the Settlement Class Members fully met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(C)(2)(B), due process, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.
4. The Court provides final approval of the prior provisional certification of the Settlement Class, for settlement purposes, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) consisting of all females who passed the 2006 written qualifying exam to become a CFD firefighter/EMT, who failed the PAT between December 2007 and April 10, 2010, and who were not otherwise
2

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:2402
previously disqualified as an applicant for a firefighter/EMT position with the CFD for a reason other than age.
5. Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3), Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans are approved as Settlement Class Representatives.
6. With respect to the Settlement Class, this Court expressly finds and concludes that the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) are satisfied as: (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class members in the Action is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predominate over any individual questions; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Class; (d) the Settlement Class Representatives and their counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all the Settlement Class members; and (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering: (i) the interests of the Settlement Class Members in individually controlling the prosecution of the separate actions, (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by Settlement Class Members, (iii) the desirability or undesirability of continuing the litigation of these claims in this particular forum, and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the Action.
7. After hearing, and based upon the submission of the Parties, the Motion is granted. This Court approves the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, each of the releases, and other terms as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Parties to the Stipulation are therefore directed to consummate and perform its terms.
3

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:2403
8. In addition, the Court specifically finds: (i) The Settlement recovery is commensurate with, if not more so, than the strength of the claims of the Settlement Class. (ii) Further litigation of the Settlement Class Members’ claims would be complex (dispositive motion practice, expert practice, trial, determining which Settlement Class Members could actually recover), lengthy and expensive, and not at all certain to yield a positive result for the Settlement Class. (iii) There is no indication of any collusion between Class Counsel and Plaintiffs acting as class representatives, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other. This matter has been vigorously and ably litigated by both sides. (iv) Settlement Class Counsel, experienced class action attorneys in this niche of the law, have expressed the view that the Settlement terms are fair. (v) The Settlement Class Members who received appropriate notice have supported the Settlement. No Settlement Class Members have objected to the Settlement. (vi) The stage of proceedings is highly appropriate for a class settlement. The Parties have taken discovery and litigated limited summary judgment issues, and thus have a good sense of the value of the case.
9. In order to consummate the terms of the Stipulation, the Court hereby authorizes and directs the Claims Administrator to make the following payments in accordance with the timing set forth below:
4

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:2404

Payee Samantha Vasich

Amount $15,000

Purpose Incentive Award

Rashaunda Dooley

$15,000

Incentive Award

Angela Minnick

$10,000

Incentive Award

Janiece Theeke

$10,000

Incentive Award

Katrina Basic

$10,000

Incentive Award

Jessica Evans

$10,000

Incentive Award

Angela Minnick

$42,000

Janiece Theeke

$42,000

Katrina Basic

$17,000

Jessica Evans

$73,000

Haley Stafen

$42,000

Kimberly Bailey

$42,000

Jennifer Roccasalva

$10,000

Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award
Individual Backpay Award

Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date

5

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:2405
10. The Defendant is directed as follows with respect to the Classwide Backpay Amount following the entry of this Final Judgment and Order:
(a) Within seven days of the Hiring Election Date, the Claims Administrator will determine the number of Non-Hired Settlement Class Members.
(b) The amount paid to each Claimant as a Non-Hired Settlement Class Member shall be calculated as follows: $1,590,023 divided by the number of Non-Hired Settlement Class Members other than Individual Backpay Recipients who filed valid Proof of Claims rounded down to the nearest dollar.
(c) Payment shall be made to the Non-Hired Settlement Class Members no later than 60 days after the latter of (a) the Settlement Effective Date or the (b) Hiring Election Date.
11. The Defendant shall make a payment of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) to be divided equally among Individual Backpay Recipients who held the rank of Paramedic in Charge prior to 2009 and who are hired in either the 2013 or 2014 Classes. The payment will be made no later than fifteen (15) days after the latter of (a) the entry of Crossovers into the 2014 Fire Academy Class or (b) the Settlement Effective Date. In the event that no Individual Backpay Recipient who holds the rank of Paramedic in Charge prior to 2009 is hired in either the 2013 or 2014 Class, the City shall pay Settlement Class Counsel Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as reimbursement for pretest training provided to Settlement Class Members but no other payment need be made under this paragraph.
12. As of the date of the entry of this Order, the Hiring Process set forth in Article VII.C as it relates to the 2013 Class has been completed. Defendant is directed to complete hiring of qualified Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members for the 2014 Class pursuant to
6

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:2406
Article VII of the Stipulation and the following: (a) Settlement Class Member hiring shall be subject to the City Ordinance § 2-152410(e) limiting the hiring of firefighters to persons less than 38 years of age. (b) Settlement Class Members who are New Hires selecting a CPAT Completion Date of December 31, 2013 (at the Second Stage Processing, or as modified pursuant to Article VII(C)(3)(b) of the Stipulation) and Settlement Class Members RaShaunda Dooley, Tamara Helse, Christy Miller, Charlene Thomas and Lilia Reyes shall have until December 31, 2013 to present their CPAT Cards. (c) Settlement Class Members who are Crossovers and who selected the later CPAT Completion Date shall have until the first day of the 2014 Class to present a CPAT Card to CFD. (d) All Settlement Class Members entering the 2014 Class must have successfully completed all Pre-Hiring Processing no later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to Final Processing for the 2014 Class. (e) All New Hires selecting a CPAT Completion Date of December 31, 2013 who present a CPAT Card by December 31, 2013 and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Normal and Customary Hiring Standards will be hired into the 2014 Class. (f) All Settlement Class Members who are Crossovers who selected the later CPAT Completion Date submit a CPAT Card by the first day of the 2014 Class and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Crossover Hiring Standards will be hired into the 2014 Class.
7

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:2407
13. After completion of hiring by CFD for the 2014 Class, the following process shall apply to the potential hiring of Deferred Settlement Class Members for a subsequent Fire Academy class so long as the 2006 Eligibility List is being used to hire any candidates for the second 2014 Fire Academy Class:
(a) Settlement Class Member hiring shall be subject to the City Ordinance § 2-152410(e) limiting the hiring of firefighters to persons less than 38 years of age.
(b) Deferred Settlement Class Members who are deemed qualified under CFD’s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and who present a CPAT Card no less than 60 days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academy Class will receive offers of employment from CFD to enter the second 2014 Fire Academy Class.
(c) In order to receive an offer of employment pursuant to Paragraph 13(b) above, however, each Deferred Settlement Class Member must elect in writing on or before the Hiring Election Date whether to (i) continue processing for possible hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT and waive any right to a Backpay Award, or (ii) receive a Backpay Award and waive any right to hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT.
(d) At least fourteen (14) prior to the Election Date, the City will provide Settlement Class Counsel with the names and Updated Addresses of all Deferred Settlement Class Members who will be required to make an election. A Deferred Settlement Class Member who elects to waive any right to hiring by the CFD or fails to timely make an election in writing is a Non-Hired Settlement Class Member.
8

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:2408
In the event the City notifies Settlement Class Counsel that it does not intend to select and train another Fire Academy class consisting of applicants off of the 2006 Eligibility List but does thereafter hire another class consisting, in whole or in part, of applicants off of the 2006 eligibility list, Deferred Settlement Class Members who elected to receive a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount shall be offered at such time the opportunity to continue processing for potential hire into the Fire Academy class subject to their repayment to the City of the net amount, if any, already received as a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount. Any funds recovered by the City pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid as a cy pres to the Ende, Menzer, Walsh & Quinn Retirees’, Widows’ and Orphan’s Assistance Fund. Deferred Settlement Class Members processed under this paragraph and who are deemed qualified under CFD’s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and who present a CPAT Card no less than 60 days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academy Class will receive offers of employment from CFD to enter the second 2014 Fire Academy Class. 14. Defendant is directed to hire the Individual Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Representatives who are deemed qualified pursuant to the Normal and Customary Hiring Standards or Crossover Hiring Standards (as applicable), and those Individual Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Representatives shall not be deemed disqualified solely due to age and application of City Ordinance § 2-152-410(e). 15. The Court finds that all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class have been adequately provided with an opportunity to remove themselves from the Settlement Class
9

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:2409
by executing and returning a “request for exclusion” in conformance with the terms of the Stipulation.
16. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in Exhibit 1 hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, the Action, and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs and other Settlement Class Members.
17. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as provided in the Stipulation and specifically in Article XVI, which sets forth the Parties’ agreement as to the resolution of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses for Settlement Class Counsel. Pursuant to such provision, the Parties participated in a mediation conducted by Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier which resulted in an agreement by the City to pay fees and costs to Settlement Class Counsel in the amount of $1,370,000, which the Court approves as fair and reasonable. The City is directed to make such payment to Settlement Class Counsel no later than sixty (60) days after the Settlement Effective Date. The City and counsel for Jennifer Roccasalva agreed that the City will pay fees and costs to Torrick Ward, as counsel for Ms. Roccasalva in the amount of $13,558.50. The City is directed to make such payment to Mr. Ward no later than thirty (30) days after entry of this Order.
18. By operation of the Final Judgment and Order and under the terms of the Stipulation and releases therein, it is intended to preclude, and shall preclude, Plaintiffs and all other Settlement Class Members from filing or pursuing any Released Claims under federal law or the law of any state.
19. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members are deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment and Order shall have fully, finally, and forever released,
10

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:2410
relinquished and discharged all Released Claims against each and all of the Released Parties, whether or not such member of the Settlement Class executed or timely delivered the Proof of Claim.
20. Only those Settlement Class Members who have filed valid and timely Proofs of Claim shall be entitled to receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund. The late claim of Keisha Rucker is approved. The Proof of Claim executed by the Settlement Class Members shall further release all Released Claims against the Released Parties. All Settlement Class Members shall be bound by the releases whether or not they submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim.
21. Neither the Stipulation nor the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the Settlement including this Final Judgment and Order (i) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of Defendant; or (ii) shall be offered in evidence by any Party for any purpose except as provided for in this paragraph. In addition, neither the Stipulation, nor the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the Settlement including this Final Judgment and Order shall be construed as an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT by the Individual Plaintiffs or Settlement Class Representatives for themselves or the Settlement Class or by the Court for any purpose or use other than its interim use as a term and condition of the Stipulation. The Released Parties may file the Stipulation and/or the Final Judgment and Order in any other action that may be brought against them in order to support a defense based upon principals of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or any theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense. The Parties may file the Stipulation in any proceeding brought to enforce any of the terms or provision of the Stipulation.
11

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/20/13 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:2411
22. Only those persons who meet the definition of the Settlement Class identified on Exhibit 1 hereto as having validly filed Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement Class shall not be bound by this Final Judgment and Order.
23. Any order, or any objection to or appeal from any order approving Settlement Class Counsel’s Attorney’s Fees or incentive payments to Plaintiffs, shall in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and shall be considered separate from this Order.
24. The Court finds that the amount paid and other terms of the Settlement were negotiated at arm’s length and in good faith by the Parties, and reflect a settlement that was reached voluntarily based upon adequate information and after consultation with experienced legal counsel.
25. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement of this Order.
By the Court:

DATE: December 20, 2013

___________________________ HON. MARIA VALDEZ United States Magistrate Judge

12

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

SAMANTHA VASICH, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,
Defendant.

)

)

)

No. 11 C 4843

)

)

Magistrate Judge

)

Maria Valdez

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement. (Doc. No. 171.) For the reasons that follow, the motion for final approval is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND On April 11, 2013, the parties reached a settlement agreement. (Doc No. 127.) In subsequent months, the parties negotiated several disputes before this Court, agreeing in principal to the major terms of the settlement on July 18, 2013. (Doc. No. 139.) On September 4, 2013, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court for all matters related to the case. (Doc. No. 141.) On December 3, 2013, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,

(Doc. No. 171), along with a Proposed Final Judgment and Order, (Doc. No. 171-1), and a memorandum in support of both documents (Doc. No. 173.) Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 174.)
DISCUSSION I. Approval of the Settlement.
Based on the fairness hearing at which the parties' counsel appeared, as well as on their representations, the parties' written submissions, the lack of any objections as to the general contours of the settlement agreement, and the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23. II. Disputed Matters With Respect to the Proposed Judgment Order.
The present disagreement stems from disputed language in the Proposed Final Judgment and Order. The vast majority of the Proposed Final Judgment and Order was agreed upon by the parties prior to submission by Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs added two bracketed sections of disputed text: (1) A sentence in Paragraph 21, stipulating that the settlement and the final order cannot be used as evidence as an acceptance or endorsement of the Candidate Physical Abilities Test (“CPAT”) (the physical fitness examination the Settlement Class must pass to become firefighters); and (2) Paragraph 26, which states that “[t]he Court retains jurisdiction for monthly status hearings, as scheduled by the Court, until the hiring
2

process is complete.” (Pls.’ Mot. Ex. 1). The parties appear to have no further disagreements regarding the substance of the Proposed Final Judgment and Order.
a. Plaintiff’s disputed addition, Paragraph 21. Plaintiffs argue that the first section of disputed language contained in Paragraph 21 of the Proposed Final Judgment and Order is necessary to prevent future litigants from presenting the settlement as evidence in favor of the CPAT when Plaintiffs have not expressed an endorsement of the test and have only consented to its use due to Defendant’s suggestion. (See Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. at 11-12.) Defendant responds that the other operative language in that section forbidding the use of the Settlement as an indication of acceptance by the Plaintiffs or Settlement Class (Pls.’ Mot. Ex.1, at ¶ 21) was included in the Proposed Final Order because it was copied from the parties’ final Settlement Agreement. Defendant’s primary objection to this new language is that it was not discussed and agreed upon during settlement negotiations and therefore represents a unilateral change by Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the proposed addition to Paragraph 21 is unnecessary to effectuate the intended outcomes of the Settlement Agreement. As written, Paragraph 21 states that “neither the Stipulation, nor the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the Settlement including this Final Judgment and Order shall be construed as an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT” by Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, or the
3

Court. (Pls.’ Mot. Ex.1, at ¶ 21.) This language immediately a statement that “[n]either the Stipulation, nor the Settlement . . . shall be offered in evidence by any Party for any purpose except as provided for in this paragraph.” (Id.) The Court finds that this language is sufficiently broad to address Plaintiffs’ concerns. For this reason, the Court declines to include Plaintiffs’ proposed addition to Paragraph 21.
b. Plaintiff’s disputed addition, Paragraph 26. Next, Plaintiffs argue that their second addition to the Proposed Judgment and Final Order, Paragraph 26—which expressly provides for the Court to retain jurisdiction for purposes of monthly implementation hearings—should be included because it comports with the language of Article XVIII of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs contend that the added stipulation proposed in Paragraph 26 is necessary to ensure that required monthly status hearings continue until the hiring process is complete, as originally envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. Defendant disputes that this Court would have the jurisdiction to hold any scheduled hearings after the case is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs assert that this Court could maintain jurisdiction, even if the case is dismissed with prejudice, if Paragraph 21 is contained in the Final Order. Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994), Plaintiffs say that this Court may exercise its ancillary jurisdiction over a dismissed case. In Kokkonen, the Court held that “where the dismissal order neither incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement nor expressly retained jurisdiction over it, the court lack[s] ancillary jurisdiction to
4

enforce it and any action for breach of the agreement belong[s] in state court.” Id. The court further stated that in general, ancillary jurisdiction exists “for two separate, though sometimes related, purposes: (1) to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees .” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379-80 (internal citations omitted).
Defendant counters that a dismissal without prejudice is the only avenue for this Court to maintain jurisdiction for the contemplated monthly status hearings they agreed to submit to as part of the settlement agreement.1 Relying on Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2007), Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006), and similar cases, Defendant asserts that Seventh Circuit precedent prohibits this Court from mandating that the parties appear for monthly status hearings after the entry of a final judgment with prejudice, regardless of whether the monthly implementation hearing language is included in the Final Judgment Order. (Def.’s Resp. at 3.) Defendant argues that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce only those terms of the Settlement Agreement that are specified in the Final Order which would operate within Rule 65(d) as injunctive relief. (Id.) Defendant believes that a statement
1The settlement agreement calls for a dismissal with prejudice upon final approval. And a dismissal without prejudice would delay payment to the class, because Defendant does not have to pay Plaintiffs the monetary amounts agreed to until the case has been dismissed with prejudice.
5

mandating monthly status hearings would be beyond the scope of this Court’s
allowable jurisdiction to enforce its Final Judgment and Order. (Id. at 4.)
Defendant correctly states the Seventh Circuit’s position with regard to a
district court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction over the enforcement of a
settlement agreement after the attendant suit has been dismissed with prejudice.
“[W]hen a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone, and the district court cannot
adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal merely by
stating that it is retaining jurisdiction.” Dupuy, 495 F.3d at 809.
To this end, Plaintiff’s suggestion during the December 5, 2013 motion
hearing that dicta from Kokkonen controls is misplaced insofar as the law has
developed to the contrary in this Circuit. As stated by the Seventh Circuit in Shapo
v. Engle:
We know from Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 380-81, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), that a district court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement merely because the agreement was the premise of the court's dismissal of the suit that the agreement settled. And therefore, as we explained in Lynch v. SamataMason, Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002), a district judge cannot dismiss a suit with prejudice, thus terminating federal jurisdiction, yet at the same time retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement that led to the dismissal with prejudice. (An exception is the inherent power of a court that has issued an injunction, even if that injunction ended the lawsuit, to enforce it, as by contempt proceedings. E.g., United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1257 (7th Cir.1989).
463 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2006). Defendant recognizes that the terms of the
Court’s Final Judgment and Order comply with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure by explicitly stating the terms of the judgment and describing in
6

“reasonable detail” the acts that are required of those parties and those which are prohibited. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Hence, the Court will have jurisdiction to enforce those terms.
Although the Court finds that it retains contempt power to resolve alleged violations of the terms of its Final Judgment and Order, the Court declines to include language requiring the parties to appear for monthly status hearings pertaining to whether the parties have complied with its Order. First, such language does not automatically confer any jurisdiction upon this Court. It is true that the Supreme Court in Kokkonen held that a judgment explicitly incorporating the settlement, or reserving authority to enforce the settlement, confers ancillary jurisdiction to the court to enforce that settlement. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381–82. But the Seventh Circuit has made it equally clear that a court may not dismiss a case with prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in the same breath. Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1079 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kokkonen, 511 at 381); Shapo, 463 at 643; Hill v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 405 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[A] case that is dismissed with prejudice is unconditional; therefore, it's over and federal jurisdiction is terminated.”); Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002) (retaining jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement means that “the suit has not been dismissed with prejudice”) (emphasis omitted); Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002)
7

(“[O]nce a suit is dismissed with prejudice the judge loses all power to enforce the terms of the settlement that may lie behind that dismissal.”).
Although the parties contemplated monthly compliance hearings in the settlement agreement, the parties’ ability to file a motion pursuant to Rule 65(d) in the event of noncompliance will provide a sufficient mechanism for enforcement moving forward. Federal courts have inherent power to enforce an injunction through contempt proceedings. Shapo, 463 F.3d at 644.
Because the parties have agreed upon all other terms appearing within the Proposed Final Order, the Court grants approval as to those terms.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will strike the following language from the Paragraph 21 of the Proposed Final Judgment and Order: and shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding or be used in any way as an admission, concession, or evidence of an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT for use in employee selection or retention.
8

The Court will also strike Paragraph 26 of the Proposed Judgment and Order. The remainder of the Order will be entered as it was submitted by the Parties.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED:

DATE: December 20, 2013__

___________________________ HON. MARIA VALDEZ United States Magistrate Judge

9

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 1 of 99 PageID #:1778

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFER ROCCASALVA, individually
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation
Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

JOINT STIPULATION AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 2 of 99 PageID #:1779

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i ARTICLE I. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.............................................................................. 3 ARTICLE II. LITIGATION BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 4 ARTICLE III. DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 6 ARTICLE IV. SETTLEMENT CLASS CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 19 ARTICLE V. PAYMENTS .......................................................................................................... 20
A. Total Settlement Sum............................................................................................ 20 B. Service Awards to Settlement Class Representatives. .......................................... 20 C. Settlement Class Member Backpay Award. ......................................................... 21 D. Individual Backpay Award. .................................................................................. 21 E. Calculation of Classwide Backpay Award. .......................................................... 22 F. Pay Adjustment For Individual Crossover Plaintiffs. ........................................... 22 G. No Further Payment Obligation............................................................................ 22 H. Tax Forms. ............................................................................................................ 23 I. No Tax Advice. ..................................................................................................... 23 ARTICLE VI. DISCONTINUANCE OF PAT ............................................................................ 23 ARTICLE VII. HIRING PROCESS FOR SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS ....................... 24 A. Agreement to Hire All Qualified Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members. ....... 24 B. Shortfall Hires. ...................................................................................................... 25 C. Hiring Process. ...................................................................................................... 25 ARTICLE VIII. CONDITIONS TO SETTLEMENT .................................................................. 31 ARTICLE IX. COURT APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS.............. 32 A. Preliminary Approval............................................................................................ 32
i

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 3 of 99 PageID #:1780

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

ARTICLE X. CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE ................................................. 33 A. The Claims Administrator's Role.......................................................................... 33 B. Settlement Class Members' Duties. ...................................................................... 36
ARTICLE XI. PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING EXCLUSION AND OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT .................................................................................................................... 37
A. Opt Outs. ............................................................................................................... 37 B. Objections. ............................................................................................................ 38 C. The City's Right to Terminate............................................................................... 38 D. Processing of Requests for Exclusion and Objections.......................................... 38 ARTICLE XII. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING..................................................................................................................................... 39 A. Motion for Final Approval.................................................................................... 39 B. Final Judgment...................................................................................................... 40 C. Fulfillment and Completion of Final Judgment.................................................... 41 ARTICLE XIII. TERMINATION OF SETTLEMENT ............................................................... 42 A. Right to Withdraw................................................................................................. 42 B. Effect of Attorneys' Fees....................................................................................... 43 C. Administrative Expenses. ..................................................................................... 43 D. Payment of Attorneys' Fees. ................................................................................. 43 E. Reversion to Status Prior to Settlement. ............................................................... 43 ARTICLE XIV. RELEASES........................................................................................................ 44 A. Release by Operation of Final Judgment. ............................................................. 44 B. Settlement Class Representatives Release. ........................................................... 44 C. Proof of Claim to Release. .................................................................................... 44 D. Full and Complete Release. .................................................................................. 44
ii

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 4 of 99 PageID #:1781

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

E. Endorsement Release. ........................................................................................... 45 ARTICLE XV. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT ......... 45 ARTICLE XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES......................................................................................... 46 ARTICLE XVII. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONGDOING; INADMISSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT .................................................................................... 46 ARTICLE XVIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION............................ 47 ARTICLE XIX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.................................................................. 47
A. Recitals and Definitions. ....................................................................................... 47 B. Voiding or Modifying the Settlement Agreement. ............................................... 47 C. Parties' Authority. ................................................................................................. 47 D. Mutual Full Cooperation....................................................................................... 48 E. Notices. ................................................................................................................. 48 F. Successors and Assigns......................................................................................... 49 G. Third Parties.......................................................................................................... 50 H. Captions and Interpretations. ................................................................................ 50 I. Integration Clause. ................................................................................................ 50 J. No Prior Assignments. .......................................................................................... 51 K. Settlement Class Member Signatories. ................................................................. 51 L. Counterparts. ......................................................................................................... 51 M. Jurisdiction and Venue.......................................................................................... 52

iii

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 5 of 99 PageID #:1782

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

IT IS HER EBY STIPULATED AND AGR EED, by and between plaintiffs Sam antha

Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Jani ece Theeke, Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evan s

(the "Settlement Class Represen tatives"), individually and on beha lf of all othe rs similarly

situated, and Ki mberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer Roccasalva, individually (the

"Individual Plaintiffs") (collect ively, the Settlem ent Class Repr esentatives, the Individual

Plaintiffs and the Se ttlement Class Members as defined herein are sometimes referred to in this

Settlement Agreement as "Plaintiffs"), and def endant the City of Chicago ( the "City"), jointly

referred to herein as the "Parties," as follows: RECITALS1
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed and prosecuted a Complaint and three Am

ended

Complaints alleging th at the City' s pre-hire p hysical abilities tes t for firefighter/emergency

medical technician applicants discriminated against female applicants;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have clai med, and contin ue to claim , that e ach and all of the

contentions asserted by them is meritorious;

WHEREAS, the City has decided it will utilize on an interim basis the Candidate Physical

Ability Test as a pre-hire physical ability test for Firefighter/EMT applicants and has initiated the

process of implementing its use of such test;

WHEREAS, after considering the potential benefits of settlement and delay in achieving

instatement into the position for the Individual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members through

litigation; the length of tim e which may necessary to continue the Action through trial and the

appeals that might follow; the uncertainty inherent in any complex litigation; and the substantial

benefits of the Settlement for the Settlement Class Members, including the fact that even if the

1 Capitalized terms are defined in Article III of this Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlement Agreement.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 6 of 99 PageID #:1783

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Settlement Class Members ultim ately prevailed in their c laims, there is no guara ntee that they would receive any grea ter recovery than they w ill receive from the Settlem ent, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have concluded that the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interests of the Settlement Class;
WHEREAS, Defendant denies the allegations in the Acti on, and denies any fault, wrongdoing, or liability related in any way to the physical abilities test or its administration;
WHEREAS, Defendant is electing to enter into this Settlement Agreement because, after consideration of: (a) the risks of potential liability the City could face should this matter proceed through trial and should Plaintiffs successfully prosecute their claims; (b) the benefit to the City of hiring a d iverse group of individuals into the position of Firefighter/EMT; and (c) the City’s immediate need to hire qualified F irefighter/EMTs, the Settlement would eliminate the burden, inconvenience and expense of further litigation and disputes concerning the alleged conduct, and achieve a release and resolution;
WHEREAS, the Settlement contemplated by this Settlement Agreement is the product of extensive, good faith, and arm' s length negotiation between Plaintiffs' C ounsel and Defendant’s Counsel;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of th e foregoing Recitals and the ag reements, covenants, representatives and warranties set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties, by and through their counsel, that, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Released Claims shall be finally and fully comprom ised, settled, released and forever disch arged as to the Released
2

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 7 of 99 PageID #:1784

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Parties, and this Action shall be dismissed with prejudice upon and subject to the following terms and conditions:
ARTICLE I. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES 1. The Settlement Agreement and all associated ex hibits and attachments made and entered into by and between the Pa rties, each with the assistance of their respective counsel, is intended to fully, finally, and forever settle, co mpromise and disch arge the Released Cla ims against the Released Parties arising from or related to the Action, subject to the term s and conditions set forth herein. The Settlement Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements of the Parties concerning settlem ent of the Acti on and any mem oranda of understanding or term sheets containing such agreements. 2. Because this Action w as pled as a cla ss action, the Settlem ent must receive preliminary and final approval by th e Court. Accordingly, the Partie s enter into this Settlem ent Agreement on a conditional basis. 3. If any event constituting a Condition to Se ttlement as set f orth in Artic le VIII hereof is not met, this Settlem ent Agreement is not approved by the Court, f ails to b ecome effective, or is reversed, withdrawn or modified by the Court or any other court with jurisdiction over the Action, the Settlement Agreement shall become null and void ab initio and shall have no bearing on, and shall not be adm issible in connection with, further proceedings in this Action, including proceedings to determine whether class certification would be appropriate in any other context in this Action, or in any other judicial, adm inistrative or arbitral proceeding for any purpose or with respect to any issue, substantiv e or procedural, and none of the Pa rties will be

3

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 8 of 99 PageID #:1785

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

deemed to have waived any claims, objections, defenses, privileges or arguments including but not limited to issues of class certification, the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or the City's defenses.
4. This Settlement Agreement reflects offers of compromise and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and any similar federal, state or local statute or rule, neither its acceptance by the Parties nor its filing with the Court shall, in themselves, render this Settlement Agreement admissible in evidence in any other proceed ing, subject to the limited exception that it shall be admissible in an action or proceeding to approve, interpret or enforce this Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that this paragraph is not intended to limit in any way any protections afforded by Federal Rules of Evidence 408 or any sim ilar, applicable federal, state or local statute or rule regarding admissibility of the Settlement Agreement.
ARTICLE II. LITIGATION BACKGROUND 1. Beginning in 2008, following the adm inistration of the City's physical ability test for applicants seeking h ire as Firefighter/EMTs, several Settlement Class Representatives and Individual Plaintiffs filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging generally that the physical abilit y test discriminated against them and other female candidates in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2. On July 19, 2011, Settlem ent Class Representative Sam antha Vasich filed the Action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of herself and a class of female applicants for Firefighter/EMT positions with the Chicago Fire Department ("CFD"), who failed a physical abilities test (" PAT") given by the CFD to all Firefighter/EMT applicants. The case originally was assigned to the Honorable Rubin Castillo and later was transferred to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. On Octobe r 11, 2012, Judge Tharp granted the
4

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 9 of 99 PageID #:1786

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Plaintiffs leave to file their Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading. The Third Amended Complaint asserts claims against th e City on behalf of the Settlem ent Class Representatives, the Individual Plaintiffs and a proposed class.
3. The Third Am ended Complaint alleges that the PAT has a disparate impact on female applicants and that its use constituted disparate treatment against female Firefighter/EMT applicants.
4. In its answers to the original Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint, the City denied the material allegations of Plaintiffs' claims.
5. On June 12, 2012, the City moved for partial summary judgment to limit the class period to June 27, 2009 to April 23, 2010 and strike teh Plaintiffs' Prayer for Prospective Injunctive Relief. On Nove mber 1, 2012, the City m oved to dismiss Count II of the Third Am ended Complaint, which alleges disparate treatment. On January 7, 2013, Judge Tharp granted in part the City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment limiting the class period to actions taken after June 2009, denied the City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to strike the Prayer for Prospective Injunctive Relief and denied the City' s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Third Am ended Complaint alleging disparate treatment.
6. The Parties have exchanged docum ents both inform ally and for mally, and have conducted written discovery. During the cours e of the litigation, the City produced to Plaintiffs thousands of pages of documents, including testing results and other data. The Plaintiffs took the depositions of two CFD personnel on issues relating to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
7. The Parties participated in settlem ent conferences with the Honorable Maria Valdez, Magistrate Judge, on February 26, 2013, March 22, 2013, April 10, 2013, April 11, 2013,
5

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 10 of 99 PageID #:1787

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

July 8, 2013, and July 18, 2013. At the April 11, 2013 settlement conference, with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Valdez, the Parties agreed to settle the Action. On July 8 and 18, 2013, the Parties attended additional settl ement conferences with Magistra te Judge Valdez to resolve the remaining settlement issues that arose as they attempted to document their agreement. Through these five sessions, the Parties agreed to settle the Action on the te rms which are more fully set forth in this Settlement Agreement.
8. It is des ire of the Partie s to fully, finally, and forever settle, com promise, and discharge all disputes and claims against the Released Parties arising from or related to the Action and that this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all the Released Parties from all of the Releas ed Claims alleged or could ha ve been alleged in the Action.
ARTICLE III. DEFINITIONS 1. “2006 Eligibility List” m eans the list m aintained by the City’s Department of Human Resources of individuals who (a) took the written exam ination in 2006 adm inistered to applicants for the position of Firefighter/EMT and (b) were deemed qualified to be considered for the position of Firefighter/EMT as a result of their score. 2. "2013 Class" m eans the next CFD Fire Academ y class for Firefighter/EMT candidates, currently anticipated to begin on or about November 1, 2013. 3. "2014 Class" m eans the first CFD Fire Academ y class for Firefighter/EMT candidates to begin in 2014, currently anticipated to begin on or before March 31, 2014. 4. The "Action" means the lawsuit entitled Vasich, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 11 cv 04843, pending in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
6

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 11 of 99 PageID #:1788

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

5. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenses arising out of the administration of the Settlement, including but not lim ited to, the co st of the Claim s Administrator, the cost o f preparing and mailing Class Notice, the cost of publication of Summary Class Notice, the cost of creating and maintaining a webs ite to po st relevant information regarding the Claim s Administration Process, and any ot her costs attendant to the administration of the Settlem ent as may be agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court as necessary to ef fectuate the Settlement or the Claims Administration Process.
6. "Backpay Award" m eans an Individ ual Backpay Award or a Settlem ent Class Member Backpay Award.
7. "CFD" means the Chicago Fire Departm ent, including all of its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, assigns, successors or predecessors.
8. "City" means the City of Chicago, an Illinois municipal corporation. 9. "City-Funded CPAT Testing" means (a) the station orientation, practice tests and CPAT administration at either NIPSTA or SUFD, at the City's expense, where Settlem ent Class Members have chosen to participate in such testi ng; or (b) testing at CPAT-licensed facility for which reimbursement from the City is sought pursuant to Article VII hereof. 10. "Claim" means the right to the amount of consideration to which each Claimant is entitled to receive pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. 11. "Claimant" means any Settlement Class Member who files a Proof of Claim in such form and m anner and within such tim e as the Court may prescribe, wh ich establishes that Settlement Class Member is entitled to participate in the Settlement.

7

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 12 of 99 PageID #:1789

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

12. "Claims Administrator" means Class Ac tion Administration, Inc. of Colorado retained by Defendant's Counsel and on behalf of the City and approved by the Court to issue the Class Notice to the Settlement Class as provided for herein; publish the Summ ary Class Notice; collect and process Proofs of Claim as provided for herein; co llect and proces s Requests fo r Exclusion as provided for herein; establish and maintain the Website; issue payments to Claimants as provided for herein or other duties and responsibilities as agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court necessary to effectuate the Claims Administration Process.
13. "Claims Administration Process" means the process detailed in Article X. 14. "Claims Administration Services" means the servic es to be perf ormed by the Claims Administrator. 15. "Class Notice Mailing Deadline" m eans a date to be set by the Court through the Preliminary Approval Order no later than 30 days following the latter of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order or approval of the Settlement by the City Council of Chicago. 16. "Class Notice Response Deadline" means a date to be set by the Court through the Preliminary Approval Order no earlier than 60 days following Class Mailing Deadline. 17. "Class Notice" m eans a notic e to be subm itted for approval by th e Court substantially in the f orm attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which will advise Settlem ent Class Members of the term s of the Settlem ent and thei r right to file a Claim, object to the proposed settlement terms and exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. 18. "Classwide Backpay Amount" m eans the One Million, Five Hundred Ninety Thousand, Twenty-Three Dollars ( $1,590,023) to be paid co llectively to Non-Hired Settlement Class Members other than Individual Backpay Recipients.
8

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 13 of 99 PageID #:1790

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

19. "CPAT" means the Candidate Physical Ability Test, as license d by the International Association of Fire Fighters.
20. "CPAT Card" means a docum ent issued by a facility licensed by the IAFF to administer the CPAT, indicating that the individual has passed the CPAT. To be valid, the CPAT Card must identify the date on which the individual passed the CPAT. To be accepted by CFD as evidence of an applicant’s phys ical ability to perform the essential job functions of Firefighter/EMT, the CPAT Card must have a date less than one year before the date on which the applicant begins the CFD Fire Academy. However, a CPAT Card indicating a pass date of July 1, 2013 or after will be accepted for the purposes of hiring for the 2013 Class or 2014 Class.
21. "CPAT Completion D ate" means for Settlement Class Mem bers other than Crossovers, the date by which a Settlement Class Member must present to CFD a valid CPAT Card, or present evidence to CFD through SUFD or NIPSTA of successful completion of CPAT, as set forth in detail in Article VII hereof.
22. "Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 23. "Crossovers" means Settlement Class Members eligible to be trained in the CFD Academy as firefighters who currently are employed by the CFD as paramedics. 24. "Crossover Hiring Standards" means CFD's pre-hiring requirements which include: (i) compliance with the residency obligations in Municipal Code of Ch icago Section 2-152-050; (ii) compliance with the age re quirements of Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-152-410(e), subject to Artic le XIB(c) he reof with resp ect to Individual Plaintiffs and Settlem ent Class Representatives; (iii) passing of the CPAT; (iv) attendance and participation at all stages of Hiring Processing; (v) submission of all documents required by CFD; a nd (vi) successful completion of
9

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 14 of 99 PageID #:1791

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

drug screens and the stress test portion of the m edical examination, which CFD param edics applying to became Firefighters are customarily required to take.
25. "Defendant" means the City of Chicago. 26. "Defendant's Counsel" means the law firm of Shefsky & Froe lich Ltd., 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60601. 27. "Deferred Settlement Class Mem bers" means Settlement Class Mem bers who, despite Priority Processing, have not completed Pre-Hiring Processing fourteen (14) days before Final Processing for the 2014 Class. "Deferred Settlement Class Members" includes Settlement Class Members who, due to pregn ancy, childbirth or other short-term disability, are or will b e unable to complete CPAT testing on or before December 31, 2013. Deferred Settlem ent Class Members who provide CFD with evidence of their pr egnancy or other short-term disability on or before September 1, 2013 may elect at such time to defer to a possible second 2014 Fire Academy class and may submit their CPAT Cards at least 60days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academy class if one is held. To be eligible to elect to defer as a result of pregnancy, childbirth or other short-term disability, the Settlem ent Class Member must notify CFD of their reason for deferral (supported by requested documentation, as deemed necessary by CFD) and elect to defer no later than December 31, 2013. Deferred Settlement Class Members will only be considered for hire to the extent that (a) CFD holds a second2014 Fire Academy class with candidates hired from the 2006 Eligibility List, and (b) the Deferred S ettlement Class Member is deemed qualified in accordance with CFD’s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards. In the event that conditions (a) and (b) abo ve are m et, and that o n or before the Hiring Election Date , the Settlement Class Member elected to con tinue processing for potential hire as a Firefighter/EMT and to forego a
10

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 15 of 99 PageID #:1792

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Award, CFD offer e mployment to the Deferred Settlement Class Member for entry into the second 2014 Fire Academy Class, if any.
28. "Final Approval Date" means the date on which the Order of Final Approval is entered in the Action.
29. "Final Approval Hearing" means a hearing set by the Court to take p lace after the Class Notice Response Deadline for the purpose of (i) determining the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the Settlem ent Agreement; (ii) determining the good faith of the Settlem ent Agreement; (iii) considering the Parties' request for entry of the Final Judg ment; (iv) granting or denying final Court approval to the Settlement; and (v) addressing objections and R equests for Exclusion as set forth in Article XI hereof and other such matters necessary or required for review and approval of the Settlement by the Court.
30. "Final Judgment" means the judgment to be entered by the Court pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, substantially in the form of the order attached hereto as Exhibit B.
31. "Final Processing" means mandatory attendance at the F ire Academy after CFD has extended a Settlement Class Member an unconditional offer of employment, at which time the Settlement Class Member will complete necessary paperwork to became an employee of the City and other activities required to begin training at the Fire Academy.
32. "Fire Academy" means the CFD Fire Acad emy South, located at 1338 S. Clinton Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60607-5037.
33. "Firefighter/EMT" means the entry level position in the CFD of Firefighter Candidate/Emergency Medical Technician.

11

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 16 of 99 PageID #:1793

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

34. "Hiring Election Date" means the date thir ty days after the fi rst day of the 2014 Class, by which date Deferred Settlement Class Members must elect, in writ ing, to either (i) to continue processing for potential hiring as a Firefighter/EMT, or (ii) to receive a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount. At least fourteen days prior to the Hiring Election Date, the City will inform Settlement Class Counsel as to the City’s plan, if any, as of that date, whether to select and train another Fire Academy class co nsisting of applicants off of the 2006 Eligibility List. In the event the City notifie s Settlement Class Counsel that it does not intend to select and train another Fire Academy class consisting of applicants off of the 2006 Eligibility List but does thereafter hire another class consisting, in whole or in part, of applicants off of the 2006 Eligibility List, Deferred Settlem ent Class Members who el ected to receive a p roportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount shall be offered at such time the opportunity to continue processing for potential hire in to the Fire Academy class subject to their repayment to the City of the net amount, if any, already received as a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount. Any funds recovered by the City pursuant to this paragraph shal l be paid as a cy pres to the Ende, Menzer, Walsh & Quinn Retirees’, Widows’ and Orphan’s Assistance Fund.
35. "Hiring Process" means the process whereby Settlement Class Members may apply to be hired as a Firefighter/EMT as set forth in Article VII hereof.
36. "Hired Settlement Class Members" means Settlement Class Members who satisfy the Normal and Customary Hiring Standards, qualify for hiring as a Firefighter/EMT, pursuant to the process set forth in Article VII, and accept th e City's offer of em ployment and attend Final Processing.
37. "IAFF" means the International Association of Fire Fighters.
12

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 17 of 99 PageID #:1794

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

38. "Interest Card" means the wr itten notice sent by CFD to app licants for a Firefighter/EMT position.
39. "Individual Backpay Recipients" means Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic, Jessica Evans, Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer Roccasalva.
40. "Individual Backpay Award" m eans the Backpay Award alloc ated to each Individual Backpay Recipient.
41. "Individual Plaintiffs" m eans Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer Roccasalva.
42. "Last Known Address" m eans the most recently recorded m ailing address for a Settlement Class Member as such information is contained in the City's records. Mailing addresses for Settlement Class Members which Settlem ent Class Counsel convey to Defendant's Counsel will be included in the mailing information to be transmitted to the Claims Administrator.
43. "New Hires" means Settlement Class Members to be hired by the CFD who have not previously been employed by the CFD.
44. "Non-Hired Settlement Class Members" means Settlement Class Members who are not hired as a Firefighter/EMT pursuant to the Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and the process set f orth in Article VI I hereof, and includes Deferred Settlement Class Members who either elect to waive any right to be considered for hiring by the CFD for Fire Academy classes occurring after the 2014 Class, or fail to make an election in writing.
45. "NIPSTA" means the Northeastern Illinois Public Safety Training Academy, 2300 Patriot Blvd., Glenview, Illinois 60026.

13

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 18 of 99 PageID #:1795

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

46. "Non-Settlement Group" m eans the coll ective group of all Settlem ent Class Members who properly and timely submit a Request for Exclusion.
47. "Non-Settlement Group Mem ber" means a person who is a m ember of the Non-Settlement Group.
48. "Normal and Customary Hiring Standards" means CFD's pre-hiring requirements for Firefighter/EMT which include: (i) compliance with the residency requirements in Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-152-050; (ii) compliance with the age requirements of Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-152-410(e), s ubject to Article XIB(c) hereof with respect to Individual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives; (iii) passing of the CPAT; (iv) atten dance and participation at all stages of CFD's Hiring Processing, unless such attendance and participation is excused by notice of a m edical emergency or other circumstance outside the candidate's control, which CFD typically considers to be excusable; (v) submission of all documents required by CFD; and (vi) successful com pletion of all drug scr eens, a background investig ation including driving record review and a post-conditional offer of employment medical evaluation. "Nor mal and Customary Hiring Standards" shall afford Settlement Class Members the same rights to retesting or review as have been afforded to applicants in the past and shall incorporate the same standards normally and custom arily applied by CFD to a pplicants for hire who are not Settlem ent Class Members.
49. "Parties" means the Settlement Class Representatives, the Individual Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members and the City.

14

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 19 of 99 PageID #:1796

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

50. "PAT" means the physical abilities test developed in or about 1996 by Hum an Performance Systems, Inc. for the CFD and m odified in or about 2007, and used by the CFD through and including November 2011.
51. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, association, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated organization and any other type of legal entity, and their heirs, predecess ors, successors, representatives, an d assigns.
52. "Plaintiffs" means the Settlement Class Representatives, the Individual Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members.
53. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" means the law firms of Goldstein, Borgen Dardarian & Ho of Oakland, California and Willenson Law, LLC, the Law Office of Susan P. Malone and Torrick A. Ward, each of Chicago, Illinois.
54. "Pre-Hiring Processing" means the process whereby an applicant for employm ent with CFD a s a Firefigh ter/EMT proceeds th rough all of the Norm al and Customary Hiring Standards.
55. "Preliminary Approval Date" m eans the date on which the Cour t enters the Preliminary Approval Order.
56. "Preliminary Approval Order" or "Ord er Granting Prelim inary Approval of Settlement" means an order to b e agreed by the Parties for entry and f iling by the Court substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C or other order entered by the Court granting preliminary approval to the Settlement.

15

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 20 of 99 PageID #:1797

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

57. "Preliminary Processing Session" m eans the first required attendance at the CFD during which Settlement Class Members interested in being hired for a F irefighter/EMT position appeared and returned Interest Cards. The Pr eliminary Processing Session occurred on May 6, 2013 or as re-scheduled by agreement of certain Settlement Class Members and CFD during th e weeks of May 6 or May 13, 2013.
58. "Priority Processing" means the process by which Settlement Class Members will be granted priority throughout Pre-Hiring Processing as provided in Article VII hereof.
59. "Proof of Claim" means the Proof of Cl aim Form and Release and any necessary supporting information sufficient to allow the Cl aims Administrator, Defendant's Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel to determ ine whether an individual is a B ackpay Settlement Class Member entitled to receive a Backpay Award as provided for in Article V hereof substantially in a form attached hereto as Exhibit D.
60. "Released Claims" means, collectively, all claims, demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, in law or equity, known or unknown, asserted or that might have been asserted, either directly or indirectly, in a representative or in any other capacity, by any Releasing Party against any of the Released Parties for any matter, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Action, the Third Amended Complaint, the Settlement Agreement, or any of the subjects resolved through the entry of the Settlement Agreement. “Released Claims” includes Unknown Claims as that term is defined herein.
61. "Released Party" or "Released Parties" means Defendant, and all of its employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, representatives, ad ministrators, predecessors, successors and assig ns and SUFD and NIPSTA,.
16

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 21 of 99 PageID #:1798

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

62. "Releasing Party" means Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' Counsel and their respective agents, heirs, successors and assigns.
63. "Request for Exclusion" means the written notice containing the information set forth in Section XI.A. hereof, which a Settlement Class Member is requir ed to submit to th e Claims Administrator no later than the Class Notice Response Deadline to request exclusion from the Settlement Class.
64. "Second Stage Processing" means the date when Settlement Class Members other than Crossovers returned their com pleted Background Questionnaires and other required documentation to the Fire Academ y and are drug tested, fingerprinted and photographed, which occurred on June 6, 2013 or as re-scheduled by ag reement of certain Settlement Class Members and CFD during the weeks including June 6 or June 12, 2013.
65. "Service Awards" means payments to be made to Settlement Class Representatives for their service as such.
66. "Settlement" means the reso lution of the Ac tion pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
67. "Settlement Agreement" means this Agr eement, and all of its attachments and exhibits, which the Parties understand and agree sets forth all material terms and conditions of the settlement between them and which is subject to Court approval. It is understood and agreed that the City's obligations for pa yment under this Settlem ent Agreement are conditioned on, am ong other things, the occurrence of the Settlement Effective Date.

17

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 22 of 99 PageID #:1799

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

68. "Settlement Class" means the group of indi viduals who meet the requirements of the Class proposed to be certified as described in Article IV hereof, except for Non-Settlem ent Group Members.
69. "Settlement Class Mem ber Backpay Award " means the pro-rata am ount of the Backpay Amount to be paid to Non-Hired Class Mem bers other than Individual Backpay Recipients.
70. "Settlement Class Member Backpay Recipient" means a Settlement Class Member who is eligible to receive a Settlement Class Member Backpay Award.
71. "Settlement Class Member" or "Member of the Settlem ent Class" m eans those individuals who meet the requirements of the class proposed to be certified as described in Article IV hereof.
72. "Settlement Class Representatives" means Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans.
73. "Settlement Class Counsel" means the law firms of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho of Oakland, California and Willenson Law LLC, and the Law Office of Susan P. Malone.
74. "Settlement Effective Date" m eans the date of (i) the Court' s order granting final approval of the Settlement, if there are no objections to the settlement; (ii) if there are objections, then upon the expiration of time for appeal of the Final Judgment; or (iii) if there is an appeal by an objector from the Final Judgm ent, then upon the final resolution of any appeal from the Final Judgment.
75. "Shortfall Hires" means the minimum of fourteen (14) New Hires and C rossovers whom the City will hire as Firefighter/EMTs in the 2013 Class, subject to Article VII.C. hereof.
18

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 23 of 99 PageID #:1800

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

The City will use its best efforts to hire nine (9) New Hires and five (5) Crossovers, but if fewer than five (5) Crossovers m eet the Crossover Hi ring Standards, the C ity shall hire a sufficient number of New Hires to reach the minimum total of 14 New Hires and Crossovers. The Shortfall Hires is a minimum requirement. The City will not at any point during Pre-Hire Processing deviate from the Priority Processing requirement because the Shortfall Hires is exceeded.
76. "SUFD" means the Southwest United Fire Districts, mailing address 7045 Joliet Rd., LaGrange, Illinois, 60525.
77. "Summary Class Notice" means the notice sub mitted by the Parties f or approval substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E.
78. "Total Settlement Sum" m eans One Million, Nine Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand, Twenty-Three Dollars ($1,978,023).
79. "Third Amended Complaint" means the filing identified as docket number 78 filed in the Action.
80. "Unknown Claims" means any Released Cl aims which any Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the tim e of the entry of the Judgm ent, and which, if known by hi m or her, m ight have affected his or her settlement with and release of the Released Partie s, or might have affected his or her decision to request exclusion from the Settlement Class or to object to this Settlement. Plaintiffs, and each of them, and each Settlement Class Member may hereafter discover facts in addition to or differen t from those which they now know or believe to be true with respect to th e subject matter of the Released Claims, but Plaintiffs, and each of them, and each Settlement Class Member, upon the Settlement Effective Date, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall
19

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 24 of 99 PageID #:1801

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

have, fully, finally, and forever settled and re leased any and all Released Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not concealed o r hidden, which then exist, or heretofore have existed upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or w ithout malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery o r existence of such differe nt or ad ditional facts. Plaintiffs, and each of them, acknowledge, and the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed by operation of the Final Judgment to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and a key element of the Settlement of which this release is a part.
81. "Updated Address" means, for Settlem ent Class Mem bers who submitted an Interest Card, the address on the Interest Card, and for all othe r Settlement Class Mem bers, a mailing address that was updated by a reasonable address verification m easure of the Clai ms Administrator by an up dated mailing address provided by the United S tates Postal Service or a Settlement Class Member, or through information Plaintiffs' Counsel has provided or may provide Defendant or the Claims Administrator, or which a Settlement Class Member provides to the CFD in connection with Pre-Hiring Processing.
82. "Website" means the website to be m aintained by the Claims Administrator. The Website shall include, at a minimum, copies of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice, the Proof of Claim and the Prelim inary Approval Order, and may be amended from time to time as agreed to by Settlem ent Class Counsel and Defe ndant's Counsel or as otherwise ordered by the Court.

20

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 25 of 99 PageID #:1802

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

ARTICLE IV. SETTLEMENT CLASS CERTIFICATION The Settlement Class to be conditionally cer tified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) will be defined as:
All females who passed the 2006 writte n qualifying exam to becom e a CFD firefighter/EMT, who failed the PAT between December 2007 and April 10, 2010, and who were not, prior to July 19, 2011, notified of their disqualification as an applicant for a firefighter/EMT position with the CFD for a reason other than failure of the PAT or age.
ARTICLE V. PAYMENTS A. Total Settlement Sum. The City will pay the sum of One Million, Nine-Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand,
Twenty-Three Dollars ($1,978,023.00) for all purposes an d to the recipients specified in this
Settlement Agreement, which shall fully satisfy the City's obligations for all payments, fees, and
costs identified in this Settlement Agreement, including Individual Backpay Awards, Settlement
Class Member Backpay Awards, and Service Awards to Settlement Class Representatives, other
than Settlement Class Counsel' s and Torrick W ard’s attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket litigation
expenses and costs, in the amounts and by the procedures specified in this Settlement Agreement.
The City shall separately pay, where required, th e employer's share of applicable payroll taxes
owed on payments made to Individual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members, if any, in addition
to the s ettlement payments specified herein and the costs of Settlem ent Administration.
Settlement Class Members shall pay their applicable share of federal, s tate or local income and
Medicare and like taxes.

21

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 26 of 99 PageID #:1803

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

B. Service Awards to Settlement Class Representatives.

From the Total Se ttlement Sum, the City shall pay Service Awards to the Class

Representatives less applicable taxes and withholdings as follows:

Samantha Vasich RaShaunda Dooley Angela Minnick Janiece Theeke Katrina Basic Jessica Evans
TOTAL

$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00

The City does not oppose or object to the appr oval of payment of these amounts. These Service Awards will be paid by the City or by the Claims Administrator no later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date. Neither a modification by this Court nor reversal on appeal of any Service Award by the Court shall be deem ed a substantive modification of a material term of the Final Judgment, Settlement or this Settlement Agreement.
C. Settlement Class Member Backpay Award. Non-Hired Settlement Class Members, other than the Individual Backpay Recipients, are eligible to receive a per capita share of the Settlement Class Member Backpay Award, subject to compliance with the Claims Administration Process. Settlement Class Member Backpay Awards shall be paid no later than 60 days af ter the later of the Settlement Effective Date or the Hiring Election Date. D. Individual Backpay Award. The Individual Backpay Recipients shall be paid a total of Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($268,000.00) less applicable taxes and withholdings to be allocated as follows:

22

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 27 of 99 PageID #:1804

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Angela Minnick Janiece Theeke Katrina Basic Jessica Evans Hayley Stafen Kimberly Bailey Jennifer Roccasalva
Total

$42,000.00 $42,000.00 $17,000.00 $73,000.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 $10,000.00 $268,000.00

The Individual Backpay Awards will be paid either by the City o r by the Claim s Administrator no later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date. Neither a modification by this Court nor reversal on appeal of any Individual Backpay Award shall be deemed a substantive modification of a material term of the Final Judgment, Settlement or this Settlement Agreement.
E. Calculation of Classwide Backpay Award. Within seven (7) days of the Hiring Elec tion Date, the Claims Administrator will determine the num ber of Non-Hir ed Settlement Class Members. The am ount paid to each Claimant as a Settlement Class Member shall becalculated as follows: One Million, Five Hundred Ninety Thousand, Twenty-Three Dollars ($1, 590,023) divided by the num ber of Non-Hired Settlement Class Members who filed valid Proof of Claims rounded down to the nearest dollar. F. Pay Adjustment For Individual Crossover Plaintiffs. The City shall make a payment of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) to be divided equally among Individual Backpay Recipients who held the rank of Paramedic in Charge prior to 2009 and who are hired in either the 2013 or 2014 Classes. The payment will be made no later than the later of (a) fifteen (15) days after the entry of Crossovers into the 2014 Fire Academy Class or (b) sixty (60) days after the Sett lement Effective Date. In th e event that no Individual Backpay Recipient who holds the rank of Param edic in Charge prior to 2009 is hire d in either the 2013 or 2014 Class, the City shall pay Settlem ent Class Counsel Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as
23

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 28 of 99 PageID #:1805

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

reimbursement for pretest training provided to Settlement Class Members but no other paym ent need be made under this paragraph.
G. No Further Payment Obligation. The foregoing consists of all the monetary components of the Settlement to the Settlement Class Representatives, Individual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members. The City shall have no further paym ent obligation, other than fundi ng the C laims Administration process, for the City-Funded CPAT Testing and Settlem ent Class Counsel's and Torrick W ard’s attorneys' fees pursuant to Article XVI. H. Tax Forms. The City or the Claim s Administrator will c ause to be iss ued appropriate tax f orms to Non-Hired Settlement Class Mem bers, Individual Backpay Recipients and Settlement Class Representatives and reports to governmental tax authorities based on the allocations set forth in this Article. I. No Tax Advice. The Individual Plaintiffs and Se ttlement Class Representatives acknowledge, for themselves and for t he Settlement Class, that they h ave not relied upon any advice, representations, warranties, guaranties, prom ises, statements or es timates, by Settlem ent Class Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, or any of the Released Partie s, or anyone representing or purporting to represent the Released Parties, regarding the tax treatment or effect of any payments made under this Settlem ent Agreement. The Individual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives agree, for themselves and for the Settlement Class, that in the event it should be subsequently determined that payment of taxes on any amounts received under this Settlem ent Agreement, or any part thereof, should have been made, that each Settlement Class Member shall
24

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 29 of 99 PageID #:1806

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

be personally and solely responsib le for all such taxes, as well as for any related penalties or interest which m ay be due and, in addition, do hereby agree to indemnify and hold harm less Plaintiffs' Counsel, Defendant' s Counsel and the Released Partie s from any paym ent, interest, penalty and reasonable attorney's fees and costs incu rred by in connection with any claim, including any claim made under the federal or state tax laws.
ARTICLE VI. DISCONTINUANCE OF PAT The City agrees to discontinue any and all use of the PAT fo r the screening or hiring of Firefighter/EMT candidates and will not resum e its use at any future time. The City will m ake interim use of the CPAT pursuant to Section 5j of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection, 29 CFR Section 1607.5.J., consistent with IAFF li censing requirements for purposes of the Pre-Hiring Processing f or the 2013 and 2014 Cla sses (including a possible second 2014 Fir e Academy class), as described herein. This Agreement shall not be construed as an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT by the Individual Plaint iffs or Settlem ent Class Representatives for themselves or the Settlement Class for any purpose or use other than its interim use as a term and condition of this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs' agreement to the use of the CPAT for interim hiring is part of a negotiated remedy for the claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, and in the event the Settlement is not approved by the Court, the Individual Plaintiffs' and Settlement Class Representatives' agreement to use of the CPAT for interim hiring as a term and condition of this Settlement Agreement will not constitute a defense to any legal claims arising from it use.

25

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 30 of 99 PageID #:1807

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

ARTICLE VII. HIRING PROCESS FOR SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS A. Agreement to Hire All Qualified Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members. The City a grees that a ll Individual Plaintiffs and Settlem ent Class Mem bers who (i) returned an Interest Card at Preliminary Processing indicating a continued desire for consideration for hire as a Firefighter/EMT, (ii) present a CPAT Card or who have successfully passed the CPAT pursuant to City-Funded CPAT Tr aining on or before their respective anticipated CPAT Completion Date; and (iii) successfully complete Pre-Hiring Processing as set forth herein, will be hired in the 2013 or 2014 Classes. It is the intent of this Agreem ent that all qualified Individual Plaintiffs and Settlem ent Class Me mbers who com ply with the Normal and Custom ary Hiring Standards will be hired in the 2013 or 2014 Classes. B. Shortfall Hires. The City agrees to hire a minimum of fourteen (14) Shortfall Hires in the 2013 Class, and to use good faith efforts to ensure that at least 13 per cent of the rem ainder of the 2013 Class is comprised of females, subject to Ar ticle VII.C. The City agrees that all Individu al Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Repre sentatives and Settlement Class mem bers who m eet the Norm al and Customary Hiring Standards and the Pre-Hiring Processing set forth herein, will be hired in the 2013 Class or the 2014 Class. C. Hiring Process. 1. Hiring will be pursuant to the following terms, including processes that were completed as of the date of the execution of this Settlement Agreement: (a) Settlement Class Members were invited to return their Interest Cards prior
to other Firefighter/EMT applicants.

26

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 31 of 99 PageID #:1808

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

(b) Settlement Class Members were given the opportunity to select their dates for NIPSTA or SUFD prior to all other Firefighter/EMT applicants.

(c) CFD will begin to process Plaintiffs' and the S ettlement Class Mem bers' background investigations before ot her applicants. The com pletion of Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ background investigations is not a prerequisite to the process ing of other applicants’ background investigations. In addition, CFD may defer processing the background investigations for Set tlement Class Mem bers who select a CPAT Completion Date of Decem ber 31, 2013 until after the comm encement of the 2013 Class.

(d) Settlement Class Member hiring shall be subject to the City Ordinance § 2

152-410(e) limiting the hiring of firefighters to persons less than 38 years of

age. The City agrees to entry of a Final Judgment directing an exception to

this Ordinance for the Individual Plaintiffs and Settlem

ent Class

Representatives.

(e) To be hired, all Settlement Class Mem bers who are potential New Hires must be fully qualified for hire as a Firefighter/EMT, and must meet all of the Normal and Customary Hiring Sta ndards, and also Settlem ent Class Members who are Crossovers must meet all Crossover Hiring Standards. In no instance will Normal and Custom ary Hiring Standards or Crossover Hiring Standards, as app licable, be m odified or waived, other than (1) delayed acceptance of the CPAT Card as set forth herein and (2) subject to the age requirement exception for th e Individual Plaintiffs and Settlem ent Class Representatives, if ordered by the Court pursuant to Article XI.B. hereof.

(f) 2013 Class

(1) All Settlement Class M embers who are New Hires who subm it a CPAT Card by Septem ber 1, 2013 and who are deem ed fully qualified pursuant to the Nor mal and Customary Hiring Standards will be hired into the 2013 Class.

(2) All Settlement Class mem bers who are Crosso vers who subm it a CPAT Card by the first day of th e 2013 Class and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Crossover Hiring Standards w ill be hired into the 2013 Class.

(3) Settlement Class M embers must successfully complete all Pre-Hiring Processing no later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to Final Processing.

27

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 32 of 99 PageID #:1809

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

(4) Potential New Hire Settlement Class Members who present CPAT cards by September 1, 2013, and have not com pleted their medical processing at least fourteen (14) da ys prior to Fin al Processing for the 2013 Class, but are subsequently deemed fully qualified for hire at least fourteen (14) days prio r to Final Processing for the 2014 Class shall be given an offer for the 2014 Class.
(g) 2014 Class
(1) Settlement Class Mem bers who are New Hires selecting a CPAT Completion Date of Decem ber 31, 2013 (at the Second Stage Processing, or as m odified pursuant to Article VIIC3(b) below) shall have until December 31, 2013 to present their CPAT Cards.
(2) Settlement Class Members who are Crossovers and who select the later CPAT Com pletion Date shall have until the first day of the 2014 Class to present a CPAT Card to CFD.
(3) All Settlement Class Members en tering the 2014 Class m ust have successfully completed all Pre -Hiring Processing no later than fourteen (14) calendar days prio r to Final Pro cessing for the 2014 Class.
(4) All Settlement Class M embers who are New Hires who present a CPAT Card by Dece mber 31, 2013, and who are deem ed fully qualified pursuant to the Nor mal and Customary Hiring Standards will be hired into the 2014 Class.
(5) All Settlement Class Mem bers who are Crosso vers who su bmit a CPAT Card by the first day of th e 2014 Class and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Crossover Hiring Standards w ill be hired into the 2014 Class.
(h) Settlement Class Members will b e processed for drug testing and background qualifications simultaneously while seeking their CPAT Cards. CFD will begin to process Settlement Class Mem bers’ background investigations before other applicants. The completion of Settlement Class Members’ background investigations is not a prerequisite to the processing of other applicants. If Settlement Class Members are deemed ineligible for hiring as Firefighter/E MT on the basi s of inform ation obtained through their background investigation, they shall be rem oved from Pre-Hiring Processing. The City will notify Settl ement Class Counsel of any such disqualification within seven (7) days of CFD's notification of a Settlement Class Member of disqualifying results.
28

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 33 of 99 PageID #:1810

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

(i) Deferred Settlement Class Mem bers who are deem ed qualified under CFD’s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and who present a CP AT Card no less than 60 days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academy Class if one is held will receive offers of employment from CFD to enter the second 2014 Fire Acad emy Class, so long as the 2006 Eligibility List is being used to hire candidates for the second 2014 Fire Academy Class, prov ided, however, that each Deferred Settlem ent Class Member must elect in writing onor before the Hiring Election Date whether to (i) continue processing for possible hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT and waive any right to a Backpay Award, or (ii) receive a Backpay Award and waive any right to hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT. At least fourteen (14) prior to the Election Date, the City will provide Settlement Class Counsel with the nam es and Updated Addresses of all Deferred Settlement Class Members who will be required to make an election. A Deferred Settl ement Class Member who elects to waive any right to hiring by the CFD or fails to timely make an election in writing is a Non-Hired Settlement Class Member.

(j) Hired Settlement Class Mem bers, Settlement Class Representatives and Individual Plaintiffs will receive no retroactive seniority.

2. Preliminary Processing:

(a) All Settlement Class Mem bers interested in be ing hired for a Firefighter/EMT position were required to have returned Interest Cards and attended Preliminary Processing Session on May 6, 2013 (or as rescheduled in the days thereafter) to remain eligible for hiring.

(b) Preliminary Processing occurred pr ior to th e documentation of this

Settlement Agreement and preliminary Court approval of this Settlement

Agreement. The Parties agree that a total of 92 Settlement Class Members

and Individual Plaintiffs appeared for and com

pleted Preliminary

Processing.

(c) Settlement Class Counsel were present at Prelim inary Processing of Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members on May 6, 2013 and allowed to independently meet with those in attendance.

3. Second Stage Processing.

(a) All Settlement Class Mem bers interested in be ing hired for a Firefighter/EMT position were required to appear in p erson at the Fire Academy for Second Stage Processing on June 6, 2013 (or as rescheduled thereafter by CFD) to subm it to the CFD a com pleted background

29

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 34 of 99 PageID #:1811

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

questionnaire, have their photograph and fingerprints taken, and undergo drug testing.
(b) Settlement Class Counsel were presen t at Second Stage Processing of Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members on June 6, 2013 and allowed to independently meet with those in attendance.
4. CPAT Completion Date.
(a) All Settlement Class Mem bers interested in be ing hired for a Firefighter/EMT position m ade a prelim inary election in writing in June 2013 of a CPAT Completion Date either:
(1) To pass the CPAT by Septem ber 1, 2013 (with the anticipation of entering the 2013 Class) according to the following schedule:
(i) Settlement Class Members may attend the City-Funded CPAT Training at NIPSTA or SUFD and pass the CPAT by September 1, 2013. Under this option, Settlem ent Class Members will not receive a physical CPAT Card, but will have their results communicated directly to the City.
(ii) Settlement Class Members may obtain a CPAT Card from any licensed CPAT facility. The City shall reim burse Settlement Class Members pres enting a valid CPAT Card from a facility oth er than NIPSTA or SUFD $150.00. However, the City will not pay f or CPAT training and testing for a Settlement Class Member to participate in more than one CPAT testing program. Therefore, if a Settlement Class Member attends orientation at NIPSTA or SUFD through the City-Funded CPAT Training, she is not eligible to seek reimbursement. Reim bursement will be m ade to eligible Settlement Class Members at the s ame time the Backpay Award is made. Settlem ent Class Mem bers seeking such reimbursement will b e required to provid e documentation supporting their entitlement to reimbursement prior to the Hiring Election Date.
(iii) Settlement Class Members who attend the City-Funded CPAT Training at NIPSTA or SUFD may also obtain and CFD will a ccept a CP AT Card fr om any lice nsed CPAT Facility. However, the City will not reimburse Settlement Class Members who attend the City-Funded CPAT Training at NIPSTA or SUFD fo r any additional CPAT testing or training.
30

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 35 of 99 PageID #:1812

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

(iv) The City will apply Pr iority Processing described herein to Settlement Class Mem bers. At a minimum, the City will make good faith efforts for the 2013 Class to include the Shortfall Hires and females equaling 13% of the rem ainder of the 2013 Class in the 2013 Class.

(v) New Hire Settlem ent Class Mem bers who select a CPAT Completion Date of Sept ember 1, 2013, or Crossover Settlement Class Members who select a CPAT Com pletion Date of the first day of the 2013 Class and do not pass the CPAT administered by NIPSTA or SUFD, or otherwise fail to present a CPAT Card by September 1, 2013 or the start of the 2013 Class, respectively, ar e ineligible for hiring, but will receive a Settlement Class Member Backpay Award.

(2) For New Hires, to present a valid CPAT Card on or before

December 31, 2013, and for Cross overs, to present a valid CPAT

Card on or before the first day of the 2014 Class (w

ith the

anticipation of entering the 2014 Class).

(i) Settlement Class Members selecting this option and meeting all other Norm al and Custom ary Hiring Standards at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to Final Processing for the 2014 Class, will be included in the 2014 Class.

(ii) Settlement Class Members who elect this option shall be eligible to participate in the City-Funded CPAT Testing at NIPSTA and SUFD and to se lect their NIPSTA/SUFD orientation dates at Second Stage Processing.

(iii) Settlement Class Members may obtain a CPAT Card from any licensed CPAT facility. The City shall reim burse Settlement Class Members pres enting a valid CPAT Card $150.00, but in no event will the City pay for C PAT for a Settlement Class Member to par ticipate in more than on e CPAT testing program . Reim bursement will be m ade to eligible Settlement Class Members at the s ame time the Backpay Award is m ade. The Settlem ent Class Mem bers seeking such reimbursement will b e required to provid e documentation supporting their entitlement to reimbursement prior to the Hiring Election Date.

(iv) New Hire Settlement Class Members other than Individual Backpay Recipients who select a CPAT Completion Date of December 31, 2013, and Cross over Settlement Class

31

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 36 of 99 PageID #:1813

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Members who select a CPAT Co mpletion Date of the first day of the 2014 Class and who do not pass the CPAT administered by NIPSTA or SUFD, or otherwise fail to present a CPAT Card by December 31, 2013 or the first day of the 2014 Class, respectively, or who fail to meet any other of the Norm al Hiring Standards or Crossover Hiring Standards, as applicable, are inelig ible for hiring, but will receive a Settlement Class Member Backpay Award.
(b) New Hire Settlem ent Class Member s who initially se lect a CPAT Completion Date of Septem ber 1, 2013 or Crossover Settlem ent Class Members who initially select a CPAT Completion Date of the first day of the 2013 Class (with the anticipation of entering the 2013 Class) may elect to change their CPAT Completion Date ("CPAT Change") and instead elect to present a valid CPAT card on or before December 31, 2013. Any CPAT Change must be provided to Defenda nt's Counsel by Settlem ent Class Counsel, or made in writing and in person by the Settlement Class Member at the Fire Academy, no later than 3:00 p.m. CDT on July 31, 2013.
5. Settlement Class Members who f ail to at tend any stage of their scheduled CFD
processing, do not pass CPAT or present a CPAT Card pursuant to the selected options above,
drop out or are excluded from processing for a reason o ther than failure to pass CPAT or are or
who will be 38 years old or olde r prior to the beginning of the 2013 Class or, if ap plicable, the
beginning of the 2014 Class (other than Settle ment Class Representatives and Individual
Plaintiffs), will be ineligible for hiring but will be eligible to receive a Settlement Class Member
Backpay Award.
6. The CFD shall make good faith efforts to m eet the targeted dates set forth in this
Article. However, the Parties reco gnize that the dates are subject to change based on factors
outside the control of the CFD.
7. The City agrees to report to Plain tiffs’ Counsel: (a) com pletion of CPAT
transportability study relating to the City’s interim use of CPAT for Firefi ghter/EMT hiring; (b)
notice of City’s receipt o f CPAT licensure for us e of CPAT test results; (c) notice of mailing of
32

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 37 of 99 PageID #:1814

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

invitations to Settlement Class Members to take the CPAT for additional hiring consideration; (d) attendance of Settlement Class Members at Preliminary Processing and Secondary Processing; (e) data regarding attendance by Settlem ent Class Members at the City-Funded CPAT Training; (f) written background investigation st andards used by CFD to screen Firefighter/EMT candidates; (g) medical guidelines used by CFD to evaluate Firefighter/EMT candidates’ medical status and ability to perform the essential job functions;. (h) data regarding CPAT pass rates by gender for the City-Funded CPAT Testing as described in Section III.9 (a); and (i) notice of results of vendor analysis regarding developm ent of perm anent physical abilities test. Th e inclusion of this provision as forward looking language does not imply in any way whether the City has or has not complied with this obligation as of the date of execution of this Stipulation. The City will consider additional reasonable requests regarding information relating to processing of Settlement Class Members and development and adoption of a new physical abilities test.
ARTICLE VIII. CONDITIONS TO SETTLEMENT 1. This Settlement Agreement shall be of no force or effect and shall be void ab initio without prejudice to the rights of any Party unless each of the following conditio ns is fully satisfied: (a) Approval of the Settlement by the Chicago City Council; (b) Preliminary approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms outlined herein and the Co urt's entry of a Preliminary Approval Order; (c) The City's election not to terminate this Settlement Agreement pursuant to Article XI hereof; (d) Entry of the Final Judgment by the Court; and (e) Occurrence of the Settlement Effective Date.
33

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 38 of 99 PageID #:1815

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

ARTICLE IX. COURT APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
A. Preliminary Approval.
1. Plaintiffs shall promptly submit this Settlement Agreement to the Cour t together
with a Motion f or Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class,
which will seek an order:
(a) Preliminarily approving the Settlement;
(b) Approving Claims Administration Services to be provided by the Claim s Administrator;
(c) Approving the form and content of the Class Notice and Summary Class Notice consistent with the provisions hereof, respectively, for m ailing and publication to notif y Settlement Class Mem bers of the h earing on f inal approval of the Settlement Agreement;
(d) Approving as to form and content the proposed Proof of Claim Form;
(e) Finding that the m ailing of the Cla ss Notice and Publication of the Summary Class Notice constitute the best and most practicable notice to Settlement Class Members under the circumstances, and are due and sufficient notice of the Final Appr oval Hearing, proposed Settlem ent Agreement and other matters set fort h in the Class Notice and Summary Class Notice to all Settlement Class Members and that the Class Notice and Summary Class Notice fully satisfy th e requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law;
(f) Directing the mailing of the Class Notice, Proof of Claims, and instructions by first class mail to Settlement Class Members;
(g) Conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement and preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Vasich, Dooley, Minnick, Theeke, Basic and Evans, as Settlem ent Class Represen tatives and preliminarily appointing Settlement Class Counsel as counsel of the Settlement Class;
(h) Preliminarily approving the propos ed Service Awards to Ind ividual Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives;
(i) Scheduling the Final A pproval Hearing on the question of whether the proposed Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class. 34

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 39 of 99 PageID #:1816

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

2. If the Court enters the Prelim inary Approval Order, then at the resu lting Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs and the City each through their counsel of record, shall address any written objections from Settlement Class Me mbers or a ny concerns from Settlement Class Members who attend the hearing as well as any concerns of the Court, if any, and shall and hereby do, unless provided otherwise in this Settlem ent Agreement, stipulate to final approval of this Settlement Agreement and entry of the Final Judgment by the Court.
ARTICLE X. CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE A. The Claims Administrator's Role. 1. The City will provide to the Claims Administrator information in electronic format regarding all Settlement Class Members, inc luding Last Known Addresses and Social Security numbers. 2. For Settlement Class Members who submitted an Interest Card to CFD, the Claims Administrator shall use the m ailing address on the In terest Card. For all other Settlem ent Class Members, prior to mailing the Class Notices, the Claims Administrator will update the addresses for the Settlement Class Members using the Nati onal Change of Address database and/or other available resources deemed suitable by and at the sole discretion of the Claims Administrator, as well as information Settlement Class Counsel or a Settlement Class Member provides to the CFD during the Prelim inary Processing Session or otherwise. To the ex tent this process yields an Updated Address, that Updated Address shall replace the Last Known Address and be treated as the new Last Known Address for purposes of th is Settlement Agreement and for subsequent mailings in particular.

35

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 40 of 99 PageID #:1817

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

3. The Claims Administrator shall supply Settlement Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel with an updated address list for the Settlement Class Members, reflecting any corrections or updates made by the Claims Administrator in the course of administering Class Notices to the Class, and the receipt of any challenges and written objections or Requests for Exclusion.
4. Unless the Parties agr ee otherwise in wri ting or the Court so orders, the Class Notices shall be m ailed to the Last Known Addr ess or Updated Address (if applicable) of the Settlement Class Members by first class mail no later than the Class Notice Mailing Deadline. In addition to the Class Notice, e ach Settlement Class Member will also re ceive a Proof of Claim. Enclosed with all Class Notices, and Proof of Claim Forms shall be a po stage-prepaid envelope, pre-printed with the following address:
Vasich/City of Chicago Firefighter Class Action Administrator c/o [Name of Claims Administrator] [Address of Claims Administrator]
5. The Claims Administrator will use all appropriate traci ng methods to ensure that the Class Notice packets are delivered to all Set tlement Class Members. Any returned envelopes from the initial mailing with forwarding addresses will be used by the Cl aims Administrator to locate missing Settlement Class Members and re-mail the Class Notice to the correct or Updated Address.
6. In the event that the f irst mailing of the Class Notice to a ny Settlement Class Member is returned without a forwarding addre ss, the Claim s Administrator will imm ediately conduct a standard sk ip trace in an effort to as certain the current address for the particular Settlement Class Member in question. If a more recent or accurate address is found by this method, the Claims Administrator will resend the Class Notice to the Updated Address within th ree (3) calendar days of identifying the new address information.
36

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 41 of 99 PageID #:1818

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

7. The Claims Administrator shall publish the Summary Class Notice, consistent with the provisions hereof, on three (3) occasions in the legal notice section of The Chicago Tribune in three (3) co nsecutive weeks, begi nning no later than fourteen ( 14) days following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
8. Costs of printing and mailing the Class Notic e, the Summ ary Class Notice, and publication of the Summ ary Class Notice cons titute an Ad ministrative Expense a s defined in Article III.4 hereof, and thus payable by the Cit y. Further, all reasonable costs incurred by the Claims Administrator shall be considered Administrative Expenses to be paid by the City.
9. The Claims Administrator shall mainta in a toll-free VRU telephone line and answering service containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, the content of which shall be agreed upon between Defendant' s Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel along with an option permitting potential Settl ement Class M embers to speak to a live operator to leav e messages in a voicemail box.
10. The Claims Administrator shall maintain the Website for this Settlement for at least 90 days after the expiration of the period for the submission of Proofs of Claim.
11. At least five (5) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Claims Administrator shall prepare, and the Parties shall provide the Court, a declaration by the Claims Administrator of due diligence and proof of mailing of the Class Notices and Proof of Claim required to be mailed to Settlement Class Members by this Settlement Agreement, and of the delivery results of the Claims Administrator's mailings including tracing and re-mailing efforts.
12. The Parties believe that compliance with the procedures described in this Artic le constitutes due and sufficient notice to Settlement Class Members of this Settlement and the Final
37

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 42 of 99 PageID #:1819

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Approval Hearing and satisfies the requirements of due process. Nothing else shall be required of the Parties, Settlem ent Class C ounsel or Defendants' Counsel to provide Class N otice of the Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing.
B. Settlement Class Members' Duties. 1. Settlement Class Members shall be required to complete and submit to the Claims Administrator a Proof of Claim , postmarked no later than the Class No tice Response Deadline, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, to become a Settlement Class Member entitled to receive a Settlement Class Member Backpay Award. The Proof of Claim shall provide that by submitting a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator, the Settlement Class Member releases and waives all Released Claims. Unless a Settlement Clas s Member submits a valid and tim ely Request for Exclusion (as described in Article XI hereof), a Settlement Class Member who takes no action will be bound by the Final Judgment, and will not receiveany payment. In the event a Settlement Class Member submits both a Request for Exclusion and atimely Proof of Claim, the Proof of Claim will be honored and the Request for Exclusion will be disregarded, and the individual shall be treated as a Settlement Class Member. 2. Settlement Class Mem bers, other than I ndividual Backpay Recipients, who are hired by the CFD and enter either the 2013 or 2014 Classes, are not eligible for a Settlement Class Member Backpay Award.
ARTICLE XI. PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING EXCLUSION
AND OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT A. Opt Outs. 1. Settlement Class Mem bers who wish to be excluded from the Settlem ent shall notify the Claims Administrator in writing that they want to exclude themselves from (i.e., opt out
38

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 43 of 99 PageID #:1820

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

of) the Settlement Class. The Requests for Exclusion must be in writing and include the Settlement Class Member's name, address, and last four d igits of her Social Security num ber, and state, in writing, the desire to be excluded.The Request for Exclusion must be postmarked no later than the Class Notice Response Deadline, or as otherwise ordered by the Cour t, to be considered tim ely. Settlement Class Members shall be permitted to rescind their Request for Exclusion prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or as otherwise ordered by the Court.
2. No Settlement Class Representative or Individual Plaintiff may submit a Request for Exclusion.
3. Settlement Class Counsel shall use their best efforts to encourage Settlement Class Members not to opt out of or object to this Settlement Agreement.
4. Any Settlement Class M ember who submits a Request f or Exclusion shall not be eligible for hiring by the CFD pursuant to Ar ticle VII hereof, or for a Backpay Award. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Settlement Class Members who opt out shall be treated in the same manner as all other candidates w ho failed the PAT and have been invited to r eapply for the position of Firefighter/EMT by pa ssing the C PAT and meeting other Normal and Custom ary Hiring Standards. Once a Se ttlement Class Member opts out, Priority Processing will not apply and her application will be treated in the same manner as those of other candidates who failed the PAT and have been invited to reapply.
5. The City retains the right to assert, and does not waive, any and all defenses to liability and da mages it has in the Action in the event a Non-Settlem ent Group Me mber subsequently attempts to assert any claim against the City arising from the same set of operative facts and issues alleged in the Action.
39

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 44 of 99 PageID #:1821

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

B. Objections. Settlement Class Members other than opt-outs who wish to object to this Settlement must do so in writing or in any other manner ordered by the Court. Written objections must include the Settlement Class Member's name, address, and last four digits of her Social Security number, and state the basis of the objection. Opt-outs may not object to the Settlement. All written objections must be sent to the Claims Administrator, Settlement Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel and postmarked no later than the Class Notice Respons e Deadline, or as otherwise ordered by the Court, to be considered timely. The Settlement Class Members shall be permitted to withdraw their objections prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or as otherwise ordered by the Court. C. The City's Right to Terminate. The City shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Settlement Agreement in the event ten (10) or more Settlement Class Members submit Requests for Exclusion. D. Processing of Requests for Exclusion and Objections. 1. The Claims Administrator shall (a) record all original Requests for Exclusion and objections to the settlement that it receives; (b) serve copies on Settlement Class Counsel and the Defendant's Counsel no later than three (3) business days after receipt, or immediately if received within five (5) business days of the Final Appr oval Hearing. The Parties shall file true and accurate copies of Requests for Exclusion with the Clerk of the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to Final Approval Hearing or immediately if received less than five (5) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. 2. The Claims Administrator shall also (a) record all original rescission of Request for Exclusions and withdrawal of obj ection statements it receives; (b) serve copies o n Settlement Class Counsel and Defendant' s Counsel no later th an three (3) business da ys after receipt, or
40

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 45 of 99 PageID #:1822

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

immediately if received within five (5) busines s days of the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Class Counsel shall file the date-stamped originals with the Clerk of the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the Final Appor val Hearing or immediately if received less than five (5) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
ARTICLE XII. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING A. Motion for Final Approval. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing and cons istent with the r ules imposed by the Court, Plaintiffs shall move the Court for entry of final approval of the Settlement Agreement and entry of the Final Judgment. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel shall be responsible for justifying the agreed upon payments set forth in Article V of this Settlement Agreement. The City agrees not to oppose such payments. To the extent possible the m otion seeking entry of the Final Judgment shall be noticed for the sam e day as the Final Approval Hearing. The Parties shall take all reasonable efforts to secure entry of the Final Judgment. If the Court rejects the Settlement Agreement, or fails to enter the Final Judgment, this Settlement Agreement shall be void ab initio, and the City shall have no obligation to make any payments under the Settlement Agreement, except for payments to the Claims Administrator for services performed up to that time or as otherwise provided herein. B. Final Judgment. Settlement Class Counsel will subm it a propos ed Final Judgm ent which shall include findings and orders: 1. Approving the Settlem ent Agreement, incorporating by ref erence the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement in the Final Judgment, making the Settlement Agreement

41

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 46 of 99 PageID #:1823

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

an exhibit to the Final Judgment, adjudging the terms thereof to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and directing that its terms and provisions be carried out;
2. Approving the paym ent of Service Award s to the Individual P laintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives;
3. Approving the payment of Backpay Awards pursuant to the procedure in Article V hereof;
4. Approving the hiring process set forth in Article VII hereof; 5. Approving the Claims Administration Process; 6. Approving the CFD's interim use of CPAT pursuant to Article VI hereof; 7. Ordering the City to m ake an exception to the provisions of City of Chicago Ordinance Section 2-152- 410(e), but only for the Individual Pl aintiffs and Settlem ent Class Representatives, and only for purposes of this Settlement; 8. Providing that the Court terminates its jurisdiction over Released Claims, except to the extent necessary to distribute th e Backpay Awards and adm inister, implement, interpret or enforce the Final Judgment; 9. Directing the Parties to take all ac tions necessary to ef fectuate the te rms or conditions of the Final Judgment and Settlement Agreement; and 10. Determining there is no just reason for delay and directing that the Final Judgment and Order be final and appealable. C. Fulfillment and Completion of Final Judgment. 1. Following entry of the Final Judgm ent, the Parties will act to assure the tim ely execution and the fulfillment of all its provisions, including, but not limited to, the following:
42

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 47 of 99 PageID #:1824

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

(a) Should an appeal be taken from th e final approval of the Settlem ent Agreement, all Parties will support the approval order on appeal; and
(b) Settlement Class Counsel and the De fendant's Counsel will assist the Claims Administrator as needed or re quested in the process of identifying and locating Settlement Class Me mbers entitled to payments f rom the Backpay Award, Service Award or Individual Backpay Award and assuring delivery of such payments.
2. Within ten (10) days after the Hiring Election Date, the City shall transmit payment of the Backpay Award am ount Sum to the Claim s Administrator for distribution of Backpa y Awards.
3. The Claims Administrator shall make Backpay Awards to Settlem ent Class Members and Individual Backpay Plaintiffs under th is Agreement, as well as Service Awards to the Individual Plaintiffs and Se ttlement Class Representatives by issuing one check (or more if necessary for adm inistrative convenience) payabl e to each Settlem ent Class Member, in the amount of his or her relevant Backpay and/or Service Award, less relevant withholdings. The Claims Administrator shall m ail said check(s), and any necessary tax reporting form s, to each Settlement Class Member at his or her Last Known Address, or Updated Address if obtained.
4. Following the m ailing of the paym ents to Settlement Class Mem ber Backpay Award recipients, Individual Backpay Recipients and Settlement Class Representatives set forth in Article V h ereof, the Claim s Administrator shall provide a declaration of paym ent, which Defendant's Counsel will file with the Court with in thirty (30) days of mailing the respectiv e payments to Settlement Class Member Backpay Recipients, Individual Backpay Recipients, and Settlement Class Representatives.
5. Settlement Class Member Backpay Recipients who are sent paym ents shall have ninety (90) calendar da ys after m ailing by the Claim s Administrator to cash the ir settlement
43

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 48 of 99 PageID #:1825

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

checks. If such Settlement Class Members do not cash their checks within that period, those checks will become void and a stop payment will be placed on the uncashed checks. In such event, those Settlement Class Members will be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right in or claim to a settlement payment, and any funds remaining, after deducting stop payment fees, shall be paid as a cy pres to the Ende, Menzer, Walsh & Quinn Retirees’, Widows’ and Orphan’s Assistance Fund.
ARTICLE XIII. TERMINATION OF SETTLEMENT A. Right to Withdraw. In the event the Court (a) declines to enter the Preliminary Approval Order, Final Judgment or multiple orders, which together provide the same relief, or (b) enters the Preliminary Approval Order, Final Judgm ent or m ultiple orders th at together provide relief which is substantively different than provided herein, the Parties shall have the right, within fourteen (14) days thereafter, to withdraw from this Settlement Agreement by written notice to the other Parties. In the event that any Settlement Class Member appeals the en try of the Final Judgm ent, and on appeal any appellate court reverses or substantially m odifies the Final Judgm ent, or orders relief which is substantively different than provided therein, each of the Parties shall have the right, within fourteen (14) days thereafter, to withdraw from this Settlement by written notice to the other Party. The determination of whether any difference between the forms of Preliminary Approval and Final Approval Order, or any modification on appeal, is substantive, shall be made by each of the Parties in their sole discretion.

44

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 49 of 99 PageID #:1826

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

B. Effect of Attorneys' Fees. Neither a modification nor reversal on appeal of any amount of attorneys' fees awarded by the Court shall be deemed a substantive modification or reversal of a part of the substantive terms of the Final Judgment. C. Administrative Expenses. In the event that any of the Parties elects to withdraw from this Settlement Agreement in accordance with Article XIII above,then the cost of any Administrative Expenses incurred prior to the date of termination shall be borne by the City. D. Payment of Attorneys' Fees. In the event that either of the Parties elects to withdraw from this Settlement Agreement in accordance with Article XIII above , then each Party shall pay th eir own attorney s' fees, and Defendant shall have no obligation whatsoever for the payment of Settlement Class Counsel’s or Torrick Ward’s Attorneys' Fees. E. Reversion to Status Prior to Settlement. If this S ettlement Agreement is no t approved, or is oth erwise terminated or canceled pursuant to its term s, the Parties to this Stipula tion shall be deemed to have rev erted to the ir respective status as it existed p rior to the execution of this Settlement Agreement, and they shall proceed in all respects as if this Settlement Agreement had not been executed and the related orders and judgments had not been entered, preserving all of their respective claims and defenses in the Action. In such event, Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members will be provided the same opportunity for hire, on the same basis, as male applicants who failed the prior PAT.

45

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 50 of 99 PageID #:1827

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

ARTICLE XIV. RELEASES
A. Release by Operation of Final Judgment. Upon the Settlement Effective Date, Plaintiffs and each of the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of th e Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, dismissed with prejudice, relinquished and discharged all Released Claims. B. Settlement Class Representatives Release. Prior to d istribution of any Backpay Awards, Settlem ent Class Representatives and Individual Plaintiffs each agrees to execute a general releas e of all known and Unknown Clai ms they might have against the Released Parties based on or arising from or related in any manner to any allegations in the Third Am ended Complaint, except f or the obligations of this Settlement Agreement, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. C. Proof of Claim to Release. The Proof of Claim to be subm itted by Settlement Class Members shall provide that the Settlement Class Member shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, dismissed with prejudice, relinquished and discharged all Released Claims. D. Full and Complete Release. In order to achieve a full and complete release of the City of all claims arising from this lawsuit, each Individual Plaintiff, Settlement Class Representative on behalf of Settlement Class Members and Plaintiffs' Counsel, acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is meant to include in its effect all claims that were or could have been as serted in this Action, including claims that each Settlement Class Representative, Individual Plaintiff and Settlement Class Counsel asserted or could have asserted on behalf of Settlement Class Members including Unknown Claims.
46

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 51 of 99 PageID #:1828

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

E. Endorsement Release. If the City so instructs the Claim s Administrator, checks in paym ent of a mounts due to Settlement Class Member Backpay Recipients may contain a brief statement of waiver of claims released pursuant to this Settlement Agreement as part of the endorsement language. Settlement Class Counsel’s approval of the endorsem ent language shall be required, and shall not be unreasonably withheld.
ARTICLE XV. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT The preliminary schedule for Class Notice, approval, and payment procedures carrying out this settlement is below. The schedule may be modified depending on whether and when the Court grants necessary approvals and orders notice to the class, and sets further hearings. In the event of such modification, the Parties shal l cooperate in order to com plete the settlement procedures as expeditiously as reasonably practicable. 1. Preliminary Approval Hearing before the Court at the earlie st possible date permitted by the Court; 2. Requests for Exclusion or Objections to the Settlement must postm arked and mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than sixty (60) days after th e Claims Administrator mails Class Notice to Settlement Class Members; 3. The Class Notice sh all be m ailed to Se ttlement Class Members no later than fourteen (14) days after the Court enters a Preliminary Approval Order; 4. Proof of Claim Forms from Settlement Class Members must be postmarked no later than sixty (60) days after the date of mailing of the Class Notice.

47

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 52 of 99 PageID #:1829

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

5. Final Approval Hearing before the Court will occur as soon as the Court will hear the Motion for Final Approval afte r the deadline for the P roof of Claim For ms, Requests for Exclusions and Objections.
ARTICLE XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES The issue of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses for Settlement Class Counsel and Torrick Ward will be resolved either through non-binding mediation, with a mediator to be agreed upon by all Parties or by the Court. If m ediation is unsuccessful, Settlement Class Counsel’s and Torrick Ward’s attorneys' fees, costs and expenses will be decided pursuant to the procedures of Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 54.3. The mediation shall occur within 60 days afte r entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The City will pay attorney's fees to Settlement Class Counsel sixty (60) days after the latter of (a) the Settlement Effective Date; or (b) the entry of an order by the Court deciding the issue of atto rneys’ fees, costs and expenses for S ettlement Class Counsel, unless a timely appeal has been filed, in which event the fees will be paid sixty (60) days after the final disposition of any appeals. Settlement Class Counsel will not seek fees and costs in excess of $1.7 million pursuant to Article XVI of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XVII. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONGDOING;
INADMISSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT Nothing contained herein, nor the consummation of this Settlement Agreement, is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability, negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the City. Each of the Parties hereto has entered into this Settlement Agreement with the intention to avoid further disputes and litigation with the attendant inconvenien ce and expenses, and by entering into this Agreement does not intend to render it, or consent to its becoming, admissible in
48

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 53 of 99 PageID #:1830

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

evidence in any other proceed ing. Notwithst anding the preced ing sentence, this Settlem ent Agreement shall be ad missible in any action o r proceeding to approve, interpret or enforce this Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that this paragraph is not intended to lim it in any way any protections afforded by Federal Rules of Evidence 408 or any similar, applicable federal, state or local statute or rule regarding admissibility of this Settlement Agreement.
ARTICLE XVIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION Upon execution of this Se ttlement Agreement, the Parties shall consent to tr ansfer of the case from the docket of Judge Tharp to that of Magistrate Judge Valdez. The Parties will appear before the Court for a m onthly status hearing, as scheduled by the C ourt, to report on the implementation of Article VII of this Settlement Agreement.
ARTICLE XIX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Recitals and Definitions. The Recitals and Definitions set forth above are essential elem ents of this Settlem ent Agreement. B. Voiding or Modifying the Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement may not be changed, altered or modified, except in writing and signed by the Parties hereto, and approved by the Court. This Settlement Agreement may not be discharged except by p erformance in accord ance with its term s or by a writing s igned by the Parties hereto. Any modification of the Settlement Agreement does not require additional notice to the Settlement Class.

49

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 54 of 99 PageID #:1831

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

C. Parties' Authority. The signatories hereby represent that they are fully authorized to enter into this Settlement Agreement and bind the Parties hereto to the terms and conditions hereof. D. Mutual Full Cooperation. The Parties agree to fully coop erate with each other to accomplish the term s of this Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to, executing such docum ents and taking such other action as may reasonably be necessary to implement the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Parties to th is Settlement Agreement shall use their best efforts, including all ef forts contemplated by this Settlement Agreement and any other efforts that may become necessary by order of the Court or otherwise to effectuate this Settlement Agreement and the ter ms set forth herein. As soon as practicable after execution of this Settlem ent Agreement, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall, with the assistance and cooperation of De fendant's Counsel, take all necessary steps to secure the Court's preliminary and final approval of this Settlement Agreement. E. Notices. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, all Notices (other than the Class Notice), demands or other communications given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given as of the third business day after mailing by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

50

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 55 of 99 PageID #:1832

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

To Plaintiffs' Counsel:
David Borgen GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Dr., Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 (510) 835-1417 (Fax) dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
Marni Willenson Willenson Law LLC 542 S. Dearborn, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 (312) 508-5380 (312) 508-5382 (Fax) marni@willensonlaw.com
Susan P. Malone 20 N. Clark Street Suite 1725 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 726-2639 (312) 372-6067 (Fax) smalonelaw@sbcglobal.net
Torrick Alan Ward 4007 N. Broadway, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60613 (312) 720-7522 torrick-ward@att.net
To the City:
Allan T. Slagel (ARDC No. 6198470) aslagel@shefskylaw.com Cary E. Donham (ARDC No. 6199385) cdonham@shefskylaw.com Heather A. Jackson (ARDC No. 6243164) hjackson@shefskylaw.com SHEFSKY & FROELICH LTD. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 527-4000 Facsimile: (312) 527-4011
51

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 56 of 99 PageID #:1833

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

If the identity of the person(s) to be notified for any party change or their address changes, that party shall notify all other Parties of said change in writing.
F. Successors and Assigns. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No Party m ay assign its rights or obligations under this Settlement Agreement without the prior written consent of all the other Parties. G. Third Parties. Nothing in this Settlem ent Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Settlement Agreement on any Person other than the Parties and their respective s uccessors and assigns, nor is anything in this Settlem ent Agreement intended to relief or discharge the obligations or liabilities of any third parties to any Party or shall any provision give any third parties any right of subrogation or action over or against any Party. H. Captions and Interpretations. Paragraph titles or captions contained herein are inserted as a m atter of convenience and for reference, and in no way define, lim it, extend or describe the scope of this Settlem ent Agreement or any provision hereof. Each term of this SettlementAgreement is contractual and not merely a recital. The Parties hereto agree th at the term s and conditions of this Settlement Agreement are the resu lt of lengthy, intensive arms-length negotiations between the Parties supervised by an experienced employment law mediator and that this Settlement Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against any Party by reason of the extent to which any Party or his, her or its counsel participated in the drafting of this Settlement Agreement.
52

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 57 of 99 PageID #:1834

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

I. Integration Clause. This Settlement Agreement contains the en tire agreement between the Parties relating to the settlement and transaction contemplated hereby, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, whether oral or written and whether by a Party or such Party's legal counsel, are merged herein, including any memoranda of understanding or term sheets. No rights hereunder may be waived except in writing. J. No Prior Assignments. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding u pon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, tru stees, executors, administrators, and successors. The Parties hereto represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not di rectly or indirectly, assigned, transferred, encumbered, or purported to assign, transfer, or encumber to any person or entity any portion of any liability, claim , demand, action, cau se of action or rights herein released and discharged except as set forth herein. K. Settlement Class Member Signatories. It is agreed that becaus e the m embers of the Settlem ent Class are so num erous, it is impossible or im practical to have each Settl ement Class Mem ber execute this Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Individual Backpay Recipients shall sign this Settlement Agreement individually, and the Class Re presentatives and Settlement Class Counsel shall sign this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class Notice will advise all Settlement Class Members of the binding nature of the release and the Court's Final Judgment, upon its entry, shall have the same force and effect as if this Settlement Agreement were executed by each Settlement Class Member.
53

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 58 of 99 PageID #:1835

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

L. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts with signatures transmitted by facsimile or as an electronic im age of the original signature. When each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterp art, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Settlement Agreement, which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties. A facsim ile signature shall have the sam e force and effect as the original scanned signature, if and only if it is tran smitted from counsel for one party to the other. Such transmissions shall be interpreted as verification by the transmitting counsel that the signature is genuine and that the party signing has authorized and reviewed the agreement. M. Jurisdiction and Venue. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this action, and shall have the full power and authority to enforce the Final Judgment.

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE SETTLEMENT CLASS:

Samantha Vasich, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

RaShaunda Dooley, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

Angela Minnick, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

Janiece Theeke, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

Katrina Basic, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

Jessica Evans, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class

Kimberly Bailey, individually

Hayley Stafen, individually 54

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 59 of 99 PageID #:1836

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Jennifer Roccasalva, individually

David Borgen Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 300 Lakeside Drive, #1000 Oakland, CA 94612

Marni Willenson Willenson Law LLC 542 S. Dearborn, #610 Chicago, IL 60605

Susan P. Malone 20 N. Clark Street, #1725 Chicago, IL 60602

ON BEHALF OF CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant

Allan T. Slagel, Esq. Shefsky & Froelich Ltd. 111 E. Wacker Drive, #2800 Chicago, IL 60601

55

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 60 of 99 PageID #:1837

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E

LIST OF EXHIBITS Class Notice Final Judgment Preliminary Approval Order Proof of Claim Summary Class Notice

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 61 of 99 PageID #:1838

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 62 of 99 PageID #:1839

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 63 of 99 PageID #:1840

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 64 of 99 PageID #:1841

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 65 of 99 PageID #:1842

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 66 of 99 PageID #:1843

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 67 of 99 PageID #:1844

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 68 of 99 PageID #:1845

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 69 of 99 PageID #:1846

EXHIBIT 1

FINAL SETTLEMENT STIPULATION

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 70 of 99 PageID #:1847
Settlement Stipulation Exh A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFER ROCCASALVA, individually
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation

Defendant.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
IT INFORMS YOU OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS
Women who applied for the job of Cityof Chicago firefighter/EMT in 2006 and later failed the Physical Abilities Test (PAT) filed a class action lawsuit that was recently settled. You may be part of the Settlement Class and have rights under the Settlement: 1) To reapply for the Firefighter/EMT job or 2) To receive money from the Settlemen t Fund. This Notice explains yo ur rights.
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
The Settlement Class includes women who passed the 2006 written exam to become a Chicago Fire Departm ent (“CFD”) firefighter/EMT and failed the physical abilities test (PAT) when it was administered between December 2007 and April 2010.
If this definition includes you, you may be a Settlement Class Member and had the right to reapply fo r the job or receiv e money. If you reapplied and qualify, you will be hired in either 2013 or early 2014. If you are not hired by CFD in 2013 or 2014 and you timely file a claim as set forth below, you will receive m oney from the Settlement Fund. Please read below for more information.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 71 of 99 PageID #:1848
Women who have reached th e age of 38 or will turn 38 before October 1, 2013 ARE in the Settlement Class and WILL receive money under the Settlement if they timely submit a claim , as set f orth herein. But th ey do not qualif y to reapp ly because a City ordinance does not permit the hiring of firefighters who have reached age 38.
Women who were notified before July 2011 th at they were dis qualified for some reason other than failing the PAT are not in the Settlement Class.
Women who applied to be a Chicago firefighter in 1995 (not 2006) are not in the Settlement Class.
Women who passed the PAT but were disqualified for some reason are not in the Settlement Class.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why Did I Get This Notice?
You received this Notice either because (a) you requested it or (b) CFD reco rds indicate that you may be a member of the Settlement Class because the City sent you notice that you failed the firefighter/EMTphysical abilities test (PAT) between December 2007 and April 2010.
2. What Is The Lawsuit About?
The lawsuit alleges tha t the phy sical abilities test (PAT) d iscriminated against female applicants. By agreeing to th e proposed Settlem ent, the City is not admitting that it did anything wrong. The City denies all wrongdoing.
3. What are the Benefits of the Settlement?
The City has agreed to stop using the PAT and adopt a different physical test to hire firefighter/EMTs. For 2013 and 2014, the City is using the Candidate Physical Abilities Test (the “CPAT”), licen sed by the International Association of Fire Firefighters. The Plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit have not endorsed the CPAT. However, they have agreed to the City’s use of the CPAT for hiring Settlem ent Class Members under the Settlem ent because they believe it is an im provement compared to the PAT previous ly used by the City and because th e CPAT i s available now.
Under the Settlement, Settlement Class Members under the age of 38 were eligible for a second opportunity to be hired. The hiring process began in May 2013. If you are under the age of 38, you should have received a notice of your right to reapply and begin processing. If you did not part icipate in processing, you are no longer eligible to reapply for the job but will receive money under the Settlem ent if you timely submit a claim as set forth herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 72 of 99 PageID #:1849

Settlement Class Members who are not hired for any reason (e.g. because they are over 38, don’t want the job, don’t pass the CPAT, decide to drop out for any reason etc.) will be eligible for ashare of the Class Settlement Fund. The Class Settlement Fund will total $1,590,023, which will be divided among eligible Settlement Class Members who file claim s on time. To file a claim and receive m oney under the Settlement, you must follow the instructions described below.

4. Who Brought the Lawsuit, and What Additional Benefits Will They Receive?

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Sam antha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Katrina Basic, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer Roccasalv a. Plaintiffs Vasich, Dooley, Evans, Basic, Minick and Theeke acted a s Settlement Class Representatives and will receiv e a total of $70,000 (split among them) for their service to the Class. Som e of the Plaintiffs had filed their own charges of discri mination with the Equal Employm ent Opportunity Commission and filed individua l claims in this lawsuit. Those Plaintiffs will also receive individual monetary payments under the Settlem ent totaling $268,000 ($42,000 to Plaintiffs Mi nnick, Theeke, Stafen and Bailey; $17,000 to Plaintiff Ba sic; $73,000 to Plai ntiff Evans; and $10,000 to Plaintiff Roccasalva). The Plaintiffs are eligible to receive both money under the Settlement and a firefighter/EMT job, if they qualify for the job.

In addition, the Plaintiffs who held the rank of Param edic in Charge prior to 2009

will also receive a pro rata s

hare of $ 75,000 if they are hired as

Firefighter/Paramedics in either the 2013 or 2014 Fire Academy Classes. If none

of Plaintiffs who held the rank of Param edic in Charge prior to 2009 are hired as

Firefighter/Paramedics in the 2013 or 2014 Fire Academy Class, then the City shall

pay Settlement Class Counsel $50,000 as reimbursement for pretest training

provided to Settlement Class Members.

5. How Do I Submit A Claim?

To receive a benefit from this Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form by mail. YOUR CLAIM MUST BE POSTMARKE D NO LATER THAN [MONTH DAY, 2013] TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY. IF YO UR CLAIM IS NOT POSTMARKED BY THIS DATE, YOU WILL HAVE WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

If you are reapplying for the job, you should still file a claim. If you fail to file a claim, an d you don’ t get a job offer, you w on’t get a settlement payment either. Filing a claim w ill not harm your chances to be hired. You should pursue the job and also file a claim.

Complete and sign the enclosed Claim Form, indicating that you wish to participate in the Class Settlement, and submit it to the Claims Administrator at the address below.

Vasich v. City of Chicago Claims Administrator

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 73 of 99 PageID #:1850
c/o Class Action Administration, Inc. PO Box 6848 Broomfield, CO 80021
6. Must I Submit a Claim?
To receive any money under the Settlement, you must complete the enclosed Claim Form and mail it on time.
You do not need to do anything to becom e part of the Settlem ent Class. As a Settlement Class Member, you will be bound by all pro ceedings, orders and judgments entered in connection with the Proposed Settlem ent, including the release of claims, even if you do not file a Claim Form.
7. What If I Do Not Want To Be Part of The Settlement?
If you do not want to be a m ember of the Settlement Class and participate in the Settlement, then you must opt out of the Settlement. To opt out, send a letter to the Claims Administrator at the address below requesting exclusion from the Class.
Vasich v. City of Chicago Claims Administrator c/o Class Action Administration, Inc. PO Box 6848 Broomfield, CO 80021
TO OPT OUT, YO U MUST MAIL YOUR LETTER REQUESTING EXCLUSION NO L ATER THAN [M ONTH DAY, 2013]. IF YOUR LETTER IS NOT POSTMARKED BY [MONTH DAY, 2013] YOUR RIGHT TO OPT OUT WILL BE WAIVED, AN D YOU WILL BE BOUND BY ALL ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS ENT ERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT.
If you opt out, you will not receive any payment under the Settlement and you will not be allowed to comment on or object tothe Settlement. However, the release will not apply to you, which means you will retain your rights.
8. How Much Money Will I Receive if I Don’t Get the Job?
Class Members who are not hired as CF D firefighter/EMTs in 2013 or 2014 and who file claims on time will share the $1,590,023 Settlement Fund. The fund will be shared p er capita, m eaning that each Cla ss Member will re ceive an equal amount.
The amount that each Class Member will receive won’t be known until early 2014, because some Class Members who are reapplying for the job are not expected to be hired until that tim e and only Class Mem bers who don’t get jobs will share the money. Once it is known how m any Settlement Class M embers are h ired, the

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 74 of 99 PageID #:1851

calculation can be done to determine how much the Settlement Class Members who were not hired will receive. The amount is estimated to be between $8 ,500 and $17,000, minus applicable taxes and other necessary withholding.

9. When Will I Get Paid?

Payment is anticipated to be m ade in 2014 after the start of the first 2014 Fire Academy class, when the am ount due to Settlem ent Class Members who are not hired can be calculated.

10. Who Decides Whether a Claim Form is Valid?

The Claims Administrator decides which cl aims are valid, subject to review by Settlement Class Counsel and attorneys for the City and/or the Court.

11. Who Are The Attorneys Representing the Class?

Under the Settlement, the Plaintiffs will ask the Court to appoint the attorneys who filed the lawsuit for them as Class C ounsel. Attorneys to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are:

David Borgen
dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, California 94612-3536 Tel. (510) 763-9800 Fax (510) 835-1417

Susan P. Malone smalonelaw@sbcglobal.net 20 N. Clark St., Suite 1725 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel. (312) 726-2638 Fax (312) 372-6067

Marni Willenson marni@willensonlaw.com Willenson Law, LLC 542 S. Dearborn, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 Tel. (312) 508-5380 Fax (312) 508-5382

12. How Will The Lawyers Be Paid?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the basis for the lawsuit, allows plaintiffs to recover their attorney’s fees from the party being sued. Under the Proposed Settlement, the City will pay Settlement Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees. You will not be required to pay for attorne y’s fees as a result of your participation in the Settlement.
The exact amount of fees to be paid to Class Counsel has not yet been determ ined and will be resolved either through non-binding mediation, or if that doesn’t work, then through local federal court procedur es that apply to th e determination of attorney’s fees (Local Rule 54.3 of the No rthern District of Illinois). Settlement Class Counsel have agreed as a part of th e Settlement that they will not seek in excess of $1.7 million

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 75 of 99 PageID #:1852

13. Should I Get My Own Lawyer?

You do not need to hire your own lawyer. However, if you want your own lawyer to speak for you or appear in Court, your attorney will need to file a Notice of Appearance. Hiring a lawyer to appear for you in the lawsuit will be at y our own expense.

COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT

14. Can I Comment On Or Object To the Proposed Settlement?

If you have comm ents about, or disagr ee with, any aspect of the Proposed Settlement, you may express your v iews to the Court in writing. If you wish to receive money from the Settlement Fund, you must also file a Claim Form. The written response should include your name, address, telephone number and a brief explanation of your comment or reason for objection. The document must be signed to ensure the Court' s review. The response must be postmarked on or before _____________________ [MONTH DAY, 2013] and be m ailed to the Court, Class Counsel (representing P laintiffs) and Defense Counsel (attorneys for the City) at the addresses below:

COURT Clerk of Court US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn St., 20th Floor Chicago, IL 60604

DEFENSE COUNSEL Allan T. Slagel, Esq. Cary E. Donham, Esq. Heather A. Jackson, Esq. Shefsky & Froelich Ltd. 111 E. Wacker Drive, Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60601

CLASS COUNSEL David Borgen Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, California 94612-3536

CLASS COUNSEL Susan P. Malone 20 N. Clark St., Suite 1725 Chicago, IL 60606

CLASS COUNSEL Marni Willenson Willenson Law, LLC 542 S. Dearborn, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605

Your document must clearly state that it relates to Civil Action Number 11-cv-04843.

15. Dismissal With Prejudice, Approval Of The Proposed Settlement and Release Of Claims

If the Court approves the Proposed Settlement, it will enter a judgment dismissing the litigation with prejudice as to all claims of the Settlement Class against the City. In addition, the City will receiv e from the Settlem ent Class (except for those

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 76 of 99 PageID #:1853
persons who have timely opted out of the Settlement) a release and discharge of all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes ofaction that have been brought or could have been brought, are currently pending or were pending, by any Settlement Class Member against the City, in any forum, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, under or pursuant to any statute,regulation, common law or equity, that raise the same claim as the ones raised in this case.
This means that all Se ttlement Class Members who have not opted out of the Settlement will be forever barred from bringing, continuing or being part of any claim or lawsuit agains t the City of Chicago or the Chicago Fire Departm ent or their employees, personnel or representatives, as to the cla ims made o r which could have been made in the law suit, for all past events. If you fall w ithin the Settlement Class definition and do not wa nt to be prevented from bringing, continuing or being a part of such a laws uit, you must opt out from the Settlement Class and Proposed Settlement as explained above in Paragraph 8.
16. The Court's Final Approval Hearing
The United States District Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on [MONTH DAY, 2013] at [HH:M M] to consider whet her the Proposed Settlem ent is fair, reasonable and adequate. At the Hearing the Court may decide whether to approve the Proposed Settlement. If comments or objections have been timely received, the Court will consider them at that time. Updated information will be posted on the website for this Settlement operated by the Class Action Adm inistrator, www._____.com.
17. Must I Attend The Final Approval Hearing?
No. Settlement Class Members are neither expected nor required to attend a final approval hearing. You are welcome to attend, and you can have a personal attorney appear for you at your own expense. If you send written co mments or objections, the Court will consider them even if you do not attend.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
18. Who Do I Contact if I Have Questions?
If you have questions about the Settlement or this Notice, you should call or e-mail Settlement Class Counsel using the information under Question 12.
If you have questions about the Claim Form or Opt-Out Form, you can contact the Claims Administrator by visiting www._________.com or calling toll-free 1-855-326-5674. You s hould read the inform ation on the website regarding the “Proposed Settlement,” or if you call, you the toll-free number above, you should indicate that you are a member of the “Proposed Settlement Class.”
Do not contact the judge or the Court with the questions.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 77 of 99 PageID #:1854

You can review and copy the legal docum ents filed with the Court during regular

business hours at the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604

or by using the Public Access to

Court Records (PACER) system at

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl. You need to set up a PACER

account to view records online, and there is a per-page charge for most documents.

The most important case-related documents will also be available on the website

for this Settlement operated by the Class Action Administrator, www._____.com.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 78 of 99 PageID #:1855
Settlement Stipulation Exh B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANIECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFER ROCCASALVA, individually,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER Plaintiffs Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke,

Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans (the “Settlem ent Class Representatives”), individually and on

behalf of all others sim ilarly situated, and Kimberly Bailey, Hayley Stafen and Jennifer

Roccasalva, individually (the “Indi vidual Plaintiffs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant

the City of Chicago (“Defendant ”; collectively with Plaintiffs , the “Parties”), having filed a

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (collectively, the “Motion”), seeking an

order granting final approval of the proposed sett lement of the Action (the “Settlem ent”), in

accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) entered into by

the Parties;

Plaintiffs having also filed the Affidavit of the Claim s Administrator (the “CAA

Affidavit”) and the Affidavit of Settlem ent Class Counsel; due and adeq uate notice having been

given to the Settlement Class; and the Court being otherwise advised;

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 79 of 99 PageID #:1856
After review and consideration of the Stipulation, the Motion, the CAA Affidavit, and the Affidavit of Settlement Class Counsel, all other pleadings filed with the Court and the Exhibits annexed thereto, any comments received regarding the proposed S ettlement, and having reviewed the entire record in the Action and good cause app earing, after due deliberation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. The Court, for purposes of this Final Judgment and Order (the “Order”), adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subjec t matter of the Action, Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members, and Defendant.
3. The Court finds that the di stribution of the Notice and Proof of Claim form, and publication of the Summ ary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlem ent, as provided for in the Stipulation and Prelim inary Approval Order, constitu ted the be st notice practicab le under the circumstances to apprise all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action and their rights in it, the term s of the proposed Settlem ent of the Action, and afforded Settlement Class Members with an opportunity to present their objections, if any, to the Settlement. The Court finds that th e provision of notice to the Settlem ent Class Members fully met the req uirements of Federal R ule of Civil Procedure 23(C)(2)(B), due process, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.
4. The Court provides final approval of th e prior provisional cer tification of the Settlement Class, for settlement purposes, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) consisting of all females who passed the 2006 written qualifying ex am to become a CFD firefighter/EMT, who failed the PAT between Decem ber 2007 and April 10, 2 010, and who were no t otherwise
2

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 80 of 99 PageID #:1857
previously disqualified as an applicant for a firefighter/EMT position with the CFD f or a reason other than age.
5. Pursuant to F ED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3), Sam antha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic, and Jessica Evans are approved as Settlement Class Representatives.
6. With respect to the Settlement Class, this Court expressly finds and concludes that the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) are satisfied as: (a ) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class members in the Action is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predom inate over any individual questions; (c) the clai ms of the Settlem ent Class Repr esentatives are typ ical of the claims of the Class; (d) the Settlem ent Class Representatives and their c ounsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all the Settlement Class members; and (e) a class action is superior to other available m ethods for the fa ir and efficient ad judication of the controversy, considering: (i) the inte rests of the Settlem ent Class Mem bers in individually controlling the prosecution of the se parate actions, (ii) th e extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controv ersy already commenced by Settlem ent Class Mem bers, (iii) the desirability or undesirability of continuing the litigation of these cl aims in this particular forum, and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the Action.
7. After hearing, and based upon the subm ission of the P arties, the Motion is granted. This Court approves the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulatio n, each of the releas es, and other terms as f air, reasonable, adequate, and in the bes t interests of the Settlement Class. The Parties to the Stipulation are therefore directed to consummate and perform its terms.
8. In addition, the Court specifically finds:
3

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 81 of 99 PageID #:1858

(i) The Settlement recovery is comm ensurate with, if not m ore so, than th e

strength of the claims of the Settlement Class.

(ii) Further litigation of the Settlement Class Members’ cla ims would be

complex (dispositive m otion practice, expert practice, trial, determining

which Settlement Class Mem bers could actually recover), lengthy and

expensive, and not at all certain to yield a positive result for the Settlement

Class.

(iii) There is no indication of any co llusion between Class Counsel and

Plaintiffs acting as class representa tives, on the one hand, and Defendant,

on the other. This m atter has been vigorously and ably litigated by both

sides.

(iv) Settlement Class Counsel, experienced cl ass action attorneys in this niche

of the law, have expressed the view that the Settlement terms are fair.

(v) The Settlement Class Mem bers who received appropriate notice have

supported the Settlement. [Optional language, depending upon objections:

No Settlement Class Members have objected to the Settlement.]

(vi) The stage of proceedings is highly appropriate for a class settlement. The

Parties have taken discovery and lit igated limited summary judgment

issues, and thus have a good sense of the value of the case.

9. In order to consummate the term s of the Stipulation, the Court hereby authorizes

and directs the Claim s Administrator to m ake the following payments in acco rdance with the

timing set forth below:

Payee

Amount

Purpose

Date

4

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 82 of 99 PageID #:1859

Samantha Vasich

$15,000

Rashaunda Dooley

$15,000

Angela Minnick

$10,000

Janiece Theeke

$10,000

Katrina Basic

$10,000

Jessica Evans

$10,000

Angela Minnick

$42,000

Janiece Theeke

$42,000

Katrina Basic

$17,000

Jessica Evans

$73,000

Haley Stafen

$42,000

Kimberly Bailey

$42,000

Jennifer Roccasalva

$10,000

Incentive Award
Incentive Award
Incentive Award
Incentive Award
Incentive Award
Incentive Award
Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award Individual Backpay Award

No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date
No later than 60 days after the Settlement Effective Date

10. The Defendant is directed as follo ws with respect to the Classwide Backpay

Amount following the entry of this Final Judgment and Order:

5

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 83 of 99 PageID #:1860
(a) Within seven days of the Hiring Election Date , the Claims Adm inistrator will determine the number of Non-Hired Settlement Class Members.
(b) The amount paid to each Claimant as a Non-Hired Settlement Class Member shall be calculated as follows: $1,590,023 divided by the number of Non-Hired Settlement Class Members who filed valid Proof of Claims rounded down to the nearest dollar.
(c) Payment shall be made to the Non-Hired Settlement Class Members no later than 60 days af ter the latter of (a) the Settl ement Effective Date or the (b) Hiring Election Date.
11. The Defendant shall m ake a paym ent of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) to be divided equally among Individual Backpay Recipients who held the rank of Paramedic in Charge prior to 2009 and who are hi red in either the 2013 or 2014 Classes. The payment will be made no later than fifteen (15) days after the latter of (a) the entry of Crossovers into the 201 4 Fire Acad emy Class or (b ) the Settlement Effective Date. In the event that no Individual Backpay Recipient who holds the rank of Paramedic in Charge prior to 2009 is hired in either the 2013 or 2014 Class, the City sh all pay Settlem ent Class Counsel Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as reim bursement for pretest training provided to Settlem ent Class Members but no other payment need be made under this paragraph.
12. As of the date of the entry of this Order, the Hiring Proc ess set f orth in Article VII.C as it relates to the 2013 Cl ass has been com pleted. Defendant is directed to com plete hiring of qualified Plaintiffs and Settlem ent Class Members for the 2014 Class pursuant to Article VII of the Stipulation and the following:
6

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 84 of 99 PageID #:1861
(a) Settlement Class Member hiring shall be subject to the City Ordinance § 2-152410(e) limiting the hiring of firefighters to persons less than 38 years of age.
(b) Settlement Class Members who are New Hires selecting a CPAT Completion Date of Decem ber 31, 2013 (at the Second Stage Processing, o r as m odified pursuant to Article VII(C)(3)(b) of the Stipulation) shall have until Decem ber 31, 2013 to present their CPAT Cards.
(c) Settlement Class Members who are Crossove rs and who selected the later CPAT Completion Date shall have until the fi rst day of the 2014 Class to present a CPAT Card to CFD.
(d) All Settlement Class M embers entering th e 2014 Class must ha ve successfully completed all Pre-Hirin g Processing no la ter than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to Final Processing for the 2014 Class.
(e) All New Hires selecting a CPAT Com pletion Date of Decem ber 31, 2013 who present a CPAT Card by Decem ber 31, 2013 and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Norm al and Customary Hi ring Standards will be hired into th e 2014 Class.
(f) All Settlement Class Members who are Cr ossovers who selected the later CPAT Completion Date submit a CPAT Card by the first day of the 2014 Class and who are deemed fully qualified pursuant to the Cro ssover Hiring Standards will be hired into the 2014 Class.
13. After completion of hiring by CFD for the 2014 Class, the following process shall apply to the poten tial hiring of D eferred Settlement Class Members for a subsequent Fire
7

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 85 of 99 PageID #:1862
Academy class so long as the 2006 E ligibility List is being used to hire any candidates for the second 2014 Fire Academy Class:
(a) Settlement Class Member hiring shall be subject to the City Ordinance § 2-152410(e) limiting the hiring of firefighters to persons less than 38 years of age.
(b) Deferred Settlement Class Mem bers who are deemed qualified und er CFD’s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and who present a CPAT Card no less than 60 days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academ y Class will receive offers of em ployment from CFD to enter the second 2014 Fire Academy Class.
(c) In order to receive an o ffer of e mployment pursuant to Paragraph 13(b) above, however, each Deferred Settlement Class Member must elect in writing on or before the Hiring Election Date w hether to (i) continue processing for possible hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT and waive any right to a Backpay Award, or (ii) receive a Backpay Award and waive any right to hiring by the CFD as a Firefighter/EMT.
(d) At least fourteen (14) prior to the Election Date, the City will provide Settlem ent Class Counsel with the nam es and Updated Addresses of all Deferred S ettlement Class Members who will be required to m ake an election. A Deferred Settlem ent Class Member who ele cts to waive any r ight to hiring by the CFD or fails to timely make an election in writing is a Non-Hired Settlement Class Member. In the event the City notifie s Settlement Class Counsel that it does not intend to select and train another Fire Academy cl ass consisting of app licants off of the 2006 Eligibility List but does thereafter hire another class consisting, in whole or
8

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 86 of 99 PageID #:1863
in part, of applicants of f of the 20 06 eligibility list, Def erred Settlement Class Members who elected to r eceive a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount shall be offered at such time th e opportunity to continue processing for potential hire into the Fire Academy class subject to their repayment to the City of the net amount, if any, already received as a proportionate share of the Classwide Backpay Amount. Any funds recovered by the City pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid as a cy pres to the Ende, Menzer, W alsh & Quinn Retirees’, Widows’ and Orphan’s Assistance Fund. Deferred Settlement Class Mem bers processed under this paragraph and who are deem ed qualified under CFD’ s Normal and Customary Hiring Standards and who present a CPAT Card no less than 60 days prior to the first day of a second 2014 Fire Academ y Class will receive offers of em ployment from CFD to enter the second 2014 Fire Academy Class. 14. Defendant is directed to hi re the Individual Plaintiffs and the Settlem ent Class Representatives who are deem ed qualified purs uant to the Nor mal and Custom ary Hiring Standards or Crossover Hiring Stan dards (as applicable), and those Individual P laintiffs and the Settlement Class Repr esentatives shall no t be deemed disqualified solely due to age an d application of City Ordinance § 2-152-410(e). 15. The Court finds that all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class have been adequately provided with an opportunity to remove themselves from the Settlement Class by executing and retu rning a “req uest for exclus ion” in c onformance with the te rms of the Stipulation. 16. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in Exhibit 1 hereto)
9

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 87 of 99 PageID #:1864
who have validly and tim ely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, the A ction, and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs and other Settlement Class Members.
17. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as provided in the Stipulation and specifically in Artic le XVI, which sets f orth the Parties’ agreement as to the resolution of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses for Settlement Class Counsel.
18. By operation of the Final Judgm ent and Order and under the term s of the Stipulation and releases therein, it is intended to preclude, and sh all preclude, Plaintiffs and all other Settlement Class Members from filing or pursuing any Released Claims under federal law or the law of any state.
19. Plaintiffs and the Settlem ent Class Me mbers are deem ed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgm ent and Order sha ll have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged all Released Claim s against each and all of the Released Parties, whether or not such m ember of the Settlement Class executed or timely delivered the Proof of Claim.
20. Only those Settlement Class Members who have filed valid and tim ely Proofs of Claim shall be entitled to rece ive a distribution from the Settlement Fund. The Proof of Claim executed by the Settlement Class Members shall further release all Released Claims against the Released Parties. All S ettlement Class Members shall be bound by the releases whether or not they submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim.
21. Neither the Stipulation nor the Settlem ent, nor any act perform ed or docum ent executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the S tipulation or the Settlement including this Final Judgment and Order (i) is or m ay be deem ed to be or may be used as an adm ission of, or
10

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 88 of 99 PageID #:1865
evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim , or of any wrongdoing or liability of Defendant; or (ii) shall be offered in ev idence by any Party for any purpose except as provided for in this paragraph. In addition, neither the Stipulation, nor the Settlement, nor any act perfor med or document executed to o r in furtherance of the Stipulation or the Settlement including this Final Judgment and Order sh all be construed as an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT by the Individual Plaintiffs or Settlement Class Representatives for themselves or the Settlement Class or by the C ourt for any purpose or use other than its interim use as a term and condition of the Stipulation [THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE DISPUTED (PROPOSED BY PLAINTIFFS/REJECTED BY CITY): and shall not be offered or recei ved in evidence in any action or proceeding, or be used in any way as an admission, concession, or evidence of an acceptance or endorsement of the CPAT for use in employee selection or retention]. The Released Parties may file the Stipulation and/or the Final Judgment and Order in a ny other action that m ay be br ought against them in order to support a defense based upon principals of res judi cata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or any theory of cl aim preclusion or issue preclusion or sim ilar defense. The Partie s may file the Stipulation in any proceeding brought to enforce any of the terms or provision of the Stipulation.
22. Only those persons who m eet the definition of the Settlement Class identified on Exhibit 1 hereto as having validly filed Request s for Exclusion from the Settlement Class shall not be bound by this Final Judgment and Order.
23. Any order, or any objection to or app eal from any order approving S ettlement Class Counsel’s Attorney’s Fees or incentive paym ents to Plaintiffs, shall in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and shall be considered separate from this Order.
24. The Court finds that the am ount paid a nd other term s of the Settlem ent were
11

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 89 of 99 PageID #:1866 negotiated at arm ’s length and in good faith by th e Parties, and reflect a settlement that was reached voluntarily b ased upon ad equate information and after con sultation with experienced legal counsel.
25. The Court finds that th ere is no ju st reason for delaying enforcem ent of this Order.
26. [THIS PARAGRAPH DISPUTED (PROPOSED BY PLAINTIFFS /REJECTED BY C ITY): The Court retains jurisdiction for monthly status hearings, as scheduled by the Court, until the hiring process is complete.]
By the Court: ______________________________________
Hon. Maria Valdez, Magistrate Judge Dated:
12

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 90 of 99 PageID #:1867
Settlement Stipulation Exh C

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VASICH, RASHAUNDA DOOLEY, ANGELA MINNICK, JANI ECE THEEKE, KATRINA BASIC, and JESSICA EVANS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KIMBERLY BAILEY, HAYLEY STAFEN, and JENNIFE R ROCCASALVA, individually,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 1:11-cv-04843 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Plaintiffs Samantha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke,

Katrina Basic, and Jes sica Evans (the “Settle ment Class Representatives”), on behalf of

themselves and all oth ers similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), and Defenda nt the City of Chicago

(“Defendant”; collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), having filed a Motion for Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Motion,” Docket No. ___), seek ing an order granting

preliminary approval of the pro posed settlement of the Litig ation (the “Se ttlement”), in

accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) entered into by

the Parties;

The Parties being in agreement; and the Court being fully advised;

After review and consideration of the S tipulation and the Mo tion, and after due

deliberation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court, for purposes of this order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), adopts

the defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation.

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 91 of 99 PageID #:1868

2. The Court hereby conditionally certifies, so lely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, a Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) consisting of all females who passed the 2006 written qualifying exam to becom e a CFD Firefighter/EMT, who failed the PAT between December 2007 and April 10, 2010, and who were not, prior to July 19, 2011, notified of their disqualification as an applicant for a Firefighter/EMT position with the CFD for a reason other than failure of the PAT or age.

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and for the purpose of settlement only, Sam antha Vasich, RaShaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Janiece Theeke, Katrina Basic and Jessica Evans are appointed as Settlement Class Representatives.

4. The Court prelim inarily approves th e payment of Service Award s to the Settlement Class Representatives as follows:

Samantha Vasich RaShaunda Dooley Angela Minnick Janiece Theeke Katrina Basic Jessica Evans
TOTAL

$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00

5. With respect to the Settlem ent Class, this Court expressly finds and concludes provisionally and for settlem ent purposes only, that the req uirements of Federal R ule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) are satisfied as: (a) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all m embers of the Settle ment Class in the Litigation is im practicable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settle ment Class that predom inate over any individual questions; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the
2

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 92 of 99 PageID #:1869
Settlement Class; (d) the Settlem ent Class Repr esentatives and Settlem ent Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all the Settlement Class members; and (e) a class action is superior to other availa ble methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, con sidering: (i) the inter ests of the m embers of the Settlem ent Class in individually controlling the prosecution of separa te actions, (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by members of the Settlement Class, (iii) the desirability or undesirability of continuing the litigation of these claims in this particular forum, and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the Litigation.
6. The law firms of Goldstein, Borgen, Dard arian & Ho of Oakland, California and Willenson Law LLC, and the Law O ffice of Susan P. Malon e of Chicago, Illinois are appointed as Settlement Class Counsel.
7. Settlement Class Counsel is au thorized to act on behalf of the Settlem ent Class with respect to all acts required by, or which may be given pursuant to, the Stipulation or such other acts that are reasonably necessary to consummate the proposed Settlement set forth in the Stipulation.
8. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement as set f orth in the Stipu lation as appearing to be within the range of fairness, reasonableness and adequacy. This prelim inary approval is subject to the righ t of any Settle ment Class Mem ber to challenge the f airness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Stipulat ion, or the fairness and adequacy of their representation by Settlement Class Counsel, and to show cause, if any exists, why final judgment dismissing the Litigation based on the Stipulation should not be ordered herein after due and
3

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 93 of 99 PageID #:1870

adequate notice to the Settlement Class has been given in conf ormity with this Preliminary Approval Order.

9. By its express terms, the Stipulation is subject to the approval of the S ettlement by the Chicago City Council, which the City intends to seek on September 11, 2013. If the Settlement is not approved by the City Council, th e City shall imm ediately report this to the Court and Settlem ent Class Counsel, and the Settl ement, the Stipulation, and this prelim inary approval shall have no force and effect, and the Parties will be returned to the status quo ante as if the Stipulation had never been entered into.
10. The Court directs and authorizes the City to retain Class Action Adm inistration, Inc. (“CAA”) as the Claim s Administrator to ad minister the Settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

11. The Court approves the Class Notice and Summary Class Notice attached to the Stipulation as Exhibits A and E, and finds the Class Notice and Publication of Summary Class Notice: (1) to constitute the best and most practicable notice to the m embers of the Settlement Class under the circum stances, (2) are due and su fficient notice of the Final Approval Hearing, proposed Settlement and other m atter set forth in the Class Notice and Summary Class Notice, and (3) shall fully satisfy the requirements of due process and of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

12. Exhibit D.

The Court approves the for m of the Proof of Claim attached to the Stipu lation as

13. The Court directs and authorizes the Cl aims Administrator to provide Class Notice to the Last Known Address or Updated A ddress (if applicable) of all Se ttlement Class
4

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 94 of 99 PageID #:1871
Members by f irst class mail by th e later of fourteen (14) days after en try of the Prelim inary Approval Order or City Council approval (the “N otice Mailing”). Encl osed with all Class Notices shall be a P roof of Claim Form and postage pre-paid envelope a ddressed to the Claims Administrator.
14. The Court directs and authorizes the Cl aims Administrator to publish Summ ary Class Notice, in the form agreed to by the Parties, and attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit E, on three (3) occasions in the legal notice section of the Chicago Tribune in th ree (3) consecutive weeks, beginning the later of fourteen (14) da ys following entry of the Prelim inary Approval Order or City Council approval.
15. The Court directs and authorizes the Claims Administrator to maintain a toll-free VRU telephone line and answering service contai ning recorded answers to frequently asked questions, the content of which s hall be agreed upon between Defendant’s C ounsel and Settlement Class Counsel along with an option permitting potential Settlement Class Members to speak to a live operator to leave messages in a voicem ail box. The Court further directs and authorizes the Claims Administrator to maintain the Website for this Settlement for at le ast 90 days after the expiration of the period for the submission of Proofs of Claim.
16. At least five (5) days prior to the Final Approval Hear ing, the Claim s Administrator shall prepare, a nd the Parties sh all provide to the Court, a declaration by the Claims Administrator of due diligence and proof of mailing of the Class Notices and Proof of Claim, and of the delivery results o f the Claims Administrator’s mailings including tracing and re-mailing efforts.
5

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 95 of 99 PageID #:1872
17. Any Settlement Class Member who objects to the Settlement, any part thereof, the representation of the Se ttlement Class by Settlement Class Counsel, or who otherwise wishes to be heard, m ay appear in person or by her attorney at the Final Appro val Hearing and p resent evidence or argument that may be p roper or relevant; provided, however, that no person other than the Parties and their counsel shall be heard, and no papers , briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any person shall be considered by the Court, unless such person objects to the Settle ment, or any part th ereof, in writing by m ailing a written objection to the Claim s Administrator postmarked no later than sixty (60) days after th e Notice Mailing. Settlem ent Class Members shall be perm itted to withdraw their obje ctions at any tim e prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
18. Any person falling within the definiti on of the Settlem ent Class may, upon request, be excluded from the Settlement and the Settlement Class. Any such person must submit to the Cla ims Administrator a Req uest for Exclusion postmarked no later than sixty (60) days after the Notice Mailing. The Request for Exclus ion may be rescinded at any tim e prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
19. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to participate in the Settlem ent Class Member Backpay Award must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than sixty (60) days after the Notice Mailing. Unless a Settlement Class Member submits a valid and tim ely Request for Exclusion, a Settl ement Class Member who takes no action will be bound by the Final Judgment, and will not receive any payment.
20. If the Settle ment Effective Date does not occur f or any reason whatsoever, the Settlement (including any modification thereof) made with the consent of the Parties as provided
6

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 96 of 99 PageID #:1873
for in the Stipulation, and any actions taken or to be taken in connection therewith (including this Order and any judgm ent entered herein), (i) sh all be without prejudice, and none of the terms shall be effective or enforceab le; (ii) the costs of Class Notice and the Administrative Costs that have been incurred or expended pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation shall be paid by the City; (iii) the Parties shall revert to their Litigation positions immediately prior to the execution of the Stipulation; and (iv) the f act and terms of the Stipulation and Settlement shall not be admissible in any trial of this or any other litigation.
21. All proceedings in the Litigation, other than those p roceedings that may be necessary to carry out the te rms and conditions of the Settl ement are hereby stayed and suspended until further order of this Court.
22. Neither this Prelim inary Approval Or der, the Motion, the Stipulation, any provisions contained in the Stip ulation, any negotiations, statements, or proceedings in connection therewith, nor any action undertaken pursuant thereto shall be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission or concession on the part of the City or any other person of any liability or wrongdoing by th em, or any of them , and shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proc eeding, or be used in any w ay as an adm ission, concession, or evidence of any liability or wr ongdoing of any nature, and shall not be construed as, or deem ed to be evidence of, an adm ission or concession that Plaintiffs, any me mber of the Settlem ent Class, or any other Person, has suffered any da mage. In addition, neither this Prelim inary Approval Order, the Motion, the S tipulation, any provisions contained in the Stipulation, any negotiations, statements, or proceedings in connection therewith, nor any action undertaken pursuant thereto shall be construed as an ac ceptance or endorsem ent of the C PAT by the Individual Plaintiffs or Settlement Class Representatives for themselves or the Settlement Class
7

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 97 of 99 PageID #:1874

or by the C ourt for any purpose or use other than its interim use as a term and condition of the Stipulation.
23. The Court reserv es the right to a pprove the Settlement at or af ter the Fina l Approval Hearing with such m odification as may be consented to by the Parties to th e Stipulation and without further notice to the Settlement Class.

24. This matter is set f or a he aring on final approval of the Settlem ent on __________________________ at ___:__ a.m./p.m.

25. The Parties shall appear before the Court for a status hearing to report on the implementation of Article VII of the Stipulation on ________________, 2013 at ______.

Dated: August __, 2013

By the Court:

1245447_5

______________________________________ Hon. Maria Valdez, Magistrate Judge

8

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 98 of 99 PageID #:1875

Vasich v. City of Chicago Claims Administrator

Vasich v. City of Chicago, No. 11-CV-04843

c/o Class Action Administration, Inc.

In the United States District Court for the

PO Box 6848

Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

Broomfield, CO 80021

Settlement Stip. Exh D

SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM

*XXX0000001*
Claim ID: CAA0123456

[Class Member Name] [Mailing Address 1] [Mailing Address 2] [City, State ZIP]

By signing below, I certify that I am a class member and express my intent to participate in the Settlement of Vasich v. City of Chicago, No. 11-C-4843 (U.S. Dist. Court for the N.D. Ill.) and to receive a payment if I am not hired by the Chicago Fire Department.
I understand that by choosing to participate in the Settlement I will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement including the Release of Claims and will not be able to bring my own lawsuit for the same alleged violations.
THIS FORM MUST BE POST MARKED BY ___ _____ AND MAILED TO THE ADDRES S BELOW IN ORDER TO BE VALID.
Vasich v. City of Chicago Claims Administrator c/o Class Action Administration, Inc. PO Box 6848 Broomfield, CO 80021-0015

Name and Address Updates: If your name or address is different from what is printed above,
please provide updated information below:

First Name Mailing Address City

MI State

Last Name Apt/Unit ZIP

Signature

Date

____ ____ ____ - ____ ____ - ____ ____ ____ ____
Social Security Number (Required)

It is your responsibility to inform the Claims Administrator of any address changes until your benefit is received. Questions? Visit: www.[INSERT].com Call toll-free: 1-855-326-5674

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 Document #: 142-1 Filed: 09/05/13 Page 99 of 99 PageID #:1876
LEGAL NOTICE Settlement Stipulation Exh E
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If you passed the 2006 w

ritten

examination to become a Chicago

Firefighter/EMT and failed the physical

abilities test between December 2007 and

April 2010, and you are female, you may

be entitled to recover money under the

settlement of a class action lawsuit.

What is This About? In 2011, wom en who applied to becom e Chicago Fire Departm ent firefighter/EMTs filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago alleging that the physical abilities test used to hire firefighter/E MTs discriminated against wom en. In April 2013, the City and th e women who f iled the lawsuit, na med Vasich v. City of Chicago (Case No. 11 CV 04843 in the U.S. District Cou rt for the N orthern District of Illinois), reached a settlement.

If you are included in the lawsuit, you m ay be entitled to recover money under the settlement.

you will receive m oney under the settlement if you file a claim on time.
Who Must File a Claim? All women in the clas s who want to recove r money must file a cla im on tim e. This inc ludes women age 38 or over, wom en who chose not to reapply, women who di d not receive notice of the right to reapply, and wom en who were not hired by CFD.
How Do I File a Claim? To recover money you must m ail a Claim Form to the Claim s Administrator. You can download a Claim Form at www. [INSERT].com. You can also call the Claims Administrator toll-free at [INSERT] or call the lawyers rep resenting class m embers at (312) 508-5380 for help.
What’s the Deadline? If your Claim For m is not postm arked by [INSERT], you will not be paid.

Who is Included? Women who passed the 2006 written exam to become a CFD firefighter/EMT and failed the physical abilities test between December 2007 and April 2010 are included. W omen who were disqualified for some other reason are not inclu ded. Women who applied f or the job in 1995 are not included.
How Does This Affect Me? Class members who are under age 38 had the right to reapply fo r the job and will be hired if they pass a different physical test and m eet other CFD hiring standards. W omen age 38 and over or who aren’t hired for any o ther reasons will rec eive money under the settlem ent if they file a claim before the deadline.

Who Are the Attorneys Representing Class Members?

David Borgen Marni Willenson Susan P. Malone

Oakland, CA Chicago, IL

Chicago, IL

510-763-9800 312-508-5380 312-726-2638

How Do I Get More Information? You can co ntact the C laims Administrator at 1-855-326-5674 or by visiting www.________.com. Many of the im portant documents related to the case are available on that website.

Do not contact the court or the judge with questions about the lawsuit

Can I Still Reapply? Women under age 38 should have receiv ed notice of the hiring process in April or May 2013. If you have not already reappl ied, it is too late; but

Questions? Call toll-free 1-855-326-5674 or visit www._____________.com

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 1 of 17
CASREF,PROTO,STAYED,VALDEZ
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−04843

Vasich et al v. City of Chicago Assigned to: Honorable Maria Valdez related Case: 1:12−cv−08601 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/19/2011 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Samantha Vasich

represented by Marni J. Willenson Willenson Law, LLC 542 S. Dearborn St. Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 (312) 546−4910 Email: marni@willensonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Demchak Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen &Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Email: tdemchak@gdblegal.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

David Borgen Goldstein. Borgen, Dardarian &Ho 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Email: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lin Yee Chan Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian &Ho 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Email: lchan@gbdhlegal.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Patricia Malone Attorney at Law 20 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 726−2638 Email: smalonelaw@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rashaunda Dooley

represented by

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 2 of 17

Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberly Bailey

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Minnick

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janiece Theeke

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jessica Evans individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

David Borgen

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 3 of 17

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jennifer Roccasalva

represented by Torrick Alan Ward Law Office of Torrick Ward 7524 N. Paulina Suite 21 Chicago, IL 60626 (312) 720−7522 Email: torrick.ward@torrick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Plaintiff
Katrina Basic individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hayley Stafen individually

represented by Teresa Demchak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Marni J. Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
City Of Chicago a municipal corporation

represented by Allan T. Slagel Shefsky &Froelich Ltd 111 East Wacker Drive Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 527−4000 Email: aslagel@shefskylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Justin Seery City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 4 of 17
30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744−2825 Email: David.Seery@cityofchicago.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cary E. Donham Taft Stettinius &Hollister LLP 111 East Wacker Drive Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 527−4000 Email: cdonham@taftlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin K. Lynch Shefsky &Froelich Ltd 111 East Wacker Drive Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 312−527−4000 Email: elynch@shefskylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Jackson Shefsky &Froelich Ltd 111 East Wacker Drive Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 527−4000 Email: hjackson@shefskylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel L Schaller Taft Stettinius &Hollister LLP 111 East Wacker Drive Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 836−4128 Email: rschaller@shefskylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy L. Swabb City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel 30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744−8369 Email: tswabb@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/19/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011
07/19/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Samantha Vasich; Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752−6197633.(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Samantha Vasich by Marni J. Willenson (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Samantha Vasich by Susan Patricia Malone (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 5 of 17

07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/21/2011 07/22/2011
07/25/2011 07/26/2011 08/05/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/24/2011
08/30/2011 08/30/2011 08/30/2011 08/30/2011 08/31/2011
09/01/2011

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ruben Castillo. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. (nsf, ) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6201870. (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6201876. (Borgen, David) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6201892. (Chan, Lin) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
8 EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Samantha Vasich Exhibits 1 and 2 to Complaint regarding complaint 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −− EEOC Charge, # 2 Exhibit 2 −− Right to Sue Notice)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
9 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo: Teresa Demchak's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice 5 , David Borgen's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice 6 , and Lin Chan's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice 7 are granted. Mailed notice (ma, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
10 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant City Of Chicago (ma,) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
11 REQUEST for Clerk of Court to refund filing fee in the amount of $50.00, receipt no. 0752−6201837, (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Samantha Vasich as to City Of Chicago on 7/27/2011, answer due 8/17/2011. (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
13 AMENDED complaint by Samantha Vasich against City Of Chicago (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
14 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re amended complaint 13 (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
15 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by David Justin Seery (Seery, David) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
16 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Timothy L. Swabb (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
17 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo: After review of the initial pleadings in this case, this Court has decided to hold an expedited settlement conference. The parties are directed to file a joint status report on or before 9/29/2011. The Court will hold a settlement conference in chambers on 10/4/2011 at 1:30 PM. Clients with settlement authority are directed to appear or be available by telephone.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
18 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead and to reschedule settlement conference (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
19 NOTICE of Motion by Timothy L. Swabb for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer 18 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 9/6/2011 at 09:45 AM. (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
20 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Timothy L. Swabb for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer 18 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 9/6/2011 at 09:45 AM. (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to reschedule settlement conference (Omitted relief from motion 18 ) (ma, ) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
21 RESPONSE by Rashaunda Dooley, Samantha Vasich to MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead and to reschedule settlement conference 18 Plaintiffs' Statement of Non−Opposition to Motion (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
22 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Defendant's motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead and to reschedule settlement

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 6 of 17

10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/05/2011
10/31/2011 11/07/2011 11/09/2011 11/16/2011
11/16/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/28/2011
01/09/2012 01/11/2012 01/11/2012

conference 18 is granted. The parties are directed to file the joint status report on or before 10/6/2011. Settlement conference reset to 10/11/2011 at 1:30 PM. Clients with settlement authority are directed to appear or be available by telephone. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint on or before 10/31/2011. Motion hearing set for 9/6/2011 and settlement conference set for 10/4/2011 are vacated. Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
23 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file Joint Motion To Reschedule The Initial Status Report And Settlement Conference (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
24 Parties' Joint NOTICE of Motion by Timothy L. Swabb for presentment of motion for extension of time to file 23 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 10/11/2011 at 09:45 AM. (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
25 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Parties' joint motion to reschedule the initial status report and settlement conference 23 is granted. The parties are directed to file the joint status report on or before 11/7/2011. Settlement conference reset to 11/15/2011 at 12:30 PM. Clients with settlement authority are directed to appear or be available by telephone. Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
26 ANSWER to amended complaint by City Of Chicago(Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
27 STATUS Report Joint Status Report by Rashaunda Dooley, Samantha Vasich (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
28 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo: Settlement conference reset to 11/16/2011 at 11:00 AM. Clients with settlement authority are directed to appear or be available by telephone. Settlement conference set for 11/15/2011 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
29 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo: Settlement conference held in chambers. The parties should continue to engage in a cooperative, settlement process which fully utilizes an informal and full exchange of relevant information. The Court will hold a status hearing in open court on 12/14/2011 at 10:00 a.m. Enter Stipulated Protective Order as modified by the Court. (For further detail see separate order(s).) Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
30 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 11/16/2011. (ma,) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
31 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to stay all proceedings for 90 days (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
32 JOINT AGREED NOTICE of Motion by Timothy L. Swabb for presentment of motion to stay 31 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 11/29/2011 at 09:45 AM. (Swabb, Timothy) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
33 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Joint agreed motion to stay all proceedings for 90 days 31 is granted. All proceedings are stayed for 90 days while the parties engage in an informal exchange of information and further settlement discussions. Status hearing reset to 1/17/2012 at 9:45 AM. Motion hearing set for 11/29/2011 and status hearing set for 12/14/2011 are vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
34 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Parties' oral request to reset the status hearing is granted. Status hearing reset to 2/7/2012 at 9:45 AM. Status hearing set for 1/17/2012 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
35 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Allan T. Slagel (Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
36 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Cary E. Donham (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 7 of 17

01/11/2012 02/06/2012
02/27/2012 03/01/2012
03/07/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/20/2012
03/30/2012 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012

37 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Heather Ann Jackson (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
38 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:The parties' oral request to reset the status hearing is granted in part. The Court will give the parties until the end of the month to try and settle this lawsuit. The status hearing is reset to 3/1/2012 at 9:45 AM. Counsel are directed to appear unless a stipulation dismissing this lawsuit is filed prior to that date. Status hearing set for 2/7/2012 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
39 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:The status hearing set for 3/1/2012 will begin at 11:00 AM.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
40 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Status hearing held on 3/1/2012. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint on or before 3/8/2012. The parties are directed to proceed with all discovery. Defendant's motion to strike class allegations and/or motion for summary judgment will be due on or before 5/1/2012. Plaintiff's response will be due on or before 5/29/2012. Defendant's reply will be due on or before 6/11/2012. The Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
41 Second AMENDED complaint by Samantha Vasich, Rashaunda Dooley, Kimberly Bailey, Angela Minnick, Katrina L. Basic, Hayley Kristen Stafen, Janiece Theeke against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
42 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file answer regarding amended complaint, 41 (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
43 NOTICE of Motion by Cary E. Donham for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, motion for relief 42 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 3/21/2012 at 09:45 AM. (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
44 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Defendant's motion to extend time to answer plaintiffs' second amended complaint 42 is granted. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead to the second amended complaint on or before 3/30/2012. The Court waives the time constraints for filing a motion to strike set forth in Rule 12(f)(2) so that a motion to strike certain class allegations can be filed on 5/1/2012. The motion hearing set for 3/21/2012 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
45 ANSWER to amended complaint THE CITY OF CHICAGO'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by City Of Chicago(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
46 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for partial summary judgment (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM by City Of Chicago in support of motion for partial summary judgment 46 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
48 RULE 56.1(A)(3) Statement by City Of Chicago regarding motion for partial summary judgment 46 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
49 MOTION by Plaintiffs Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich for extension of time to file response/reply (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
50 NOTICE of Motion by Susan Patricia Malone for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 49 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 5/22/2012 at 09:45 AM. (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
51 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:Plaintiffs' agreed motion for 7−day extension of time to file response to motion for partial summary judgment 49 is granted. Plaintiffs' response to the City of Chicago's motion for partial summary judgment 46 is due on or before 6/5/2012. Defendant's reply will be due on or before 6/18/2012. The Court will rule by mail. The motion hearing set for

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 8 of 17

06/01/2012
06/04/2012 06/04/2012 06/06/2012 06/07/2012 06/07/2012 06/08/2012
06/12/2012 06/12/2012 06/12/2012 06/28/2012
07/11/2012 07/11/2012

5/22/2012 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
54 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: It appearing that, pursuant to the Executive Committee Order entered on May 18, 2012, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr., therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the attached list of 319 cases be reassigned to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall become effective on Tuesday, June 5, 2012. Case reassigned to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. for all further proceedings. Signed by Executive Committee on 6/1/2012. Mailed Notice (td, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
52 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to withdraw motion for partial summary judgment 46 , Rule 56 statement 48 , memorandum in support of motion 47 AGREED, MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for leave to file AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
53 NOTICE of Motion by Heather Ann Jackson for presentment of motion to withdraw,, motion for leave to file,, motion for relief,,,,, 52 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 6/12/2012 at 09:45 AM. (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
55 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:The motion hearing set before Judge Castillo on 6/12/2012 is vacated. Any pending motions should be re−noticed before Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
56 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to withdraw motion for partial summary judgment 46 , Rule 56 statement 48 , memorandum in support of motion 47 AGREED, MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for leave to file AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
57 NOTICE of Motion by Heather Ann Jackson for presentment of motion to withdraw,, motion for leave to file,, motion for relief,,,,, 56 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 6/12/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
58 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Defendants agreed motion to withdraw motion for partial summary judgment 46 and supporting documents and for leave to re−file amended motion for partial summary judgment 56 is granted. The defendants amended motion is due on June 12, 2012. Plaintiffs shall respond on or before June 28, 2012. Defendants reply is due by July 12, 2012. The motion will not be heard as noticed on June 12, 2012. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
59 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for partial summary judgment (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
60 RULE 56.1(A)(3) Statement by City Of Chicago regarding motion for partial summary judgment 59 The City of Chicago's Amended Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Pursuant to LR56.1(A)(3) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
61 MEMORANDUM by City Of Chicago in support of motion for partial summary judgment 59 Amended Memorandum in Support of City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
62 MEMORANDUM by Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich in Opposition to motion for partial summary judgment 59 (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs Response to Movant's Statement and Statement of Additional Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C), # 2 Declaration Declaration of Teresa Demchak)(Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
63 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Erin K. Lynch (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
64 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion for partial summary judgment 59 (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 9 of 17

07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/23/2012 07/23/2012 08/03/2012 08/03/2012 08/03/2012
10/08/2012
10/08/2012 10/08/2012 10/11/2012
10/11/2012 10/12/2012

65 NOTICE of Motion by Erin K. Lynch for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 64 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 7/17/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
66 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Defendant City of Chicago's motion for extension of time 64 to file Reply in support of its Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted. The Reply is due July 23, 2012. No appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
67 REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago to memorandum in opposition to motion, 62 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Movant's Statement and Statement of Additional Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(B)(3)(C) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
68 REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago to motion for partial summary judgment 59 Reply in Support of City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−8)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
69 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich for leave to file Instanter Surreply and for Oral Argument (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
70 NOTICE of Motion by Teresa Demchak for presentment of motion for partial summary judgment 59 , motion for leave to file 69 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 8/8/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
71 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Motion by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, and Samantha Vasich for leave to file Surreply and for Oral Argument 69 is denied. If the Court deems further written and/or oral submissions are appropriate, the parties will be notified. No appearance on the motion required.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
72 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha VasichLeave To File Third Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Exhibit Third Amended Complaint and Exhibits 1 to 17, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Teresa Demchak ISO Plaintiffs' And Evans' Motion For Leave to File Third Amended Complaint to Join Evans As Plaintiff, # 4 Exhibit Declaration Of Jessifa Evans ISO Plaintiffs' And Evans" Motion For Leave To File Third Amended Complaint To Join Evans As Plaintiff)(Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
73 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha VasichLeave To File Thrid Amended Complaint (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
74 NOTICE of Motion by Teresa Demchak for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief,, 72 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 10/11/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
75 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint 72 is granted. Defendants oral motion for leave to answer by 11/1/12 is granted. Parties oral motion to refer case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference is granted. Case is referred to Magistrate Judge Valdez for settlement conference. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
76 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Maria Valdez for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.(air, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 10/11/2012)
77 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: This case has been referred to Judge Valdez to conduct a settlement conference. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order of Settlement Conference found on the Judge's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties shall jointly contact the courtroom deputy, Yolanda Pagan, at 312/408−5135 with mutually

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 10 of 17

10/16/2012 10/18/2012 10/18/2012 10/18/2012 10/18/2012
10/23/2012 10/25/2012
11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012

agreeable dates or appear at 10:00 a.m. on 10/18/12 to set a settlement conference date. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
78 Third AMENDED complaint by Hayley Stafen, Angela Minnick, Katrina Basic, Samantha Vasich, Kimberly Bailey, Rashaunda Dooley, Janiece Theeke against All Defendants (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
79 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jennifer Roccasalva by Torrick Alan Ward (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
80 MOTION by Plaintiff Jennifer Roccasalva for joinder , MOTION by Plaintiff Jennifer Roccasalva to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
81 NOTICE of Motion by Torrick Alan Ward for presentment of motion for joinder, motion to intervene 80 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 10/23/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
82 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Parties appeared prior to the matter being called for status hearing. Parties were given numerous dates for settlement conference setting. Parties are directed to meet and confer with their respective clients and jointly contact Yolanda Pagan at 312−408−5135 with agreeable date for settlement conference by no later than 10/25/12. Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
83 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Motion hearing held. Jennifer Roccasalvas agreed motion to join or intervene as a plaintiff 80 is granted. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
84 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement Conference set for 2/26/2013 at 02:00 PM. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Yolanda Pagan, at 312/408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
85 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
86 MEMORANDUM by City Of Chicago in support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 85 (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
87 NOTICE of Motion by Erin K. Lynch for presentment of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 85 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 11/8/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
88 ANSWER to amended complaint and Affirmative Defenses by City Of Chicago(Lynch, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
89 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Jennifer Roccasalva, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to reassign case as related (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
90 NOTICE of Motion by Teresa Demchak for presentment of motion to reassign case, 89 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 11/8/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 11 of 17

11/06/2012 11/08/2012
11/29/2012 11/29/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/14/2012 12/19/2012 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/07/2013
01/07/2013 01/10/2013 01/10/2013 01/15/2013

91 RESPONSE by City Of Chicagoin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Jennifer Roccasalva, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to reassign case as related 89 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
92 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Motion hearing held. Defendants motion to dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint 85 is taken under advisement. Plaintiffs response is due 11/29/2012; reply due 12/14/2012. Plaintiffs motion to reassign case as related 89 is taken under advisement pending ruling by Judge Gottschall in Godfrey case 12c8601. Status hearing set for 1/24/2013 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
93 MEMORANDUM by Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Jennifer Roccasalva, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 85 (Demchak, Teresa) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
94 RESPONSE by Jennifer Roccasalvain Opposition to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 85 (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
95 Notice of New Authority by Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Jennifer Roccasalva, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
96 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Notice of New Authority (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
97 REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago to memorandum in support of motion 86 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 85 Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
98 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Minute entry 92 is corrected as follows: Plaintiffs motion to reassign case as related 89 is taken under advisement pending ruling by Judge Gottschall on the related motions in Lewis v. City of Chicago, 98 C 5596.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
99 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for leave to file Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Relevant New Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Relevant New Authority)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
100 NOTICE of Motion by Cary E. Donham for presentment of motion for leave to file 99 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 1/10/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
101 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:For the reasons explained in its accompanying opinion, the Court GRANTS the Citys partial summary judgment motion 59 as to the request for limitation of the class period and DENIES the motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of the request for prospective, mandatory injunctive relief. The motion to dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint 85 is DENIED. The Court also GRANTS defendants motion 99 to respond to plaintiffs supplemental authority. The court has taken both sides supplemental filings into account. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. (For further details see separate order)Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
102 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 1/7/2013:Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
103 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to reassign case MOTION TO JOIN PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE AS RELATED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
104 NOTICE of Motion by Heather Ann Jackson for presentment of motion to reassign case 103 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 1/15/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
105 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Status hearing held. Defendants motion to join plaintiffs motion to reassign case as related 103 and plaintiffs unopposed motion to reassign case as related 89 are granted. Status

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 12 of 17

01/17/2013 01/17/2013 01/17/2013 01/23/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/12/2013
02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/14/2013
02/21/2013 02/26/2013

hearing set for 3/13/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
106 NOTICE by David Borgen of Change of Address (Borgen, David) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
107 WITHDRAWING Teresa Demchak as counsel for Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Jennifer Roccasalva, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich and substituting David Borgen as counsel of record (Borgen, David) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
108 NOTICE by Lin Yee Chan of Change of Address (Chan, Lin) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
109 AMENDED Answer by City Of Chicago to Third amended complaint 78 (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
110 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to certify class Responses due by 3/11/2013 (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
111 NOTICE of Motion by Marni J. Willenson for presentment of motion to certify class 110 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 2/14/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
112 MEMORANDUM by Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich in support of motion to certify class 110 (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
113 APPENDIX motion to certify class 110 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Grimes, Willenson, Malone and Chan Declarations, # 2 Exhibit A−C, # 3 Exhibit D−E, # 4 Exhibit F Part 1, # 5 Exhibit F Part 2, # 6 Exhibit F Part 3, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H−L (not filed pending motion to seal under L.R. 26.2)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
114 MOTION by Plaintiffs Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to seal document (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
115 NOTICE of Motion by Susan Patricia Malone for presentment of motion to seal document 114 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 2/19/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Malone, Susan) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
116 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to consolidate cases (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
117 NOTICE of Motion by Marni J. Willenson for presentment of motion to consolidate cases 116 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 2/19/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
118 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs motion to certify class 110 is taken under advisement. Discovery on class issues to close on 4/16/2013. Defendants response to motion to certify is due 5/15/2013. Reply due 6/5/2013. Plaintiffs motion to consolidate cases 116 is taken under advisement. The Court will consider a way to streamline the administrative process to minimize confusion with respect to both cases going forward. Defendants response to plaintiffs motion for leave to file under seal 114 is due 2/21/2013. No appearance is required on 2/19/2013. Status hearing on 3/13/13 is stricken. The Court will rule by mail on the pending motions; if a status hearing is needed in the interim, the parties may call the Courtroom Deputy.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
119 RESPONSE by Defendant City Of Chicago to motion to seal document 114 Defendant's Opposition to Removal of Confidentiality Designation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
120 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Settlement conference held on 2/26/2013 and continued to 3/22/2013 at 02:00 PM.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 13 of 17

03/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013
03/06/2013 03/22/2013 04/08/2013

121 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to stay Discovery and Briefing on Motion for Class Certification (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
122 NOTICE of Motion by Heather Ann Jackson for presentment of motion to stay 121 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 3/12/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
123 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Defendant's agreed motion to stay discovery and briefing on motion for class certification 121 is granted. No appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. (For further details see separate order)Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
124 AGREED Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 3/6/2013:Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
125 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Settlement conference held on 3/22/2013 and continued to 4/10/2013 at 02:00 PM.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
126 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on October 11, 2012 before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Court Reporter Contact Information: Carolyn Cox, Carolyn_Cox@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 435−5639.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

04/10/2013 04/11/2013
04/25/2013 05/28/2013
06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/18/2013

Redaction Request due 4/29/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/9/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/8/2013. (Cox, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
127 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Settlement conference held on 4/10/2013 and continued to 4/11/2013 at 02:00 PM.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
128 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Settlement conference held on 4/11/2013. Parties reached agreement in settlement. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Judge Honorable Maria Valdez no longer referred to the case.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
129 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Status hearing set for 5/28/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
130 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Status hearing held. Parties confirm settlement. Based on anticipated filing of consent forms to allow Magistrate Judge Valdez to preside over remainder of this case, no further status will be set. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
131 MOTION by Defendant City Of ChicagoReferral to Magistrate Judge Valdez for Continued Settlement (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
132 NOTICE of Motion by Cary E. Donham for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 131 before Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. on 6/25/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
133 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The parties' agreed motion 131 for referral of this case to Magistrate Judge Valdez for further settlement negotiations relating to completion of a written agreement is granted. No appearance on the motion is required. Case is referred to Magistrate Judge Valdez for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 14 of 17

06/18/2013 06/20/2013
06/25/2013
07/08/2013 07/15/2013 07/18/2013 08/20/2013

134 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Maria Valdez for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.(air, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 06/18/2013)
135 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: This case has been referred to Judge Valdez to conduct a settlement conference. The parties are ordered to appear for status on 6/25/13 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1041 to set a settlement conference date. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
136 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 6/25/2013. Case is set to 7/8/2013 at 3:00 p.m. in courtroom 1041 for settlement conference. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Yolanda Pagan, at 312/408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Joint status report due by 7/3/2013.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
137 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held on 7/8/2013. Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
138 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement Conference set for 7/18/2013 at 10:30 AM.Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
139 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Settlement conference held on 7/18/2013. Parties agree on further terms of settlement. Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
140 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on February 14, 2013 before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Court Reporter Contact Information: Carolyn Cox, Carolyn_Cox@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312−435−5639.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

09/04/2013 09/05/2013
09/05/2013

Redaction Request due 9/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/18/2013. (Cox, Carolyn) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
141 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
142 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to certify class , MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich for settlement for preliminary approval of class action settlement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Class Settlement Agreement)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
143 MEMORANDUM by Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich in support of motion to certify class,, motion for settlement, 142 (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/05/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 15 of 17

09/05/2013 09/05/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/10/2013
09/11/2013 09/13/2013 09/17/2013
09/18/2013 09/29/2013 10/01/2013 10/07/2013 10/09/2013 10/29/2013 10/30/2013

144 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson regarding motion to certify class,, motion for settlement, 142 (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
145 NOTICE of Motion by Marni J. Willenson for presentment of motion to certify class,, motion for settlement, 142 before Honorable Maria Valdez on 9/10/2013 at 10:15 AM. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
146 MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Valdez pursuant to the parties' joint Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
147 ORDER REASSIGNING Case to the Honorable Maria Valdez, pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(B) for all further proceedings parties having consented to the reassignment. Signed by Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on September 6, 2013.(tlp, ) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
148 Enter Preliminary Approval Order: Motion Hearing held on 9/10/13. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 142 is granted. Hearing on final approval of settlement set for 12/5/2013 at 11:00 AM. Status hearing set for 10/1/2013 at 10:30 AM. Signed by the Honorable Maria Valdez on 9/10/2013:Mailed notice(lp, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
149 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone status conference regarding settlement held and continued to 9/17/13 at 11:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
150 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Rachel L Schaller (Schaller, Rachel) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
151 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone status hearing held. The following schedule is set for the exchange of materials concerning the fee issue: plaintiffs will submit fee and cost information to defense counsel by 9/24/13; defendants will respond (indicating areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, and the basis for any disagreement) by 10/22/13; plaintiffs will reply to defendants' response by 11/05/13; the parties thereafter will meet and confer to attempt to resolve any remaining areas of dispute; and by 11/19/13, the parties will submit to chambers a statement of the remaining areas of dispute, the amount of fees/costs associated with each area of dispute, each side's position on the disputed area, and any supporting materials they determine would be useful for the Court to review. The matter is set for a settlement conference on 11/25/13 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
152 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class 110 , Plaintiffs' Motion to seal document 114 , and Plaintiffs' Motion to consolidate cases 116 are terminated as moot. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
153 NOTICE by Torrick Alan Ward of Change of Address (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 09/29/2013)
154 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez:Implementation Hearing held on 10/1/2013 and continued to 10/9/2013. Defendants are to provide detailed bi−weekly status reports to Plaintiffs. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
155 STATUS Report by City Of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Aff of Steve Norvilas, # 2 Exhibit 1−A − SUFD Text Facility Blueprint, # 3 Exhibit 2 − CPAT Testing Manual, # 4 Exhibit 3 − 10−04−13 Letter from NIPSTA)(Donham, Cary) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
156 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Implementation hearing held and continued to 10/30/2013 at 10:30 AM. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
157 STATUS Report on SETTLEMENT by City Of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
158 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Implementation hearing held. The Court orders the Defendants to allow the five class members who attempted the CPAT testing on August 27 and August 30, 2013 to be deferred to 2014. The Court modifies the date given out in open Court for the next implementation hearing. The

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 16 of 17

11/06/2013 11/06/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013
11/13/2013
11/13/2013
11/14/2013 11/14/2013 11/14/2013
11/20/2013

November 14, 2013 date is hereby stricken, the next Implementation hearing is set for November 13, 2013 at 10:30 AM.Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
159 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago Defendant's Motion Regarding Late Filed Claims (Jackson, Heather) (Docket text Modified by Clerk's Office.) (tlm). (Entered: 11/06/2013)
160 NOTICE of Motion by Heather Ann Jackson for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 159 before Honorable Maria Valdez on 11/13/2013 at 10:30 AM. (Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
161 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to enforce Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlement as it Relates to the Hiring of Class Member Stefanie Valdez (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
162 EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich Plaintiffs' Separate Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlement Agreement regarding MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to enforce Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlemen 161 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Part 4)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
163 EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich Exhibits 10 and 11 regarding MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to enforce Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlemen 161 , exhibit,, 162 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10, # 2 Exhibit 11)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
164 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Implementation and Motion hearing held on 11/13/2013 and continued to 11/14/2013 at 4:00 p.m. Defendant's Motion Regarding Late Filed Claims 159 is granted. The claim period previously ordered by this Court is modified for Diana L. Doughterty, Jennifer M. Paape (Walsh), Karen M. Quiroz, and Andrea M. Richard. The claim period for these individuals is extended to December 4, 2013. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
165 REPLY by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to motion to enforce, 161 , exhibit,, 162 , exhibit,, 163 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
166 RESPONSE by City Of Chicago to MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to enforce Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlemen 161 (Donham, Cary) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
167 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Implementation and Motion hearing held on 11/14/2013. Motion by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich to enforce Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Joint Stipulation and Class Action Settlement as it Relates to the Hiring of Class Member Stefanie Valdez to enforce 161 is denied. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
168 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone conference held regarding settlement conference set for 11/25/13. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-04843 As of: 01/16/2014 04:54 PM CST 17 of 17

11/25/2013 12/02/2013
12/03/2013 12/03/2013 12/03/2013
12/04/2013 12/05/2013 12/09/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 01/10/2014

169 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Settlement conference held and continued to 12/02/13 at 10:00 a.m. (Central time). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
170 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Continued settlement conference held. By 1:00 p.m. (Central time) on 12/04/13, each side shall separately inform chambers (sidney_schenkier@ilnd.uscourts.gov) as to whether that side accepts the Court's settlement recommendation. The Court will advise the parties by email by the close of business on 12/04/13 as to whether both sides have accepted the recommendation. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
171 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich for settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Proposed Final Judgment and Order)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
172 NOTICE of Motion by Marni J. Willenson for presentment of motion for settlement, 171 before Honorable Maria Valdez on 12/5/2013 at 11:00 AM. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
173 MEMORANDUM by Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich in support of motion for settlement, 171 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marni Willenson in Support of Final Approval, # 2 Exhibit A Declaration of Matthew J McDermott −− Class Administrator, # 3 Exhibit B Verification of Published Notice)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
174 RESPONSE by City Of Chicago to MOTION by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bailey, Katrina Basic, Rashaunda Dooley, Jessica Evans, Angela Minnick, Hayley Stafen, Janiece Theeke, Samantha Vasich for settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 171 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Jackson, Heather) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
175 DECLARATION of Mattew J. McDermott regarding motion for settlement, 171 , memorandum in support of motion, 173 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2 to McDermott Declaration (Claimant and Opt−Out Lists))(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
176 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By emails dated 12/04/13, each side accepted the Court's recommendation for settlement of their dispute concerning attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, that portion of the case has now been resolved through settlement. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
177 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement 171 is granted in part and denied in part. (For further details, see memorandum opinion and order).Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
178 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Maria Valdez on 12/20/2013: Mailed notice(lp, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
179 FINAL Judgment and Order Signed by the Honorable Maria Valdez on 12/20/2013: Mailed notice(lp, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
180 Notice of Change of Firm Name by City Of Chicago (Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 01/10/2014)