Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

KARL SMITH, DeLEON PIGGEE,

)

FRANK EARL, III, TORRIS WILLIAMS, )

JOSEPH JONES, and DAVID BELL,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDEX FREIGHT EAST, INC., formerly )

known as AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS, )

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Cause No. 4:03CV01393CEJ JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

COMPLAINT

COUNT I

Race Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981

Come Now plaintiff-intervenors Karl Smith, DeLeon Piggee, Frank Earl, III, Torris

Williams, Joseph Jones, and David Bell, by and through their attorneys, and for Count I of their

Complaint against defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. (hereinafter “Fedex”), state as follows:

PARTIES TO COUNT I

1. Plaintiff-intervenor Karl Smith is an African-American male citizen. At all times

relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Smith resided in St. Francis County, Missouri.

2. Plaintiff-intervenor DeLeon Piggee is an African-American male citizen. At all

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 2 of 27
times relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Piggee resided in St. Louis County, Missouri. 3. Plaintiff-intervenor Frank Earl, III is an African-American male citizen. At all
times relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Earl resided in St. Louis County, Missouri. 4. Plaintiff-intervenor Torris Williams is an African-American male citizen. At all
times relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Williams resided in St. Louis County, Missouri. 5. Plaintiff-intervenor Joseph Jones is an African-American male citizen. At all times
relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Jones resided in East St. Louis, Illinois. 6. Plaintiff-intervenor David Bell is an African-American male citizen. At all times
relevant herein, plaintiff-intervenor Bell resided in Lovejoy, Illinois. 7. At all times relevant herein, defendant Fedex is an Arkansas corporation doing
business in the Eastern District of Missouri, including St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and defendant maintains an office in St. Charles, Missouri.
8. Defendant Fedex formerly did business in the State of Missouri, including the area encompassed by the Eastern District of Missouri, as “American Freightways, Inc.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. Jurisdiction of this Court for Count I is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, in that the claims presented herein present a federal question of original jurisdiction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 10. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that defendant resides in the Eastern District of Missouri and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 3 of 27
FACTS AND CLAIMS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS (HOSTILE RACIAL ENVIRONMENT)
11. At all times relevant herein, there were no African-Americans employed by defendant at its St. Charles, Missouri facility who were supervisors or managers.
12. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment, plaintiff-intervenors were subjected to racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment, including but not limited to:
a. Racial graffiti painted on the bathroom walls of defendant’s facility, including but not limited to “niggers” and “niggers are lazy.” Such racial graffiti repeatedly appeared on the bathroom walls, even after being painted over.
b. “KKK” written on two crates from a trailer that arrived from another terminal of defendant;
c. Swastika symbols written or painted on the inside of defendant’s trailers and on crates unloaded from defendant’s trailers;
d. Use of racial epithets and racial slurs by white Operations Manager Ed Laux, such as referring to plaintiff-intervenor Smith as “that lazy jigaboo;”
e. Regular use of racial epithets and racial slurs by white Operations Supervisor Barry Trout, who regularly referred to African-Americans as “coons,” “baboons,” and other racial terms;
f. The statement “You guys are pathetic, living from pay check to pay check,” made by Trout when Trout handed plaintiff-intervenor Smith his pay check;
g. Use of the term “nigger-rig” by two white dock workers; h. Racial statements made by a white dock worker, including the statement “I don’t
-3-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 4 of 27
have anything against black people, I think everyone should own one;” i. A statement from a white driver that plaintiff-intervenor Smith was “not smart
enough” to learn how to operate the computer; j. The statement made by a white employee that he wanted “one of his own kind” to
review safety and hazardous material issues rather than have them done by plaintiff-intervenor Jones, the employee in charge of such issues; k. A question to plaintiff-intervenor Smith from a white driver that asked if his parole officer knew if plaintiff was “out;” l. White managers and supervisors regularly and routinely treated plaintiffintervenors with hostility, disdain, disrespect, and animosity, and did not do so with regard to similarly situated white employees. 13. Each plaintiff-intervenor either saw the racial graffiti on the bathroom walls and on the crates or trailers or learned about this racial graffiti, and each plaintiff-intervenor either heard one or more of the racial epithets and racial slurs or learned that the above mentioned white employees had made them. 14. Each plaintiff-intervenor found the aforesaid racial graffiti and racial epithets to be racially offensive and to be objectively and subjectively demonstrative of a racially hostile work environment. 15. Plaintiff-intervenors complained to management and to Human Resources about the racial harassment and racially hostile work environment, but defendant did not take timely and effective corrective action to end the racial harassment and racially hostile work environment. FACTS AND CLAIMS COMMON TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
-4-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 5 of 27
SMITH, PIGGEE,WILLIAMS, EARL, AND JONES (PART-TIME TO FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT AND DISPARATE TREATMENT)
16. Plaintiff-intervenor Smith was gainfully employed by defendant as a dock worker from August 1998 to December 2001. Plaintiff-intervenor Smith was hired as a part-time dock worker and became a full-time dock worker in March 1999. From December 2001 to the present, plaintiff-intervenor Smith has been on disability leave.
17. Plaintiff-intervenor Piggee was employed by defendant from October 1998 to approximately May 2002. Plaintiff-intervenor Piggee was hired as a part-time dock worker and became a full-time dock worker in March 1999.
18. Plaintiff-intervenor Williams has been employed by defendant from November 1999 to the present. Plaintiff-intervenor Williams was hired as a part-time dock worker and became a full-time dock worker in March 2000.
19. Plaintiff-intervenor Earl has been employed by defendant from February 2000 to the present. Plaintiff-intervenor Earl was hired as a part-time dock worker and became a full-time dock worker in May 2000.
20. Plaintiff-intervenor Jones was employed by defendant from September 1999 to approximately November 20, 2001. Plaintiff-intervenor Jones was hired as a part-time dock hand and became a full-time dock hand in March 2000.
21. Whites hired by defendant as part-time dock workers were given full-time dock worker status much sooner or at a much faster rate than were plaintiffs-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, Earl, Jones, and other African-American employees.
22. The above disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenors by defendant was because of
-5-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 6 of 27
their race, and it resulted in significant lost wages and the denial of equal employment opportunities for plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, Earl, and Jones.
23. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, defendant distributed the freight shipments and manifests along racial lines, and/or allowed similarly situated white dock works to receive easier dock work, as set forth below:
a. similarly situated white employees primarily unloaded regular freight that was on pallets or was in bulk;
b. plaintiff-intervenors were regularly assigned to unload trailers containing nonpalleted or non-bulk hand freight, the most difficult, strenuous, and labor-intensive goods or materials brought into defendant’s terminal, such as goods or materials from Hallmark and Kimberly Clark;
c. further, in instances where similarly situated white dock workers obtained easier regular freight jobs and discovered that the pallets or goods in the trailer were in disarray or turned over, defendant allowed the white employees to return the manifest and obtain an easier assignment and plaintiff-intervenors or other AfricanAmerican employees were assigned to handle these freight shipments.
24. Similarly situated white dock workers were not assigned to unload the difficult shipments with the same frequency or regularity as were plaintiff-intervenors, and these similarly situated white dock workers were given easier dock work on a regular or frequent basis.
25. Because of the disparate work assignments, as set forth above, plaintiff-intervenors worked harder and for longer hours than did similarly situated white employees. Plaintiffintervenors were not paid overtime or otherwise compensated for the additional hours (beyond
-6-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 7 of 27
eight hours) that it took to complete the unloading and preparation of the difficult trailers and goods described above.
26. Defendant had established “production ratings” for each dock worker, and these ratings were based on the number of pounds of goods or materials handled per hour. The more difficult goods and material took much longer to handle compared to the palleted and bulk shipped goods and material.
27. Because of the disparate work assignments, as set forth above, plaintiffintervenors’ production rating dropped or declined relative to the similarly situated white dock workers. The production rating of a dock worker impacted on his performance evaluation and continued employment and/or employment opportunities.
28. The disparate treatment of plaintiffs-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, Earl, Jones, and other African-American employees with regard to work assignments on the dock, set forth above, was racially based and was a denial of equal employment opportunities for plaintiffintervenors and other African-American employees.
29. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, similarly situated white employees were allowed longer breaks and lunch time than were plaintiffs-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, Earl, and Jones.
30. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, defendant assigned them to cleaning up and sweeping the dock area or a more regular or frequent basis than similarly situated white employees.
31. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, defendant scrutinized and monitored their movements, discussions, and work while not engaging in such conduct with
-7-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 8 of 27
regard to similarly situated white employees. 32. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, defendant limited the
number of computer training classes and hours of computer training given to plaintiff-intervenors while defendant provided significantly more computer classes and hours of computer training to similarly situated white employees.
33. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, defendant did not provide training to plaintiff-intervenors in office and related work, such as preparing bills of lading, dock stands, and board operation for strip and load zones. Defendant, however, provided these types of training to similarly situated white employees.
34. The above training in computer skills and other operations or skills was important for advancement and/or job placement to dispatcher and other positions in the company. White employees who received the computer and other training described above were placed into dock stand and dispatch positions as a result of receiving the prior training, while plaintiff-intervenors were denied such employment opportunities.
35. The disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenors with regard to computer and other training, and the discrimination in job placement and advancement was based on plaintiffintervenors’ race and defendant’s actions denied equal employment opportunities to plaintiffintervenors.
36. During plaintiff-intervenors’ employment as dock workers, similarly situated white employees were given greater leniency than were plaintiff-intervenors with regard to being granted time off from work, being tardy, and in receiving reprimands and/or disciplines for attendance.
-8-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 9 of 27
FACTS AND CLAIMS COMMON TO PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS SMITH, PIGGEE, AND WILLIAMS (CITY DRIVER POSITION)
37. Prior to April or May 2000, defendant had a driver training program for employees who desired to become eligible for a City Driver position. To receive the driver training the employee had to sign his name on the sign-in sheet located next to the time clock or in the break room.
38. The above driver training program required the employee to perform forty (40) hours of “hostling,” ride and/or drive a city route for one to two weeks with a City Driver, and to pass the Missouri Department of Transportation test and obtain a Commercial Driver’s Licence (“CDL”). “Hostling” is the activity of moving trailers in defendant’s yard and backing-up the truck to the dock for loading and unloading.
39. Plaintiff-intervenor Williams had a military license to drive a truck and had experience as a truck driver when hired by defendant, and plaintiff-intervenor Williams provided defendant with this information on his job application.
40. Despite the certification and prior truck driving experience possessed by plaintiffintervenor Williams, defendant ignored this information and insisted that he take and complete the training program as the precondition to becoming eligible to be considered for a City Driver position.
41. Defendant allowed similarly situated white employees with and without prior driving certification to take their DOT test without having to participate in defendant’s training program and/or without having to complete it. Defendant even took similarly situated white employees to the DOT testing center to take their test to obtain their CDL.
-9-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 10 of 27
42. Plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, and Williams signed up and applied for training to become a City Driver under defendant’s driver training program.
43. Defendant took actions against plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, and Williams to delay, impede, and/or prevent plaintiffs-intervenors from completing the driver training program and to prevent their promotion to a City Driver position, including but not limited to:
a. Not allowing plaintiff-intervenors to perform hostling, and/or taking plaintiffintervenors off hostling training and ordering them to work the dock instead, while allowing white employees to accumulate sufficient hours hostling within two weeks or less;
b. Allowing white employees to hostle on the clock and paying them for the time spent hostling, while requiring plaintiff-intervenors hostle on their own time without pay;
c. Providing trainers for white employees’ hostling activity, while not providing trainers to plaintiff-intervenors;
d. Not crediting or accepting the hostling hours accumulated by plaintiff-intervenors as part of the training time required in the revised training program announced in early 2000.
44. As a result of defendant’s actions prior to April or May 2000, plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, and Williams did not obtain the forty (40) hours of hostling training required by defendant before being allowed to take the CDL test and to thereafter become eligible for promotion to a City Driver position, while similarly situated white employees received the forty (40) hours of hostling training required to take their CDL test and to thereafter become eligible
-10-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 11 of 27
for promotion to a City Driver position, or defendant waived the full forty (40) hours of hostling for similarly situated white employees as a precondition to taking the CDL test while not doing so for plaintiff-intervenors.
45. Defendant treated plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, and Williams in the above disparate manner because of plaintiff-intervenors’ race, and defendant’s actions denied equal employment opportunities to plaintiff-intervenors.
FACTS AND CLAIMS COMMON TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS SMITH, PIGGEE, WILLIAMS, AND EARL (DOCK TO DRIVER PROGRAM) 46. Sometime between March and May 2000, defendant began a driver training program called “Dock to Driver (“DTD”). The DTD program required that employees who desired driver training attend nine (9) weeks of classroom and driver instruction that was provided by existing company drivers, to pass the DOT test, and obtain a Class “A” CDL. Meeting all these requirements enabled the employee to be eligible to apply for a City Driver position. 47. Defendant told plaintiff-intervenors Smith and Piggee that the DTD training would be offered based on seniority, and defendant represented to plaintiff-intervenors Smith and Piggee that they would be enrolled in the first DTD class offered. 48. Plaintiff-intervenor Earl had a class “A” CDL and ten (10) months of truck driving experience prior to being hired by defendant. 49. Plaintiff-intervenor Williams had a military license to drive a truck and had experience as a truck driver when hired by defendant, and plaintiff-intervenor Williams provided defendant with this information on his job application. 50. Plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, and Earl signed up for defendant’s
-11-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 12 of 27
DTD program. 51. Contrary to defendant’s representations to plaintiff-intervenors Smith and Piggee,
defendants did not allow plaintiff-intervenors Smith and Piggee to enroll in or participate in the first DTD class offered, and defendant gave their spots in the first DTD class to similarly situated white employees who had less seniority than plaintiff-intervenors. As a result of defendant’s actions, plaintiff-intervenors Smith and Piggee had to wait between seven (7) and nine (9) months to obtain their training under the DTD program.
52. Despite the certifications and prior truck driving experience possessed by plaintiffintervenors Earl and Williams, defendant ignored this information and insisted that plaintiffintervenors take and complete the DTD program as the precondition to becoming eligible to be considered for a City Driver position.
53. Defendant allowed similarly situated white employees with prior driving experience or certification to take their DOT test without having to participate in defendant’s DTD program and/or without having to complete it and participate in it only for a short time.
54. Defendant took actions against plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, and Earl to delay, impede, and/or prevent them from completing the DTD program, including but not limited to:
a. Defendant gave training to similarly situated white employees with less seniority than plaintiff-intervenors before such training was given to plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, and Earl;
b. Defendant allowed white participants to obtain on the clock training given in classes conducted by company drivers, but made plaintiff-intervenors Smith,
-12-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 13 of 27
Piggee, Williams, and Earl obtain at least some of their training on their own time; c. Defendant did not allow plaintiff-intervenors the same amount of weekly class and
training time as similarly situated white employees. 55. As a result of the foregoing, similarly situated white participants completed their training sooner than plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Williams, and Earl, obtained their CDL class “A” licence before plaintiff-intervenors, and became City Drivers for defendant before plaintiff-intervenors. 56. Defendant treated plaintiff-intervenors in the disparate manner described above because of their race, and defendant’s actions denied equal employment opportunities to plaintiffintervenors. SPECIFIC FACTS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR SMITH 57. Defendant did not allow plaintiff-intervenor Smith to complete his training in the program in which he participated prior to implementation of the DTD program, and made him start anew with his training in the DTD program, without any credit or consideration for his previous training. 58. After plaintiff-intervenor Smith competed the DTD program and obtained his class “A” CDL, defendant failed and refused to place him in a City Driver position, and similarly situated white employees were placed in such positions. 59. In April-June 2000, plaintiff-intervenor Smith became aware of one or more opening(s) for the position of dock operations supervisor. Plaintiff-intervenor Smith was qualified for the dock operations supervisor position and he applied for the open dock operations supervisor position. Defendant did not post the open position or positions.
-13-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 14 of 27
60. On or about June 12, 2000, defendant hired a white employee to fill an open dock operations supervisor position. This white employee had less seniority, less experience, and was less qualified than plaintiff-intervenor Smith for the dock operations supervisor position. Plaintiff was not even given an interview after submitting his application.
61. On information and belief, defendant had other open dock operations supervisory positions that were filled by whites after plaintiff applied for an open position as dock operations supervisor. Plaintiff was never given an interview for any of these open supervisory positions.
62. Defendant failed and refused to promote plaintiff-intervenor Smith to one or more open dock operations supervisor position(s). The failure and refusal of defendant to promote plaintiff-intervenor Smith was because of his race and denied plaintiff-intervenor Smith equal employment opportunities.
63. Defendant also allowed white employees to enter the Leadership Development Program (“LDP”), a training program for employees to become supervisors, while defendant deterred and discouraged plaintiff-intervenor Smith from entering the LDP and placed him in a “pre-LDP” program. In this program, plaintiff-intervenor was required to train on his own time, while white employees in the LDP were allowed to train on the clock and were paid for the time spent training.
64. Defendant did not place similarly situated white employees in a “pre-LDP” program, and plaintiff-intervenor Smith was the only employee to be placed in such a program.
65. Defendant took the above described disparate actions against plaintiff-intervenor Smith because of his race, and defendant’s actions denied equal employment opportunities to plaintiff-intervenor Smith.
-14-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 15 of 27
66. Further, in addition to the racial harassment alleged previously, a white employee made threats on plaintiff-intervenor Smith’s life.
67. Plaintiff-intervenor Smith complained to management about the threat made on his life by the white employee.
68. Defendant did not take prompt and effective remedial action to end the racial harassment and hostile work environment, and defendant did not discipline the white employee who made the threat on plaintiff-intervenor Smiths’ life.
SPECIFIC FACTS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR PIGGEE 69. Defendant did not allow plaintiff-intervenor Piggee to complete his driver training
in the program in which he participated prior to implementation of the DTD program, and made him start anew with his training in the DTD program, without any credit or consideration for his previous training.
70. In October 2000, plaintiff-intervenor Piggee completed the DTD program and graduated at the top of his class.
71. In October 2000, plaintiff-intervenor Piggee received his CDL class “A” licence. 72. Between October 2000 and May 2002, defendant allowed plaintiff-intervenor Piggee to drive only one time as a City Driver. After driving one time as a City Driver, defendant assigned plaintiff-intervenor Piggee back to dock work. 73. Defendant replaced plaintiff-intervenor Piggee as City Driver with a white employee. This white employee had obtained his driver training and CDL before plaintiffintervenor Piggee because of defendant’s racially discriminatory practices, as set forth in paragraphs 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 53 through 56.
-15-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 16 of 27
74. Between October 2000 and May 2002, defendant failed and refused to promote plaintiff-intervenor Piggee to a City Driver position, even though such positions were open and/or were created by defendant for white employees during that time.
SPECIFIC FACTS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR WILLIAMS 75. Defendant did not allow plaintiff-intervenor Williams to complete his driver
training in the program in which he participated prior to implementation of the DTD program, and become eligible for obtaining a City Driver position, and defendant made plaintiff-intervenor Williams start anew with his training in the DTD program, without any credit or consideration for his previous training.
76. Plaintiff-intervenor Williams enrolled in the DTD program and continued to hostle after the DTD program was announced.
77. Between June and August 2000, plaintiff-intervenor Williams assumed the job duty of full-time hostler.
78. In September 2000 defendant removed plaintiff-intervenor Williams as full-time hostler on the grounds that he did not have a CDL. After defendant removed plaintiff-intervenor Williams from the full-time hostler job, defendant assigned him back to dock worker.
79. Similarly situated white employees who were full-time hostlers and did not have their CDL’s were not removed from their full-time hostler positions.
80. After defendant removed plaintiff-intervenor Williams from the full-time hostler position, a similarly situated white employee without a CDL was placed into the position of hostler.
81. Defendant’s actions against plaintiff-intervenor Williams were based on his race
-16-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 17 of 27
and defendant denied plaintiff-intervenor Williams equal employment opportunities with regard to the full-time hostler position.
82. In January 2001, plaintiff-intervenor Williams completed defendant’s DTD program and obtained his CDL, class “A.”
83. Defendant did not place plaintiff-intervenor Williams in a City Driver position until after January 2001 and did not give plainitff-intervenor Williams a regular route until August 2003.
84. On information and belief, similarly situated white employees were placed in open City Driver positions and were given regular routes before plaintiff-intervenor Williams as a result of defendant’s racially discriminatory practices.
SPECIFIC FACTS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR JONES 85. In July and August 2001 plaintiff-intervenor Jones was unable to be at work for
four days because of the illness of a close family member and the duties required of him as the personal representative of a close family member. Plaintiff-intervenor Jones advised defendant of his need to be absent from work prior to taking off work for the four days.
86. Defendant’s attendance policy allowed for circumstances and situations similar to that of plaintiff-intervenor Jones to be considered as excused absences with no penalty points assessed for such absences from work.
87. Defendant has given similarly situated white employees excused absence from work for circumstances and situations similar to that of plaintiff-intervenor Jones, and these similarly situated white employees were not charged points on their attendance record for said absences.
-17-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 18 of 27
88. Defendant charged plaintiff-intervenor Jones with four points of unexcused absence for the four days he was absent in July and August 2001.
89. Defendant had previously assessed plaintiff-intervenor Jones one point on his attendance record when his house burned down in October 2000.
90. Defendant issued plaintiff-intervenor two written warnings for attendance for the above absences, while allowing similarly situated white employees more favorable consideration, including no reprimands or warnings for their work absences.
91. On or about June 20, 2001, plaintiff-intervenor Jones suffered a shoulder injury at work. As a result of the work related injury, plaintiff-intervenor Jones missed time at work.
92. On or about September 10, 2001, defendant placed plaintiff-intervenor Jones on probation for alleged poor work attendance.
93. Defendant terminated plaintiff-intervenor Jones on or about November 20, 2001 for alleged excessive absenteeism.
94. Plaintiff-intervenor Jones had been absent from work because of his work related injury and the related medical treatment for same, and he timely advised defendant the reasons why he could not be at work.
95. Defendant has treated similarly situated white employees who were injured on the job in a more favorable manner than defendant treated plaintiff-intervenor Jones with regard to work attendance, including not taking disciplinary actions or terminating the similarly situated white employees.
96. Defendant treated plaintiff-intervenor Jones in the above disparate manner and terminated him because of his race, and defendant’s actions denied equal employment
-18-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 19 of 27
opportunities to plaintiff-intervenor Jones. SPECIFIC FACTS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR BELL 97. Plaintiff-intervenor Bell has been employed by defendant from February 17, 2000
to the present. 98. In February 2000, plaintiff-intervenor Bell responded to defendant’s advertisement
for an open City Driver position. At the time, plaintiff-intervenor Bell had nineteen (19) years driving experience and a class “A” CDL.
99. Defendant hired plaintiff-intervenor Bell in February 2000 as a City Driver, but immediately thereafter placed him into a dock associate position.
100. Defendant kept plaintiff-intervenor Bell in the dock associate position until approximately May 15, 2000, even though he had been hired as a City Driver.
101. Defendant hired white employees and placed white employees into City Driver positions and did not require them to first work as dock associates and/or did not require them to work as dock associates for the same length of time as did plaintiff-intervenor Bell.
102. The above disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenor Bell was based on his race, and the conduct of defendant denied plaintiff-intervenor Bell the right to receive the same treatment in employment matters that similarly situated white employees received.
103. During the time plaintiff-intervenor Bell worked as a dock associate, white manager Barry Trout monitored his movements on the dock, followed him up and down the dock, scrutinized his work, “rode” him, monitored his breaks and lunch periods, and behaved in a hostile manner towards plaintiff-intervenor Bell.
-19-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 20 of 27
104. Trout did not engage in the above conduct with regard to similarly situated white employees.
105. The conduct of Trout alleged above was based on plaintiff-intervenor Bells’ race and constituted racial harassment and disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenor Bell.
106. Plaintiff-intervenor Bell complained to Human Resources about the racial harassment and disparate treatment.
107. After plaintiff-intervenor Bell complained, defendant did not take prompt and effective remedial action to end the racial harassment, and the racial harassment continued after plaintiff-intervenor’s complaint.
108. Plaintiff-intervenor Bell was given more difficult dock work more frequently than were similarly situated white employees.
109. The disparate treatment and conduct of defendant alleged herein was based on plaintiff-intervenor Bells’ race, and defendant’ conduct denied plaintiff-intervenor Bell the right to receive the same treatment in employment matters that similarly situated white employees received.
110. In May 2000 defendant placed plaintiff-intervenor Bell in the City Driver position for which he had been hired in February 2000.
111. The approximate three (3) month delay in placing plaintiff-intervenor Bell in the City Driver position resulted in plaintiff-intervenor Bell losing seniority or accrued seniority compared to similarly situated white City Drivers.
112. Plaintiff-intervenor Bells’ lost seniority or accrued seniority represents lost employment benefits and opportunities for plaintiff-intervenor Bell, and such losses are
-20-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 21 of 27
attributable to defendant’s racially motivated conduct. 113. During plaintiff-intervenor Bells’ employment as a City Driver, plaintiff-intervenor
Bell was given more difficult tickets, bills, or stops, such as servicing Walden Books, than were similarly situated white City Drivers and/or for a longer time than were similarly situated white City Drivers. The amount of time and physical labor required to complete deliveries and/or pick up of goods for such stops was significantly greater than other stops given to similarly situated white employees.
114. Defendant evaluated City Drivers, at least in part, by the number of tickets, bills, or stops made per hour.
115. The assignment of plaintiff-intervenor Bell to the more difficult stops, which involved greater time and more labor than stops given to similarly situated white employees, resulted in plaintiff-intervenor Bell having fewer stops per hour and performing more demanding work than similarly situated City Drivers.
116. Defendant’s disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenor Bell was based on his race. 117. In January 2001, defendant docked plaintiff-intervenor Bell one day’s pay for allegedly not being able to account for fifteen (15) minutes of his time while driving on January 26, 2001. 118. Plaintiff-intervenor Bell fully accounted for his time on January 26, 2001 by scanning his badge for each delivery he made. 119. In February 2001, defendant docked plaintiff-intervenor Bell one day’s pay and placed a written warning in his personnel file for allegedly not reporting to work on February 26, 2001. Defendant made plaintiff-intervenor Bell sign the written warning.
-21-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 22 of 27
120. On February 26, 2002, plaintiff-intervenor Bell phoned defendant prior to the start of his shift and informed defendant that his car had been stolen and that he had no way into work.
121. Defendant gave similarly situated white City Drivers greater leniency and consideration than plaintiff-intervenor Bell with regard to docking pay and issuing written warnings.
122. Defendant’s disparate treatment of plaintiff-intervenor Bell with regard to docked pay and written warnings was based on his race, and by such conduct defendant did not treat plaintiff-intervenor Bell equal to similarly situated white employees in the terms and conditions of employment. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’ CLAIMS AND DAMAGES UNDER § 1981
123. Defendant discriminated against plaintiff-intervenors because of their race and intentionally deprived plaintiff-intervenors of the same right to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens, in violation of U.S.C. § 1981.
124. Defendant discriminated against plaintiff-intervenors because of their race and intentionally denied plaintiff-intervenors the same rights and privileges of employment as enjoyed by white citizens, including but not limited to the right not to be subjected to a hostile work environment based on plaintiff-intervenors’ race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
125. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have suffered lost income and benefits of employment.
126. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have suffered emotional distress and mental anguish.
127. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have
-22-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 23 of 27
incurred attorney's fees and costs of litigation, and will continue to incur such fees and costs. 128. The conduct and actions of defendant was with evil motive or intent, or was
callously indifferent to plaintiff-intervenors’ right not to be discriminated against because of their race and to be subjected to a racially hostile work environment, and is conduct for which an award of punitive damages is warranted.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court, after trial by jury, find in favor of plaintiffintervenors Smith, Piggee, Earl, Williams, Jones, and Bell, and against defendant, and enter judgment for plaintiff-intervenors against defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, for their lost wages and benefits of employment, and prejudgment interest thereupon; for compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress; for punitive damages; for attorney's fees and costs of litigation; that this Court order the equitable relief to plaintiffintervenor Smith that he be promoted to an open supervisory position; that this Court order the equitable relief to plaintiff-intervenor Jones that he be reinstated, or in the alternative, be awarded front pay damages, that this Court order injunctive relief enjoining defendant from maintaining a racially hostile work environment and from further illegal discriminatory conduct, and grant such other relief as it deems just and proper.
COUNT II Race Discrimination in Violation of Title VII Come Now plaintiff-intervenors Karl Smith, DeLeon Piggee, Frank Earl, III, Torris Williams, Joseph Jones, and David Bell, by and through their attorneys, and for Count II of their Complaint against defendant Fedex, state as follows:
-23-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 24 of 27
PARTIES TO COUNT II 129. Plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 8 in Count I, as if fully set forth herein. 130. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 1991, and is expressly authorized to bring this action pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and Section 706(f)(3) of that statute. 131. On September 30, 2003, the EEOC filed Cause No. 4:03CV01393CEJ with this Court against defendant and on behalf of plaintiffs Smith, Piggee, Earl, Williams, Jones, Bell, and all African-American employees who were adversely affected by defendant’s discriminatory practices and conduct, to correct defendant’s unlawful employment practices against AfricanAmericans, and to provide appropriate equitable, injunctive, and other relief to these AfricanAmericans who were adversely affected by such unlawful employment practices. 132. Counsel for plaintiff-intervenors have filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the EEOC action, which sets forth the reasons and basis for plaintiff-intervenors to intervene in the EEOC action, and this Complaint is attached to that motion.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 133. Jurisdiction of this Court for Count II is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, in that the claims presented herein present a federal question of original jurisdiction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 134. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that defendant resides in the Eastern District of Missouri and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
-24-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 25 of 27
rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri. FACTS, CLAIMS, AND DAMAGES UNDER TITLE VII
135. Plaintiff-intervenors reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 16 through 35, 37 through 45, 59 through 62, 76 through 81, and paragraphs108-109 in Count I, as if fully set forth herein.
136. Prior to filing this action, each plaintiff-intervenor filed timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging race discrimination by defendant, and each plaintiff-intervenor herein has exhausted all administrative procedures and remedies prior to filing this action.
137. At all times relevant herein, defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) in that defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees in the current or preceding calendar year and engaged in interstate commerce.
138. As a result of defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, plaintiff-intervenors have been discriminated against because of their race, and have been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
139. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have suffered lost income and benefits of employment.
140. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have suffered emotional distress and mental anguish.
141. As a result of the actions and conduct of defendant, plaintiff-intervenors have incurred attorney's fees and costs of litigation, and will continue to incur such fees and costs.
-25-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 26 of 27
142. The conduct and actions of defendant was with evil motive or intent, or was recklessly indifferent to plaintiff-intervenors’ right not to be discriminated against because of their race and to be subjected to a racially hostile work environment, and is conduct for which an award of punitive damages is warranted.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff-intervenors pray that this Court, after trial by jury, find in favor of plaintiff-intervenors Smith, Piggee, Earl, Williams, Jones, and Bell, and against defendant, and enter judgment for plaintiff-intervenors against defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, for plaintiff-intervenors’ lost wages and benefits of employment, and prejudgment interest thereupon; for compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress; for punitive damages; for attorney's fees and costs of litigation; that this Court order the equitable relief to plaintiff-intervenor Smith that he be promoted to an open supervisory position; that this Court order injunctive relief enjoining defendant from maintaining a racially hostile work environment and from further illegal discriminatory conduct, and grant such other relief that is just and proper.
WEINHAUS, DOBSON, GOLDBERG & MORELAND By: /s/ Jerome J. Dobson
Jerome J. Dobson, #33215 Jonathan C. Berns, #37124 Gregory A. Rich, #67115 Michelle Dye Neumann, #116424 906 Olive St., Ste. 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 621-8363 (314) 621-8366 (fax) E-mail: jeromedobson@hotmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-26-

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 12 Filed 12/30/2003 Page 27 of 27
I certify that on December 10, 2003 the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following: William A. Blue, Jr, Esq. Kaz Kikkawa, Esq. Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 2100 West End Avenue, Ste. 925 Nashville, TN 37203 C. Felix Miller, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103
WEINHAUS, DOBSON, GOLDBERG & MORELAND
By: /s/ Jerome J. Dobson Jerome J. Dobson, #33215 Jonathan C. Berns, #37124 Gregory A. Rich, #67115 Michelle Dye Neumann, #116424 906 Olive St., Ste. 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 621-8363 (314) 621-8366 (fax) E-mail: jeromedobson@hotmail.com
-27-

 
 Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

)

DAVID BELL, JOSEPH JONES,

)

TORRIS WILLIAMS, FRANK EARL, III, )

DeLEON PIGGEE, and KARL SMITH,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

FEDEX FREIGHT EAST, INC., formerly

)

known as AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS, )

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 4:03-CV-1393 (CEJ)

CONSENT DECREE Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has instituted this action alleging that American Freightways, which was subsequently acquired and is now operated by FedEx Freight East, Inc., (FXFE), violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq., by discriminating against twenty of its African-American employees at its St. Louis terminal. Specifically, the EEOC has alleged that American Freightways, Inc., which was subsequently acquired and is now operated by Fed Ex Freight East, has discriminated against African-American employees in the selection of full-time employees from part-time employees, their terms and conditions of employment, including work assignments, training, and skills development, and in promotions.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 2 of 7
DeLeon Piggee, Torris D. Williams, David L. Bell, Sr., Karl A Smith, Frank Earl, III, and Joe N. Jones have intervened in this action, making similar allegations as the Commission, and in addition asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981. FXFE specifically denies each of these allegations by the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors. The parties have reached a settlement and compromise of the claims in this action and have advised the Court that they wish to resolve the instant controversy between them in order to avoid the significant expense, delay, and burden of further litigation.
THEREFORE, it is the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and on the record as a whole and upon agreement of the parties, that: (i) this Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this action, (ii) the requirements of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree, (iii) this Decree is intended to and does resolve all matters in controversy in this lawsuit among the parties, and (iv) the terms of this Decree constitute a fair and equitable settlement of all issues in this lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. This Decree is entered with the consent of the parties for purposes of settlement and shall not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the lawsuit. Nothing in this Decree shall in any respect be construed as an admission by FXFE of an act of discrimination or any violation of Title VII. FXFE specifically denies that it has engaged in any racial discrimination. This Decree resolves all claims raised by Plaintiff EEOC in its complaint, including all claims raised by EEOC on behalf of the individuals identified as additional aggrieved parties in Attachment A (“additional aggrieved parties”), and all claims raised and which could have been raised by Plaintiff-Intervenors DeLeon Piggee, Torris D. Williams, David L. Bell, Sr., Karl A. Smith, Frank Earl, III, and Joe N. Jones in
-2-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 3 of 7
their complaint. Plaintiff EEOC states that none of the additional aggrieved parties have filed a charge with the EEOC concerning the claims raised in this action and that the 300-day time-period for doing so expired prior to the filing of this suit.
B. FXFE agrees that it will not discriminate or retaliate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices alleged as unlawful under Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in this complaint, has participated in an investigation conducted under Title VII with respect to this complaint, or because he or she has participated in this lawsuit or has benefited in any way as a result of this Consent Decree.
II. MONETARY RELIEF A. FXFE agrees to pay in settlement of all claims alleged against it by DeLeon Piggee,
Torris D. Williams, David L. Bell, Sr., Karl A. Smith, Frank Earl, III, and Joe N. Jones (hereinafter collectively “the Plaintiff-Intervenors”), and by the EEOC on behalf of the Plaintiff-Intervenors and the additional aggrieved parties, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).
B. Each Plaintiff-Intervenor shall receive an amount as stated in the release to be signed by him as a condition to receive such payment. This sum represents compensation for compensatory damages and for attorney’s fees and costs. The payments to be made to PlaintiffIntervenors shall be made by check jointly payable to each Plaintiff-Intervenor and Weinhaus, Dobson, Goldberg & Moreland. The checks shall be delivered to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s counsel of record, Jerome Dobson, within seven (7) days after receipt by FXFE of a release signed by each Plaintiff-Intervenor or the entry of the Consent Decree, whichever is later. FXFE shall issue forms 1099 to Plaintiff-Intervenors in accordance with the terms of the releases to be signed by PlaintiffIntervenors.
-3-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 4 of 7
C. Each additional aggrieved party shall receive an amount as stated in the release to be signed by him as a condition to receive such payment. This sum represents compensation for compensatory damages for physical and emotional injuries. The payments to be made to each additional aggrieved party shall be made by one check payable to Weinhaus, Dobson, Goldberg & Moreland as trustees for the non-intervenors identified in Exhibit A in the agreed upon amount. Weinhaus Dobson will advise FXFE in writing of the sums paid to each individual. FXFE shall issue a form 1099 for each such payment. The check shall be delivered within seven days after the receipt by FXFE of executed releases or filing of the approved consent decree. If after 60 days from the entry of this decree any additional aggrieved party has not provided a release, then he shall lose the right to such payment and any other relief or claim provided by this Consent Decree. A copy of each check provided to an additional aggrieved party shall be delivered to plaintiff EEOC’s counsel of record, C. Felix Miller, within five days after its mailing.
D. Any monies which are not distributed because of the failure of an additional aggrieved party to provide a release within 60 days of the entry of this decree shall be equally divided among those Plaintiff-Intervenors and additional aggrieved parties who have provided releases and distributed to them by check by Weinhaus, Dobson, Goldberg & Moreland within 70 days after entry of this decree. The validity of the releases provided by the Plaintiff-Intervenors and additional aggrieved parties is not contingent upon this payment. A copy of each check provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be delivered to plaintiff EEOC’s counsel of record, C. Felix Miller, within five days after its mailing.
III. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Quarterly Reports
-4-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 5 of 7
Three months after the date of the entry of this Decree, and every three months thereafter during the term of this decree, FXFE shall prepare and submit to the EEOC a written report including the following information: (1) A list of all persons who worked at any time during the preceding three-month period as a part-time or full-time dock worker, containing name, address, telephone number, date of hire, race, date became full-time (if applicable), and date of termination of employment (if applicable); and (2) a list of all persons who became City Drivers during the preceding three-month period, including name, address, telephone number, date of hire, race, date became a full-time employee and date of termination of employment (if applicable).
B. Employee Survey For a period of two years following the entry of this consent decree, Defendant will provide a written survey to its part-time and full-time dock workers at its St. Louis terminal every six (6) months to ask if they believe that dock assignments are being allocated fairly. These surveys will not expressly mention race. In these written surveys, the dock workers shall have an opportunity to respond in writing and provide their response(s) to management. The complete results and responses of these four (4) surveys shall be promptly provided to C. Felix Miller, counsel of record for the EEOC, but no later than 45 days after the end of each six-month period. C. FXFE shall allow representatives of the EEOC to review FXFE’s compliance with this Decree by providing copies of relevant documents and records to the EEOC within ten (10) business days of a written request by EEOC for such records. FXFE shall also provide written answers to any questions concerning implementation of this Decree submitted to it in writing by EEOC, and if after review of FXFE’s answers the EEOC determines that additional information is needed to determine FXFE’s compliance with this decree, FXFE shall within ten (10) business days
-5-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 6 of 7
of written notice from EEOC, make available the appropriate management employees for interviews at a mutually agreeable location and time. FXFE retains the right to have legal representation at all interviews of its management employees.
D. This Decree shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. Any notification or report required of FXFE by this Decree shall be mailed to the following address:
C. Felix Miller Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Building 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, Missouri 63103 or such other address as specified by the Commission in writing. IV. TERM OF THE DECREE This Decree shall be in effect for a period of three (3) years and may be extended for good cause shown. During the Decree’s term the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance. V. COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.

DATE: October 31, 2005

CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BY CONSENT: -6-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 57-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 7 of 7

Respectfully submitted,
FOR DEFENDANT:
/s/ William A. Blue (by consent) WILLIAM A. BLUE Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 925 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615) 320-5200

FOR PLAINTIFF:
/s/ Robert G. Johnson ROBERT G. JOHNSON Regional Attorney
/s/ C. Felix Miller C. FELIX MILLER, No. 10549 Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314- 539-7949
FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR /s/ Jonathan C. Berns Jerome J. Dobson, No. 33215 Jonathan C. Berns, No. 37124 Weinhaus, Dobson, Goldberg & Moreland 906 Olive Street, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-621-8363 Fax: 314-621-8399

-7PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 
 Case 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ Document 59-1 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

)

DAVID BELL, JOSEPH JONES,

)

TORRIS WILLIAMS, FRANK EARL, III,

)

DeLEON PIGGEE, and KARL SMITH,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDEX FREIGHT EAST, INC., formerly

)

known as AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS,

)

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 4:03-CV-1393 (CEJ)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff EEOC to modify Attachment A to the consent

decree entered on October 31, 2005, to include Marquis D. Avant and Calvin L. Nelson as aggrieved parties.

Plaintiff states that defendant FedEx Freight East, Inc., and plaintiff-intervenors have no objection to the

requested modification.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff EEOC to modify Attachment A to the consent

decree entered on October 31, 2005, [#58] is granted. An Amended Attachment A shall be filed this same date.

Dated this 28th day of November, 2005.

CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

ADR, CLOSED, TRCK3
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (LIVE) (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ

EEOC v. Fedex Freight East Assigned to: Honorable Carol E. Jackson Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/30/2003 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C. Felix Miller, Jr. EEOC 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7949 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: felix.miller@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EEOC 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7910 Fax: 314-539-7895 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff David Bell
Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by Jerome J. Dobson WEINHAUS AND DOBSON 906 Olive Street Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101-1463 314-621-8363 Fax: 314-621-8366 Email: jeromedobson@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report
Joseph Jones Intervenor Plaintiff Torris Williams Intervenor Plaintiff Frank Earl, III Intervenor Plaintiff DeLeon Piggee Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith
V. Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. formerly known as American Freightways Corporation
2 of 11

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...
represented by Jerome J. Dobson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerome J. Dobson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerome J. Dobson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerome J. Dobson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan C. Berns WEINHAUS AND DOBSON 906 Olive Street Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101-1463 314-621-8363 Fax: 314-621-8366 Email: jberns@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome J. Dobson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kaz Kikkawa CONSTANGY AND BROOKS 2100 Westend Avenue Suite 925 Nashville, TN 37203 615-320-5200 Fax: 615-321-5891 Email: kkikkawa@constangy.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

William A. Blue, Jr. CONSTANGY AND BROOKS 2100 Westend Avenue Suite 925 Nashville, TN 37203 615-320-5200 Fax: 615-321-5891 Email: wblue@constangy.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2003 09/30/2003 11/04/2003
12/08/2003 12/10/2003 12/11/2003 12/15/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/18/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; # Waivers of Service Issued: 1 # Counts: 1 Disclosure of Corp Cert issued to: deft; jury demand (SET) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
2 TRACK INFORMATION STATEMENT filed by plaintiff EEOC track 3 preferred (SET) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Fedex Freight East, Inc. waiver signed on 10/17/2003, answer due 12/01/2003. (Miller, Carl) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
5 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Fedex Freight East, Inc..(PGD, ) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
4 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1)(Dobson, Jerome) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
6 Letter to attorney William Blue from Clerk Re:pro hac vice (PGD, ) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice William A. Blue, Jr. by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. See Atty Admission Fee Receipt S2004-2379. (JMW, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Kaz Christopher Kikkawa by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. See Atty Admission Fee Receipt S2004-2379. (JMW, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
Receipt # S2004-002379 in the amount of $25.00 for ATTORNEY ADM. FEE PHV on behalf of BLUE, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, JR.. (CSW,) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
9 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Kaz Christopher Kikkawa for Fedex Freight East, Inc., William A. Blue for Fedex Freight East, Inc., granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Kaz Christopher Kikkawa for Fedex Freight East, Inc., William A. Blue for Fedex Freight East, Inc. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/18/03. (PGD, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

3 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

12/23/2003
12/30/2003 12/30/2003 01/26/2004 02/02/2004
03/02/2004 03/11/2004
12/10/2004 12/17/2004 12/17/2004 03/02/2005
03/02/2005 03/21/2005 03/22/2005

10 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. Parent companies: FedExFreight Corporation, Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,. (Kikkawa, Kaz) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
11 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Intervene. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff-intervenors attached to the motion to intervene shall be filed. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/30/03. (KCM, ) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
12 Intervenor COMPLAINT , filed by David Bell, Frank Earl, III, Joseph Jones, DeLeon Piggee, Karl Smith, Torris Williams.(PGD, ) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
13 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenors by Fedex Freight East, Inc..(Blue, William) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
14 RULE 16 ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2 Standard Joint Scheduling Plan due by 3/1/2004. Rule 16 Conference set for 3/11/2004 10:00 AM before Honorable Carol E. Jackson. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/2/04. (KCM, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
15 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Miller, Carl) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 3(complex) Motion to Join Parties due by 5/1/2004. Discovery Completion due by 5/2/2005. Non-Dispositive Motions due by 10/7/2005. ADR Future Reference 3/1/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 5/16/2005. Jury Trial set for 10/17/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14N before Honorable Carol E. Jackson. Pretrial Compliance due by 9/27/2005. Motion in Limine due by 10/7/2005. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/11/2004. (JMW, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
17 MOTION for Extension of: expert identification and report deadline. by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, C.) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
18 ORDER granting 17 Motion to modify the Case Management Order. Please refer to order for amended schedule. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/17/04. (KLH, ) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Fri Dec 17 11:08:15 CST 2004 (KLH, ) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
19 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. This case is referred to: mediation Designation of Lead Counsel: C. Felix Miller Jr. ADR Completion Deadline due by 6/1/2005. Designation of Neutral due by 3/21/2005. ADR Conference Schedule due by 3/21/2005.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/2/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Wed Mar 2 14:45:43 CST 2005 (LLW, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
20 Joint MOTION for Extension of: Time to Designate Mediator by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, C.) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' motion for extension of time until April 4, 2005, to designate mediator 20 is granted. Signed by Judge Carol E.

4 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

03/22/2005 04/22/2005 04/26/2005
04/26/2005 05/31/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005

Jackson on 3/22/05. (KLH, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Tue Mar 22 12:07:37 CST 2005 (KLH, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
22 Joint MOTION for Extension of: Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines by Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith. (Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion for modification of the Case Management Order 22 is granted in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following amended schedule shall apply: Please refer to Order. Discovery Completion due by 5/23/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 5/31/2005. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 4/26/05. (KLH, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Tue Apr 26 15:06:57 CDT 2005 (KLH, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
25 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit # 17 Exhibit # 18 Exhibit # 19 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
27 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
29 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
31 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)

5 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

05/31/2005 05/31/2005 05/31/2005 05/31/2005 05/31/2005 06/14/2005 06/15/2005 06/17/2005
06/20/2005

33 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
37 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Blue, William) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
38 MOTION for Summary Judgment JOINT MOTION OF PLAINTIFF EEOC AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, C.) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
39 ORDER granting 38 pltfs' motion for leave to file a consolidated response Motion for Summary Judgment Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/15/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams by Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith. (Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
41 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams, 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC Responses due by 6/21/2005 Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/20/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)

6 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

06/20/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005
06/21/2005
06/22/2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005

ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Mon Jun 20 13:09:54 CDT 2005 (LLW, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
42 Joint MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith. (Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
43 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit Exhibit 25# 26 Exhibit Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit Exhibit 27# 28 Exhibit Exhibit 28# 29 Exhibit Exhibit 29# 30 Exhibit Exhibit 30# 31 Exhibit Exhibit 31# 32 Exhibit Exhibit 32# 33 Exhibit Exhibit 33# 34 Exhibit Exhibit 34# 35 Exhibit Exhibit 35# 36 Exhibit Exhibit 36# 37 Exhibit Exhibit 37# 38 Exhibit Exhibit 38# 39 Exhibit Exhibit 39# 40 Exhibit Exhibit 40# 41 Exhibit Exhibit 41# 42 Exhibit Exhibit 42# 43 Exhibit Exhibit 43)(Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
44 STATEMENT of Material Facts re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Karl Smith. (Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
45 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/22/05. (CQL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Wed Jun 22 14:54:47 CDT 2005 (CQL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
46 ORDER that Clerk of the Court shall immediately disable the links in the CM/ECF system to pltffs' memo in opposition to summary judgment #43 and material facts #44. The pltffs shall have 3 days to from the date of this order to file their memo in opposition/statement of material facts.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/22/05. (CQL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)

7 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

06/22/2005 06/24/2005
06/24/2005
06/24/2005 06/28/2005 06/29/2005

ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Wed Jun 22 15:01:44 CDT 2005 (CQL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
47 STATEMENT of Material Facts re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment JOINT MOTION OF PLAINTIFF EEOC AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs David Bell, Joseph Jones, Torris Williams, Frank Earl, III, DeLeon Piggee, Karl Smith. (Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
48 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs David Bell, Joseph Jones, Torris Williams, Frank Earl, III, DeLeon Piggee, Karl Smith. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 # 21 # 22 # 23 # 24 # 25 # 26 # 27 # 28 # 29 # 30 # 31 # 32 # 33 # 34 # 35 # 36 # 37 # 38 # 39 # 40 # 41 # 42 # 43 # 44 # 45)(Berns, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
49 EXHIBITS to Plaintiff EEOC's and Plaintiff-Intervenors 48Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Jgm 24 26 28 30 32 34 36. (Filed in paper under Seal: Exh #1, Exh #2, Exh #3, Exh #5, Exh #32, Exh #33, Exh #35, Exh #37),(KKS, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
51 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment

8 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

06/29/2005 06/29/2005 06/29/2005

with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Blue, William) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Supplement Excerpts from Deposition of Stuart Baxter# 5 Supplement Stuart Baxter's Dep - Exhibit 2a# 6 Supplement Stuart Baxters Dep - Exhibit 2b# 7 Supplement Stuart Baxter's Dep Exhibit 2c# 8 Supplement Stuart Baxter's Dep - Exhibit 2d# 9 Exhibit John Buerman Dep Excerpts and Exh.# 10 Supplement Georgeff Deposition# 11 Supplement Unpublished Case Law - Siskin)(Blue, William) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
53 STATEMENT of Material Facts re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams filed by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Part I# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C Part II# 5 Exhibit Exhibit C - Part III# 6 Exhibit Exhibit D# 7 Supplement Dep of Stuart Baxter, pp 12-13# 8 Supplement Dep of Georgeff, pg 97# 9 Supplement Dep of Doug Lohman, pp 38-39# 10 Supplement Dep of Doug Lohman - pp 43-46# 11 Supplement Dep of Georgeff, pg 160)(Blue, William) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
54 NOTICE by Defendant Fedex Freight East, Inc. re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff EEOC, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Karl Smith, 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor David Bell, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Frank Earl, III, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Joseph Jones, 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regards to Plaintiff-Intervenor DeLeon Piggee, 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Regard to Plaintiff-Intervenor Torris Williams Filing of Depositions: (Attachments: # 1 David Bell Deposition# 2 David Bell Deposition Def Exhibit 1# 3 DeLeon Piggee

9 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

09/26/2005
09/26/2005 10/24/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/16/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005

Deposition# 4 DeLeon Piggee Dep Def Exhibits 1 and 2# 5 Frank Earl Deposition# 6 Frank Earl Dep Def Exhibits 1-3# 7 Frank Earl Dep Def Exhibit 4# 8 Frank Earl Dep Def Exhibit 5a# 9 Frank Earl Deposition Def Exhibit 5b# 10 Frank Earl Deposition Def Exhibit 6# 11 Frank Earl Deposition Exhibit 7a# 12 Frank Earl Deposition Def Exhibit 7b# 13 Frank Earl Deposition Def Exhibit 8# 14 Joe Jones Deposition# 15 Joe Jones Def Exhibit 1# 16 Joe Jones Deposition Def Exhibits 2-3# 17 Joe Jones Deposition Def 4-5# 18 Karl Smith Deposition# 19 Karl Smith Deposition Def Exhibit 1# 20 Karl Smith Deposition Def Exhibit 2# 21 Karl Smith Deposition Def Exhibit 3-4# 22 Karl Smith Deposition Def Exhibit 5# 23 Karl Smith Deposition Def Exhibit 6# 24 Karl Smith Deposition Pltf Exhibit 1a# 25 Karl Smith Deposition Pltf Exhibit 1b# 26 Karl Smith Deposition Pltf Exhibit 1c# 27 Torris Williams Deposition# 28 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 1# 29 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 2# 30 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 3-4# 31 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 5a# 32 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 5b# 33 Torris Williams Deposition Def Exhibit 5c)(Blue, William) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
55 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have until October 26, 2005 in which to file a stipulation for dismissal. FURTHER ORDERED that if the stipulation for dismissal is not filed by the above deadline, the Court will thereafter enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice and retaining jurisdiction for the sole purpose of determining whether the settlement should be enforced upon motion of any party. FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot. Dismissal Paper(s) due by 10/26/2005. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/26/05. (KLH, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Mon Sep 26 15:37:42 CDT 2005 (KLH, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
56 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree # 2 Declaration of C. Felix Miller)(Miller, C.) Modified on 10/24/2005 (KLH, ). (Entered: 10/24/2005)
57 CONSENT JUDGMENT . Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/31/05. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(KKS, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Mon Oct 31 10:59:12 CST 2005 (KKS, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Mon Oct 31 11:12:37 CST 2005 (KKS, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
58 MOTION to Alter Judgment to Modify Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, C.) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
59 ORDER granting 58 Motion to Alter Judgment SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS & ATTACHMENT Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/28/05. (Attachments: # 1) (LLW, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Mon Nov 28 12:00:17 CST 2005 (LLW, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

10 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?786225695938634-L_...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/27/2006 11:01:44

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 8

Client Code:
Search Criteria: Cost:

BLOOM 4:03-cv-01393-CEJ 0.64

11 of 11

6/27/2006 11:01 AM