Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 112 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

MILDRED J. CHAPMAN, ANGELA HOPKINS, JULIA M. MAHAFFEY and BETHANY RICHES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-311-JRN

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DELL INC.,

Defendant.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey a nd Bethany

Riches and Defendant Dell Inc., by and th rough their undersigned attorneys, hereby

stipulate and agree that the above-captioned case shall be dism issed with prejudice,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

Dated: July 10, 2009

By:

/s/

Steven L. Wittels (SLW-8110)

David W. Sanford (D.C. Bar No. 457933)

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Jeremy Heisler (JH-0145)

SANFORD WITTELS &

HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Ave., 10th Floor

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (646) 723-2947

Facsimile: (646) 723-2948

swittels@nydclaw.com

By:

/s/

James Jones (Tex Bar No. 1090830)

Christa J. Boyd-Nafstad

GILLESPIE, ROZEN, WATSKY

& JONES, P.C.

3402 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75204-2391

Telephone: 214-720-2009

Facsimile: 214-720-2291

jaj@grwlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 112 Filed 07/10/09 Page 2 of 4

By:

/s/

Michael S. Burkhardt, Esquire

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS

& BOCKIUS LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 963-5130

Facsimile: (215) 963-5001

mburkhardt@morganlewis.com

By:

/s/

Jason S. Boulette

BOULETTE & GOLDEN, LLP

1221 S. MoPac Expressway

Barton Skyway, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: (512) 732-8901

Facsimile: (512) 732-8905

jason@boulettegolden.com

Attorneys for Defendant Dell, Inc.

By:

/s/

Brittan L. Buchanan

VAN OSSELAER &

BUCHANAN, LLP

9600 Great Hills Trail, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78759

Telephone: (512) 225-2822

Facsimile: (512)225-2801

bbuchanan@vbllp.com

2

Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 112 Filed 07/10/09 Page 3 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

MILDRED J. CHAPMAN, ANGELA HOPKINS, JULIA M. MAHAFFEY and BETHANY RICHES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 1:09-cv-311 Certificate of Service Judge: Hon. James R. Nowlin

vs.

DELL INC.,

Defendant.

I, Steven L. Wittels, certify that on J uly 10, 2009, I caused copies of Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to Settlement Agreement to be electronically filed with the Court by using the Court’s CM/ECF system , which will send a noti ce of electronic filing to the following:

Michael S. Burkhardt

Jason S. Boulette

Anne E. Martinez

BOULETTE & GOLDEN, LLP

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1221 S. MoPac Expressway

1701 Market Street

Barton Skyway, Suite 300

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Austin, TX 78746

(215) 963-5130

(512)732-8901

(215) 963-5001 (fax)

(512)732-8905

(fax)

mburkhardt@morganlewis.com

Jason@boulettegolden.com

amartinez@morganlewis.com

Brittan L. Buchanan VAN OSSELAER & BUCHANAN, LLP 9600 Great Hills Trail, Suite 300 West Austin, TX 78759 (512)225-2822 (512)225-2801 (fax) bbuchanan@vbllp.com

3

Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 112 Filed 07/10/09 Page 4 of 4

Counsel for Defendant Dell, Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 10, 2009

_____________/s/_______________

Steven L. Wittels SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 113 Filed 07/13/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FIt E

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

200~JUL 13 PH I: 23

MILDRED CHAPMAN, et. aI., Plaintiffs,
v.
DELL, INC., Defendant.

§ § § § CAUSE NO. A-09-CV-311-JRN § § §

ORDER

Before the Court is the above-entitled and styled cause ofaction. On July 10,2009, the Court

received the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Clerk's Doc. #112).

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that Parties' Agreed Motion to Dismiss with

Prejudice (Doc. #112) is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause of action and all claims asserted, or which

could have been asserted in this cause and suit are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are MOOT.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all relief not expressly granted is DENIED.

13 SIGNED this

'T'll
day of July 2009.;

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00311-JRN Document 114 Filed 07/13/09 Page 1 of 1

F' E IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

t

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

2009 JUl '3 PH ,: 23

MILDRED CHAPMAN, et. aI.,

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

DELL, INC.,

§

Defendant.

§

g'{ - ····--p-fll-!lr-,

FINAL JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the above entitled cause of action. On this same date, this Court signed

an order dismissing this case with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Final

Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all relief not expressly granted is hereby DENIED

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this action is hereby CLOSED .

/.5 SIGNED this

..tf
"(fay of July 2009.

 
 Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page1 of 65

1 Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. (CA Bar # 119985)

SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 2 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

3 Telephone: (415) 421-4770

4 Facsimile: (415) 421-4784

./-~

5 Steven L. Wittels, Esq. (NY Bar No. SLW-811O) David W. Sanford, Esq. (D.C. BarNo. 457933)
6 SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Avenue., lO,hFloor
7 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 723-2947
8 swittels@nydclaw.com dsanford@nydcIaw.com
9 (pending Pro Hac Vice Admission)

10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

15
MILDRED J. CHAPMAN, ANGELA

'1V

16 HOPKINS, JULIA M. MAHAFFEY and Ii-'

08

BETHANY RICHES on behalf of

17 themselves and all others similarly

Civil Action

situated,

18

494

Plaintiffs,
19

vs.
20

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

21 DELL INC., formerly known as Dell Computer Corporation,
22
Defendant.
23

Case No.: Jury Trial Requested

24
Plaintiffs MILDRED J. CHAPMAN, ANGELA HOPKINS, JULIA M
25
MAHAFFEY, and BETHANY RICHES (collectively "Plaintiffs," "Nanled Plaintiffs," 0

Class Action Complaint - 1

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page2 of 65

1 "Class Representatives"), by their attorneys Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, bring this action fo

2 themselves and on behalf of two Classes more specifically defined below: (I) a class of curren

3 and former female employees of Defendant DELL INC.. ("Dell" or the "Company"); and (2)

4
class of current and former Dell employees over the age of 40. Based upon knowledge as t

5
themselves and their own acts, and otherwise upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege a
6
follows:
7

I.
8

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CLASS-WIDE

DISCRIMINATION AT DELL
9

10

A. Basic Class-wide Allegations

11
1. This case arises out of Defendant Dell's systemic, company-wide discriminato
12
treatment of thousands of its female employees and employees over the age of 40.
13
2. As one of the senior Dell male executive Vice Presidents, Michael Summers,
14
15 informed Human Resources Senior Manager, Plaintiff Bethany Riches, in a written mid-yea

16 review, it's no easy task "breaking into arguably one of the toughest old boy networks i

17 Dell." Indeed.

18

3. Dell's discriminatory practices against Plaintiffs and the Classes span the gamu

19 of prohibited acts, and read like an employment discrimination primer on how a company shoul

20 not treat its employees, including:

21
A. Failing to Pay Women Salaries and Bonuses Equal to Men Wh

22

Perform Substantially Similar and/or Comparable Wor

Company-wide, including at the Senior Manager Dl

23

Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grade Levelsl ;

24 1 Dell professional employees are categorized into grade levels which ascend in hierarchy in the followin order: CIs to C3s (Managers and Senior Analysts); Dis (Senior Managers) to D3s (Directors); Els (Vic
25 Presidents) to E2s (Officers and Executive Leadership Team). These grade levels determine employee's salary range, bonus range, and other benefits. The Company has very few D2s, and none i the Department in which Plaintiffs worked. The ordinary progression line for DIs is directly to D3.

Class Action Complaint - 2

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page3 of 65

1

2

B. Segregating Women into Lower Grade Level Positions with Less Pa

and Promotion Opportunities than Men Who Peifor

3

Substantially Similar and/or Comparable Work Company

wide, including at the Senior Manager Dl

4

Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grade Levels;

5

6

C. Failing to Promote Women at an Equal Rate with Men Company

wide, including at the Senior Manager Dl an

7

Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grade Levels;

8

D. Disproportionately Awarding Men a Larger Share of Incentiv

9

Compensation Company-wide, including at the Senio

Manager Dl and Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grade Levels;

10

11

E. Disproportionately Terminating Women as Compared to Men i

Recent Mass Layoffs Company-wide, including at the Senio

12

Manager Dl and Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grade Levels'

and
13

14

F. Disproportionately Terminating Dell Employees Over the Age of 4

15

in Recent Mass Layoffs Company-wide, including at th

Senior Manager Dl and Manager/Senior Analyst C3 Grad

16

Levels.

17
B. Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives
18
4. Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman held a leadership position as a Senior Manager CD 1
19
in Dell's Global Human Resources Department from November.2005 until April 3, 2008, whe
20
she was also selected for Dell's mass layoff. At the time of her termination, Ms. Chapman w
21

59 years of age.
22

23

5. Plaintiff Angela Hopkins held a leadership position as a Senior Manager CDl) a

24 Dell's Global Human Resources Department from January 2006 until April 3, 2008, when Del

25 announced mass layoffs across all departments and terminated Ms. Hopkins without warning.

Class Action Complaint - 3

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page4 of 65

1

6. Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey held a leadership position as a Manager (C3) in Dell'

2 Global Human Resources Department from 2000 until October 26,2007.

3

7. Plaintiff Bethany Riches held a leadership position as a Senior Manager (DI) i

4
Dell's Human Resources Department from September 2003 until May 26, 2008.
5
8. Dell has subjected each of the Plaintiffs to discrimination in pay, compensation
6
promotion, and termination alleged above:
7
• Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches were paid less tha
8
similarly~situated male employees.
9
• Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches were segregated base
10
on their gender into lower grade level positions than similarly-situated mal
11
employees.
12
• Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches were not promoted at
13
equal rate to similarly-situated male employees.
14
• Plaintiffs Chapman and Hopkins were terminated based on their gender.
15
• Plaintiff Chapman was terminated based on her age.
16
9. Although Dell consistently recognized their leadership and accomplishments
17
Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches hit the glass ceiling that so many Del
18

19 women face, and were subsequently cast aside by the Company - in part as retaliation fo

20 speaking out against the gender discrimination infecting Dell. .

21

c. Dell's Overall Diversity Record

22

10. Although the Company and its founder and CEO, Michael Dell, publicly tout the·

23 commitment to diversity, the reality fails to live up to the rhetoric. While simultaneousl

24 proclaiming that diversity is "an essential element of our corporate values," the old adage "A
25
picture paints a thousand words" tells the real story. The following photographic array fro

Class Action Complaint - 4

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page5 of 65

1 Dells' website shows the current inner cadre of Dell's 14-man strong Executive Leadershi 2 Team:
3 (http://www.dell.com/coRtent/topics/global.aspx/about dell/company/leadership
4 /executive team?-ck=ln&c=us&l=en&lnki=O&s=corp)
5

6

7

8

9

Michael S. Dell

Chainnan of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Vice President, Business Product 18

President and President,

Americas 19

20 R.
21 'resid"n!. Global Operations
22

Vice President, Business Product

23

24

25

Class Action Complaint - 5

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page6 of 65

1

2

Vice President, Human Resources

Vice President and President, Asia-

3

4

5

6

Prelsident" Global Consumer Group

7

Vice President, Chief Financial

8

9

10

Vice President and President,

11

EUlrooA, Middle East and Africa

12

13

14

President, Strategy

15

16

Vice President and President, Global Selrvic:es., and Chief Information Officer

17

18 Vice President, General Counsel
19

20
11. As evidenced by the previous photographs, there are NO WOMEN members 0
21
the all-male Dell Executive Leadership Team. This dearth of women at the highest reaches 0
22
the Company sets the tone for women's poor representation in its upper-level professional an
23
24 executive ranks, and helps explain the pay and promotion disparities women encounter at Dell.
25 Upon information and belief, women are significantly underrepresented at the highest circles 0

Class Action Complaint - 6

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page7 of 65

1 corporate leadership, and have made few inroads into the male-dominated Officer's "club" a

2 Dell.

3
12. Upon information and belief, women also continue to be substantiall
4
underrepresented at the El (Vice President) level. Upon information and belief, approximatel
5
80 percent of all Vice Presidents are male.
6
13. Upon information and belief, women also continue to be substantiall
7
underrepresented at the D3 (Director) level, the level at which Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, an
8
Riches actually worked and should have been paid and promoted. Upon information and belief
9

10 approximately 80 percent of an Directors are male.

11

14. Upon information and belief, women also continue to be substantiall

12 underrepresented at the Dl (Senior Manager) level, the level at which Plaintiff Mahaffey actuall

13 worked and should have been paid and promoted. Upon information and belief, approximatel

14 80 percent of all Senior Managers are male.

15

D. The Instant Class Action/Collective Action Lawsuit

16
15. Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey, and Riches bring this lawsuit on thei
17
own behalf and on behalf of: (i) a class of similarly-situated female employees company-wide
18
including female employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels, to remedy the gender discriminatio
19
they have witnessed and experienced during their exemplary tenures at Dell; and Plaintif
20
Chapman further brings this lawsuit on behalf of (ii) a class of similarly-situated employees ove
21
22 the age of 40 years old company-wide, including employees over 40 at the Dl and C3 grad

23 levels, to remedy the age discrimination she witnessed and experienced at Dell. This lawsuit i

24 designed to achieve systemic injunctive relief to change Den's discriminatory pay, promotion

25 and termination policies and practices.

Class Action Complaint - 7

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page8 of 65

1

16. With no viable alternative to achieve the top-to-bottom changes that are needed t

2 address Dell's discriminatory practices, Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey, and Riches no

3 sue Defendant Dell for individual, class, and collective relief.

4
17. Defendant Dell carried out its discrimination at the direction of and/or with th
5
assistance of the Company's Senior Management and/or Officers, including
6
• MICHAEL S. DELL, Founder, CEO and Chairman of the Board;
7
• BRIAN T. GLADDEN, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer;
8

9

• LAWRENCE P. TU, Senior Vice President and General Counsel;

10

• ANDREW ESPARZA, Senior Vice President of Corporate Human Resources; and

11

• DOMINICK DICOSIMO, Vice President of Global Human Resources Operations (whic

12

includes responsibility for compensation and benefits functions).

18. Each of these members of the Dell leadership team engineered, approved, ratifie
l3

14 and/or assisted in the wrongful acts described in this Complaint, including the discriminato

15 treatment of Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, the discriminatory terminatio

16 of Plaintiffs Chapman and Hopkins, and discriminatory treatment and termination of othe

17 female employees and older employees at Dell.

18 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1337; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4); the Age Discrimination in Employment Ac
21
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.s.C. §§
22
2000e, et seq.; the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, et seq.; and supplemental jurisdiction (28
23
U.S.C. § 1367), to redress and enjoin employment practices of Defendant in violation of thes
24
federal statutes.
25

Class Action Complaint - 8

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page9 of 65

1

20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) becaus

2 Defendant Dell is located in this District, and at all times relevant to this action has been doin

3 substantial business in this District. Plaintiff Hopkins also resides in this District.
4
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
5
21. Class Representative Mildred J. Chapman timely filed a Charge ofDiscriminatio
6
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on or about April 29, 2008.
7
Ms. Chapman received her Notice of Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC on or about August 2,
8
2008, and is now timely filing suit within ninety (90) days of receipt of her Notice of Right t
9

10 Sue Letter.

11

22. Class Representative Angela Hopkins timely filed a Charge of Discriminatio

12 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on or about April 21, 2008.

13 Ms. Hopkins received her Notice of Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC on or about August 2

14 2008, and is now timely filing suit within ninety (90) days of receipt of her Notice of Right t

15 Sue Letter.

16
23. The Class Representatives are relying on their own EEOC charges andlor those 0

17
other Class Representatives.

18
IV.
19

THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs
20

24. Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman is a resident of Texas. Plaintiff Chapman wa
21

22 employed as a Senior Manager in the Global Human Resources Department for Defendant Del

23 in Round Rock, Texas from November 2005 until April 2008, when Dell terminated her at th

24 age of 59.

25

Class Action Complaint - 9

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page10 of 65

1

25. Plaintiff Angela Hopkins is a resident of California. Plaintiff Hopkins wa

2 employed as a Senior Manager in the Global Human Resources Department for Defendant Del

3 in Round Rock, Texas from January 2006 until her termination in April 2008.
4
26. Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey is a resident of Indiana. Plaintiff Mahaffey w
5
employed as a Manager in the Global Human Resources Department for Defendant Dell i
6
Round Rock, Texas from 2000 until October 2007.
7
27. Plaintiff Bethany Riches is a resident of Texas. Plaintiff Riches was employe
8
as a Senior Manager in the Human Resources Department for Defendant Dell in Round Rock
9
10 Texas from September 2003 until May 2008.

11

B. Defendant

12

28. Defendant Dell Inc. is and has been a multi-national company incorporated i

13 Delaware. Dell is headquartered in Texas, with offices in Northern California, includin

14 Mountain View, California and Fremont, California. At a leading global computer systems an

15 services company, Dell generated over $57 billion in revenue in 2007, and ranks as Number 3

16
on the Fortune 500.

17
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18

A. PLAINTIFF MILDRED J. CHAPMAN

19

1. Ms. Chapman's Hiring by Dell in November 2005 - Because of

20

Her Skills and Experience, Dell Executives Promise Ms. Chapma

Future Job Security and Promotion.

21

22

29. In November 2005, Ms. Chapman joined the Dell Global Human

23
Resources (HR) Department as a Senior Manager at the Dllevel.

24

25

Class Action Complaint - 10

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page11 of 65

1

30. In hiring Ms. Chapman, the Company sought to attain an experienced, proficient

2 and versatile HR professional who could fill numerous roles in compensation, benefits, and as

3 HR generalist.

4
31. Dell and its Senior Human Resources executives, including Vice President 0
5
Global Human Resources Operations Dominic DiCosimo, induced Ms. Chapman to accept th
6
position and to relocate her family to Austin, Texas by representing that her talents were neede
7
at Dell Headquarters and that if she made the move, she would be promoted to the Director CD3
8

level within 12-18 months and would be protected from any future layoffs.
9

10

32. In reliance on these promises, Ms. Chapman and her husband sold their home i

11 Houston, Texas, relocated to Austin, and forfeited other lucrative job opportunities in Houston.

12

2. Ms. Chapman is Lauded for Her Exemplary Job Performance

and Given Increased Duties and Responsibilities.

13

33. Throughout her employment, Ms. Chapman received nulnerous commendation
14

from her managers at Dell who recognized in writing that she made "significant contributions t
15

16 the business," and brought "great experience to the job imd has the capability to do man

17 different HR roles." As a result of her efforts, her 2006 performance appraisal was a Value

18 High rating, bordering on an Exceptional, with a High rating for future potential. Dell executive

19 told Ms. Chapman that they wanted to ensure that she stayed with the Company and wished t

20 "lock her in."

21

34. At the time of her hiring, Ms. Chapman was responsible for

22
compensation for approximately 7,000 employees in the DeIl Americas Operations. As a resul
23
of her success in this position and the recognition Dell gave her, Ms. Chapman was then asked t
24
take on the additional responsibility of managing compensation and global benefits for weIl ove
25
17,000 employees in nine countries.

Class Action Complaint - 11

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page12 of 65

1

3. Ms. Chapman is Subjected to Gender Discrimination in Salary an

Incentive Compensation and, on the Basis of Gender and Age, i

2

Denied the Promotion Promised and Due to Her.

3

35. Ms. Chapman was not awarded with a promotion or any increase in remuneration

4
although her level of responsibility now equaled or exceeded that of male Directors. Th

5
individual who was previously responsible for Ms. Chapman's new duties was a male Director
6
titled and compensated at the D3 level.
7
36. Despite Dell's promises that Ms. Chapman would be made Director, he
8
outstanding performance reviews, and her increased level of responsibility, Dell managemen
9

10 never elevated Ms. Chapman to D3 status in her two and a half years at the Company. Althou

11 additional Director were available, they were instead awarded to less qualified and les

12 experienced males under the age of 40. Furthermore, during the April 2008 restructuring, Ms.

13 Chapman was not considered for Director level HR positions for which she was highly qualifie

14 but which were instead granted to younger males.

15

37.

Upon information and belief, during her November 200S-April 2008 tenure

16
Dell significantly underpaid Ms. Chapman relative to her male counterparts at the D3 level. As

17
further result of Dell's failure to provide her equal payor promote her to Director (either b
18
elevating her title to be commensurate with her duties, by elevating her pay to be commensurat
19
with her duties, or by awarding her another open position) Ms. Chapman lost a substantia
20
amount in incentive compensation, including promotion grants, Short (IBP) and Long Te
21

Incentive (LTI) awards for 2006 through 2008 as compared to men with equivalent or lesse
22

23 responsibilities and qualifications.

24

4. Ms. Chapman Complains to Management Regarding

Discriminatory Treatment.

25

Class Action Complaint - 12

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page13 of 65

1

38. During Ms. Chapman's employment at Dell, she repeatedly complained abou

2 discrimination to her immediate manager as well as to Mr. DiCosimo. In particular, Plaintif

3 Chapman maintained that she should be paid equally to males with similar levels 0

4
responsibility, and promoted to the Director (D3) title and compensation scale occupied by male

5
with similar levels of responsibility. Dell repeatedly told her she was "on the list" to b

6
promotion to the Director (D3) level.
7

5. During'Dell's April 2008 Layoffs, Ms. Chapman is Subjected t

8

Discriminatory TerminationlRetaliation Which Also Constitutes

Breach of Dell's Promises of Future Job Security.
9

10

39. On April 3, 2008, Ms. Chapman was terminated in one of Dell's mass layoffs.

11
Ms. Chapman's selection for the reduction in force was discriminatory based on gender and ag
12
and in retaliation for her previous complaints of discrimination.
13
40. Dell's layoffs had a disproportionate effect on women and employees over 40
14
Upon information and belief, women were laid off at a statistically significant higher rate the
15
men, while older employees over 40 were also laid off at a statistically significant higher rat
16

17 than younger employees. At age 59, Ms. Chapman was the oldest employee within he

18 immediate workgroup to be laid off.

19

41. While women and older employees such as Ms. Chapman were laid off, 10

20 performing and less qualified men and younger executives in equivalent positions were protecte

21 by their bosses, given safe havens within the Company, offered an opportunity to accept
22 demotion, or otherwise afforded preferential treatment.
23
42. In an attempt to justify their termination decisions, seruor
24
improperly manipulated and lowered the favorable performance ratings that Plaintiff Chapm
25
and other women received for performance in 2007. As a result of the manipUlation of her 200

Class Action Complaint - 13

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page14 of 65

1 performance appraisal, Dell failed to grant Ms. Chapman an LTI award for 2008 and granted he
2 a substantially lower bonus; consequently, she lost a substantial amount in addition
3 employment benefits. Further, the Company informed terminated female employees that ther
4
were no available positions; however, almost simultaneously with the announcement of th
5
layoffs, Dell had available at least thirteen other open jobs in HR for which Ms. Chapman is ve
6
qualified based on her experience and performance. Those positions which Plaintiffs are awar
7
have been filled were given to male employees and/or to younger employees.
8
43. Accordingly, Dell has discriminatorily denied Ms. Chapman the compensatio
9
10 and promotional opportunities due to her since her hiring in November 2005, the effect of whic
11 was compounded by each passing year and was significantly magnified by Dell's discriminato
12 and retaliatory termination of her employment in April 2008. Dell's discriminatory an

13 retaliatory acts not only deprived Ms. Chapman of equal pay, promotional opportunities and jus

14 compensation during her time at Dell, but also continue to act as a black mark on Ms.

15 Chapman's exceptional career, undeniably hindering her future opportunities for employment.

16
At the same time, Ms. Chapman has suffered significant physical and emotional harm as a resul

17
of her treatment at Dell, impeding her personal life and general well-being.

18
B. PLAINTIFF ANGELA HOPKINS

19

1. Angela Hopkins' Hiring by Dell in January 2006 - Despite Bein

20

Qualified for Director (D3) Position, Ms. Hopkins is Hired into

Senior Manager (Dl) Position with Promised Opportunity fo

21

Advancement.

22

23

44. In January 2006, Ms. Hopkins joined Dell's Global Human Resources

24 (HR) Department as a Senior Manager at the DIlevel. In placing Ms. Hopkins, the Company'

25 aim was to have Ms. Hopkins serve as an experienced HR professional, qualified and ready t

Class Action Complaint - 14

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page15 of 65

1 "back-fill" and replace the then-Manager, David Strauss, at the Director (D3) level, in the even

2 that Strauss changed positions or left the company.

3

45. From the outset of her employment, the Company acknowledged that Ms

4
Hopkins was qualified for a D3 level position. Men comparably qualified with Ms. Hopkin

5
were hired immediately into Director positions.

6

2. Ms. Hopkins is Commended by Dell Management for her

7

Outstanding Job Performance.

8
46. Throughout her employment, Ms. Hopkins received numerous accolades
9
from high ranking Executives at Dell for going above and beyond the normal expectations of he
10
11 job, including successful integration of newly acquired companies and strategic implementatio

12 of policies to attract and retain superior employees.

13

47. As a result of Ms. Hopkins' efforts, the Company concluded her 200

14 performance review with the accolade that she "exceeded individual goals through superio

15 customer experience, team. work, integration and effective leadership." As a result of he

16 outstanding performance, the Company increased her salary in 2007, following repeate

17
commendations from her managers, although her salary remained well below her similarly

18
situated male counterparts.

19

3. Ms. Hopkins is Subjected to Gender Discrimination in Salary an

20

Incentive Compensation, and is Discriminatorily Denied a Schedule

Promotion.

21

22

48. Despite her stellar performance, Ms. Hopkins was compensated less than

23 her similarly-situated male counterparts. Upon information and belief, during her January 2006

24
April 2008 tenure, Dell significantly underpaid Ms. Hopkins relative to her male peers at D 1
25

Class Action Complaint - 15

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page16 of 65

1 status. Ms. Hopkins was also paid at a lower market rate for her work while comparable mal

employees at Dell were routinely paid much higher on the market rate scale.

3

49. In January 2007, Ms. Hopkins' Manager, David Strauss, left the Company, a

4
Dell had anticipated when the Company hired Ms. Hopkins. Ms. Hopkins was asked to assum
5
the role of her departing Manager over the course of eight months while the Company conducte
6
an external search for a permanent replacement. In addition, Ms. Hopkins was also asked to fil
7
in during this time period for a department colleague who went on a 3-month maternity leave.
8
Despite its representations, and in defiance of Ms. Hopkins' exemplary performance an
9

10 evaluations while serving multiple roles, Dell did not offer her the Director (D3) position

11 Instead, in October 2007, Dell hired a male from outside the Company with less experience an

12 qualifications than Ms. Hopkins.

13

50. Upon information and belief, during the course of 2007 through 2008, Del .

14 significantly underpaid Ms. Hopkins relative to her male counterparts at the D3 level. As

15 further result of Dell's failure to provide her equal payor promote her to Director (either b

16
elevating her title to be commensurate with her duties, by elevating her pay to be commensurat

17
with her duties, or by awarding her another open position) Ms. Hopkins lost a substantial amoun
18
in incentive compensation, including Short (mp) and Long Term Incentive (LTI) awards a
19
compared to men with equivalent or lesser responsibilities and qualifications, as well as
20

substantial amount in promotion grants and retention awards.
21

22

4. Ms. Hopkins Complains to Management Regarding

Discriminatory Treatment.

23

24

51. Before her wrongful termination, Plaintiff Hopkins repeatedly complained to th

25 Company about gender discrimination against herself and other similarly situated women in pay

compensation, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Class Action Complaint - 16

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page17 of 65

1

5. Ms. Hopkins is Subjected to Discriminatory Termination/

Retaliation During Dell's April 2008 Layoffs.
2

3

52. In 2008, Dell planned a mass company-wide reduction in force scheduled

4
to take effect in April 2008. Two weeks before these layoffs, Ms. Hopkins' Manager, Pa
5
Gregory, informed her that due to her exceptional record - including her rating as a "Value
6
Performer" - she would be retained at the Company. Despite such representations, Ms. Hopkin
7
was terminated without warning on April 3, 2008.
8

53. Ms. Hopkins' selection for Dell's mass layoff was both discriminatory
9

10 based on gender and retaliatory for her complaints of previous gender discrimination.

11

54. While women such as Ms. Hopkins were laid off, low performing and less

12 qualified male executives in equivalent positions were protected based on their gender. Me

13 with less qualifications than Ms. Hopkins and her terminated female peers were frequently give

14 safe havens within the Company or otherwise afforded preferential treatment.

15

55. In an attempt to justify their termination decisions, senior Dell executive

16
improperly manipulated and lowered the favorable performance ratings that Plaintiff Hopkin
17
and other women received for performance in 2007. As a result of the manipUlation of her 200
18
performance review, Dell reduced Ms. Hopkins' bonus and also failed to grant her an LII awar
19
for 2008, estimated to have been worth several hundred thousand dollars. Further, the Compan
20
informed terminated female employees that there were no available positions; however, alrnos
21

22 simultaneously with the announcement of the mass layoffs, Dell had available at least thirtee

23 other open jobs in the HR department for which Plaintiff Hopkins is very qualified based on he

24 experience and performance. Those positions which Plaintiffs are aware have been filled wer

25 given to male employees.

Class Action Complaint - 17

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page18 of 65

1

56. Accordingly, Dell has discriminatorily denied Ms. Hopkins the compensation an

2 promotional opportunities due to her since her hiring in January 2006, the effect of which wa

3 compounded by each passing year and was significantly magnified by Dell's discriminatory an
4
retaliatory termination of her employment in April 200S. Dell's discriminatory and retaliato
5
acts not only deprived Ms. Hopkins of equal pay, promotional opportunities and jus
6
compensation during her time at Dell, but also continue to act as a black mark on Ms. Hopkins'
7
exceptional career, undeniably hindering her future opportunities for employment. At the sam
8
time, Ms. Hopkins has suffered significant physical and emotional harm as a result of he
9
10 treatment at Dell, impeding her personal life and general well-being.

11

C. PLAINTIFF JULIA M. MAHAFFEY

12

1. Julia Mahaffey Is Hired by Dell in 2000 - Despite Being Qualified fo

a Senior Manager (Dl) Position, Ms. Mahaffey is Hired into

13

Manager (C3) Position with Promised Opportunity for Advancement.

14
57. In or around 2000, Ms. Mahaffey joined Dell as a Human Resources (HR) Senio
15
ConsultantlManager at the C3 level. At the time of her hiring, Ms. Mahaffey held tw
16
17 professional degrees - a Juris Doctor degree and a Masters of Business Administration degree.
18 From the outset of her employment, Dell acknowledged that Ms. Mahaffey was qualified for
19 higher level position at the Senior Manager (D 1) level. Men comparably qualified with Ms.

20 Mahaffey were hired immediately into Senior Manager (DI) positions.

21

2. Ms. Mahaffey is Lauded for Her Exemplary Job Performance

and Given Increased Duties and Responsibilities.
22

23

5S. Throughout her employment, Ms. Mahaffey received numerous commendation

24 from her managers at Dell. Dell designated Ms. Mahaffey in her 2007 performance review

25 "Key Talent," the highest rating for future potential at the Company. They also recognized Ms

Class Action Complaint - 18

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page19 of 65

1 Mahaffey "for her leadership which had resulted in Dell winning the Alexander Hamilton Awar

2 by Treasury & Risk Management Magazine" in her 2006 performance review.

3

59. As a result of her strong performance, Dell continued to increase th

4
responsibilities of Ms. Mahaffey. In her 2006 review, Dell noted that Ms. Mahaffey took "on

5
more project work in the first 6 months ofthis year than she has done previously." In addition t
6
her full-time job as a HR Benefits Manager, Dell had Ms. Mahaffey co-lead a globa
7
compensation and benefits market gap analysis project, organize a global compensation an
8

benefits forum, and provide leadership to the global compensation and benefits organization.
9

10 Only higher level employees - at the DI level or higher - were responsible for similar duties.

11

60. In or about March 2006, Ms. Mahaffey assumed even greater responsibilities i

12 her new role as the International Compensation and Benefits Manager for Dell. In this role, Ms.

13 Mahaffey performed duties substantially equal to male employees at the D I level.

14

61. Given her increased responsibilities, Ms. Mahaffey repeatedly requested Del

15 increase her pay to the level of her similarly-situated male counterparts and promote her to th

16
Senior Manager (D I) level. Dell, however, refused to payor promote her at the DI level.

17
3. Ms. Mahaffey is Subjected to Gender Discrimination in Salary an

18

Incentive Compensation, and is Continuously Denied the Promotio

Promised and Due to Her.

19

20

62. Although Ms. Mahaffey's level of responsibility now equaled or exceeded that 0

21 male Senior Managers (DI), Dell refused to award her a promotion or any increase i
22 compensation comparable to her job responsibilities. From March 2005 until the date of he
23
resignation, Ms. Mahaffey performed duties substantially equal and/or comparable to mal
24
Senior Managers, titled and compensated at the D I level.
25
63. During this same time-period, Ms. Mahaffey continuously requested to be

Class Action Complaint - 19

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page20 of 65

1 paid equally to a Senior Manager (DI) or promoted to Senior Manager (DI). Although Del

2 promised that Ms. Mahaffey would be made a Senior Manager and continued to award he

3 outstanding performance reviews and to increase her levels of responsibility, Dell managemen

4
never elevated Ms. Mahaffey to D I status in her seven years at the Company. Dell instea

5
awarded pay increases and promotions to less qualified and less experienced males throughou

6
this time.
7

4. Ms. Mahaffey Complains to Management Regarding

8

Discriminatory Treatment.

9
64. Ms. Mahaffey repeatedly complained to the Company about gende
10
11 discrimination against herself and other similarly situated women in pay, compensation

12 promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.

13

5. Ms. Mahaffey is Subjected to Retaliation by Dell.

14

65. After complaining about the gender discrimination at Dell, the Compan

15 retaliated against Ms. Mahaffey. Shortly after her complaints were made about gende

16 discrimination, Ms. Mahaffey learned that her promotion was never going to happen at Dell.

17 This led Ms. Mahaffey to resign from the Company.

18
67.

Accordingly, Dell has discriminatorily denied Ms. Mahaffey th

19
compensation and promotional opportunities due to her since her hiring in 2000, the effect 0
20
which was compounded by each passing year and was significantly magnified by Dell'
21
discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of her which led to her resignation in October 2007.
22
Dell's discriminatory and retaliatory acts deprived Ms. Mahaffey of equal pay, promotion
23

24 opportunities and just compensation during her time at Dell. At the Same time, Ms. Mahaffe

25 has suffered emotional harm as a result of her treatment at Dell, impeding her personal life an

general well-being.

Class Action Complaint - 20

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page21 of 65

1

D. PLAINTIFF BETHANY RICHES

2

1. Bethany Riches' Hiring by Dell in September 2003 - Despite Bein

Qualified for Director (D3) Position, Ms. Riches is Hired into a Senio

3

Manager (D1) Position with Promised Opportunity for Advancement.

4

5

68. In September 2003, Ms. Riches joined Dell as a Human Resources (HR) Senio

6 Manager at the D I level. Ms. Riches previously held a Director level position at another multi

7 national company. From the outset of her employment, Dell acknowledged that Ms. Riches w

8 qualified for a Director (D3).1evel position. Men comparably qualified with Ms. Riches wer

9 hired immediately into Director CD3) positions.

10

2. Ms. Riches is Lauded for Her Exemplary Job Performance

11

and Given Increased Duties and Responsibilities.

12

69. Throughout her employment, Ms. Riches received numerous commendation

13 from her managers at Dell who recognized her "outstanding service level," "excellent coachin

14 andfeedback" to clients, and excellent "execute[ionJ ... on the core HR programs ... " in he

15 performance reviews. As a result of her efforts, Dell gave Ms. Riches an Exceptional rating, th
16 highest rating for future potential, in her 2006 performance review.. Dell executives also state
17 in her review that "Beth will have a great opportunity for increased exposure, influence acros
18
the Americas and growth in the upcoming year...".
19
70. In August 2006, Ms. Riches assumed a new, larger role as HR Leader for Del
20
Public Sales Organization (PSO). In this role, she replaced a male HR Director (D3), an
21
assumed his responsibilities for overseeing approximately 1,000 employees in the PSO business.
22
In addition to assuming her new responsibilities, she also continued with her previou
23
24 responsibilities of overseeing 850 employees in Dell Advanced Systems Organization (ASO).
25 Although Ms. Riches was now performing in a role even larger than her male predecesso

Director's role, Dell refused to promote her to the D3 level.

Class Action Complaint - 21

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page22 of 65

1

71. In February 2007, Ms. Riches assumed an even larger role as HR Leader for Del

2 Medium Business Organization (MBO). In this role, she replaced another male HR Directo

3 (D3), and assumed his responsibilities for overseeing approximately 1,500 employees in th
4
MBO business. At the same time, the male Director moved into Ms. Riches old role as
5
Leader for Dell Public Sales Organization (PSO). But unlike Ms. Riches, the male Directo
6
filled that role at the Director (D3) level.
7
72. In the summer of 2007, Ms. Riches again assumed an even larger role as
8
Leader for Dell Small and Medium Business Organization (SMBO). In this role, she replace
9
10 another male HR Director (D3), and assumed his responsibilities for overseeing approximatel

11 5,000 employees in the businesses. Like her male predecessor, she had six (6) direct reports an

12 a total HR team of twenty (20) employees. She was also responsible for overseeing employee

13 at both the Nashville and Oklahoma facilities. Despite her increased responsibilities and he

14 repeated requests for equal pay and a promotion, Dell again refused to payor promote Ms

15 Riches at the D3 level.

16
3. Ms. Riches is Subjected to Gender Discrimination in Salary an

17

Incentive Compensation, and is Continuously Denied the Promotio

Promised and Due to Her.

18

19

73. Although Ms. Riches' level of responsibility now equaled or exceeded that 0

20 male Directors (D3), Dell refused to award her a promotion or any increase in compensatio

21 comparable to her job responsibilities. From August 2006 until the date of her resignation, al
22 individuals who were previously responsible for Ms. Riches' duties were male Directors, title
23 and compensated at the D3 level.
24
74. During this same time-period, Ms. Riches continuously requested to be paid an
25
promoted at the Director (D3) level. Although Dell promised that Ms. Riches would be mad

Class Action Complaint - 22

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page23 of 65

1 Director and continued to award her outstanding performance reviews imd to increase her level

2 of responsibility, Dell management never elevated Ms. Riches' payor title to D3 status in he

3 four and a half years at the Company. Dell instead awarded increased pay and promotions to les

4
qualified and less experienced males throughout this time.

5
4. While Ms. Riches is Commended for "Making Nice Progress Breakin

6

into Arguably One of the Toughest Old Boy Networks in Dell," She i

Subjected to Discriminatory Stereotypes in Her Employment Reviews

7

8

75. In Ms. Riches' mid-year feedback in 2007, Dell management commended her fo

9 her abilities to break into "one ofthe toughest old boy networks in Dell." They also told her tha

10 her slow progression "is not about you, " and promised her that "you'll reap the beneflts of thi

11
over time."

12
76. Applying similar stereotypes throughout the same review, the male executive wh
13
supervised her V.P. Mr Summers commended her for being "very direct" and "influential wit
14
others," while at the same time repeatedly cautioning her against being too "strong." Fo
15
example, he stated:
16

17

•

"Be cautious of your tendency to form ... strong opinions... "

18

•

"You have a strong drive for results and a strong bias to the 'right' way to d

19

things, based on your experiences. Try and balance that... "

20

•

You have a strong presence with your colleagues and have a voice at the table.

21

Be careful not to overuse it... "

22
77. Although strength is typically an asset in an employee, that is apparently not th
23
case for female employees at Dell. This example illustrates how Dell employs impermissibl
24
subjective evaluation and criteria that permit the introduction of gender stereotypes int
25
employment decisions.

Class Action Complaint - 23

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page24 of 65

1

5. Ms. Riches Complains to Management Regarding

Discriminatory Treatment.
2

78. During Ms. Riches' employment at Dell, she repeatedly complained abou
3

4 unequal treatment to her immediate managers. In particular, Ms. Riches often complained abou

5 Dell's failure to pay her and promote her at the Director CD3) level occupied by males wi

6 similar levels of responsibility.

7

79. In the SUlllmer of 2007, Ms. Riches was also interviewed as part of an interna

8 investigation or audit referred to as a "focus group" regarding gender discrimination at Dell. I

9 that interview, Ms. Riches candidly discussed her complaints about discrimination with th
10
interviewer, an outside consultant working for Dell. She specifically discussed how Del
11
repeatedly moved her into positions previously occupied by male Director (D3) employees
12
without any change in job responsibilities, but then refused to payor promote her at the Directo
13
CD3) level. Time and time again, Dell refused to provide Ms. Riches with any pay increases 0
14
promotional opportunities equivalent to the title and compensation occupied by males wi
15
16 similar levels of responsibility.

17

6. Ms. Riches is Subjected to Retaliation by Dell.

18

80. After she complained about the gender discrimination at Dell, the Compan

19 retaliated against Ms. Riches. Shortly after her participation in the internal investigation, he

20 male supervisor told her that her promotion was "never going to happen at Dell." This led Ms.

21 Riches to resign from the Company.

22

81. Accordingly, Dell has discriminatorily denied Ms. Riches the compensation an

23 promotional opportunities due to her since her hiring in September 2003, the effect of which wa
24
compounded by each passing year and was significantly magnified by Dell's discriminatory an
25
retaliatory treatment of her which led to her resignation in May 2008. Dell's discriminatory an

Class Action Complaint - 24

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page25 of 65
1 retaliatory acts deprived Ms. Riches of equal pay, promotional opportunities and jus
2 compensation during her time at Dell. At the same time, Ms. Riches has suffered emotiona
3 harm as a result of her treatment at Dell, impeding her personal life and general well-being.
4
VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
5
A. General Allegations Relevant to Class Claims and Class Definitions
6
(1) Gender Class
7
82. Class Representatives Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches and the class 0
8
female Dell managers and other professional level employees they seek to represent have bee
9
subjected to a systemic pattern and practice of gender discrimination involving a battery 0
10
practices which have had a continuing, unlawful disparate impact on them and their employmen
11
12 opportunities. Such gender discrimination includes (a) compensating female employees
13 including female employees at the DI and C3 grade levels, less than their male counterparts; (b
14 segregating female employees, including female employees at the DI and C3 grade levels, int
15 lower paying grade levels than their male counterparts; (c) denying female employees, includin
16 female employees at the D I and C3 grade levels, development, placement, promotion, an
17 advancement opportunities resulting in their remaining in lower classification and compensatio
18
levels; and (d) disproportionately terminating female employees, including female employees a
19
the DI and C3 grade levels, when compared with their male counterparts.
20
83. Dell, in effect, bars female professionals and managers from better and higher
21
paying positions which have traditionally been held by men. The systemic means 0
22
accomplishing such gender-based stratification include, but are not limited to, Dell'
23
development, placement, promotion, advancement, training, performance evaluation, an
24
25 termination/retention policies, practices, and procedures.
Class Action Complaint - 25

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page26 of 65

1

84. Dell incorporates the following gender-based discriminatory practices: (a) relyin

2 upon subj ective judgments, procedures, and criteria which permit and encourage th

3 incorporation of gender stereotypes and biases by Dell's predominately male executive

4
managerial, and supervisory staff in making placement, promotion, training, performanc

5
evaluation, compensation, and termination decisions; (b) refusing or failing to provide equa
6
training opportunities to females; and (c) refusing or failing to establish and/or follow policies
7
practices, procedures, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact and/or intentiona
8

biases or stereotypes.
9

10

85. Defendant's development, compensation, placement, promotion, training

11 performance evaluation, termination/retention, and transfer policies, practices and procedure

12 have a disparate impact on the Class Representatives and the class they seek to represent. Suc

13 procedures are not valid, job-related, or justified by business necessity. Such practices form

14 part of the Defendant's overall pattern and practice of keeping women in lower classification
15 which have less desirable terms and conditions of employment, and in terminating women i
16
disproportionate numbers.
17
86. Because of Defendant's systemic pattern and practice of gender discrimination
18
the Class Representatives and the class they seek to represent have been adversely affected an
19
have experienced harm, including the loss of compensation, wages, backpay, bonuses, stock, an
20
employment benefits.
21
87. Dell has failed to impose adequate discipline on managers and employees wh
22
23 violate the Company's diversity mandates and equal employment opportunity laws and has faile
24 to create adequate incentives for its managerial and supervisory personnel to comply with suc

25 policy and such laws regarding the policies, practices, and procedures described above.

Class Action Complaint - 26

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page27 of 65

1

88. The Class Representatives and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complet

2 remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only means ·of securin

3 adequate relief. The Class Representatives and the Class are now suffering, and will continue t
4
suffer, irreparable injury from Dell's ongoing, unlawful policies, practices, and procedures as se
5
forth herein unless those policies, practices, and procedures are enjoined by this Court.
6
89. Class Representatives Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey, and Riches seek to maintai
7
claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of current and former female employees
8
including female employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels, at Dell.
9

10

90. The class consists of all current and former female employees, including femal

11 employees at the D I and C3 grade levels, who are, or have been, employed by Dell during th

12 applicable liability period. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of such employee

13 in the proposed gender class.

14

91. The Class Representatives seek to represent all of the female employees describe

15 above. The systemic gender discrimination described in this Complaint has been, and is

16
continuing in nature.
17
(2) Age Class
18
92. Class Representative Chapman and the class of Dell managers and othe
19
professional level employees over the age of 40 have been SUbjected to a systemic pattern an
20
practice of age discrimination, including selective, disparate, and disproportionate terminatio
21
during Dell's ongoing reduction in force, including mass layoffs in April 2008 and other recen
22

23 layoffs.

24

93. Dell, in effect, implements its company-wide layoffs as an opportunity to

25

Class Action Complaint - 27

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page28 of 65

1 disproportionately get rid of older employees at the Company or utilizes its termination practice

2 and procedures as to have a disparate impact on such employees.

3

94. Dell's termination/retention and layoff policies, practices and procedure

4
incorporate SUbjective judgments, procedures, and criteria which permit and encourage th

5
incorporation of age-based stereotypes and biases and fail to establish criteria that reduce 0
6
eliminate disparate impact and/or intentional biases or stereotypes.
7
95. Dell's layoff and termination/retention policies, practices, and procedures hav
8

had a disparate impact on the Class Representative and the members of the class. Suc
9

10 procedures are not valid, reasonable, job-related, or justified by business necessity.

11

96. Because of Defendant's systemic pattern and practice of age discrimination, th

12 Class Representative and the class she seeks to represent have been adversely affected and hav

13 experienced harm, including the loss of compensation, wages, backpay, bonuses, stock, an

14 employment benefits.

15

97. Dell has failed to impose adequate discipline on managers and employees wh

16
violate the Company's policies and equal employment opportunity laws and has failed to creat
17
adequate incentives for its managerial and supervisory personnel to comply with such policy an
18
such laws regarding the policies, practices, and procedures described above.
19
98. The Class Representative and the class have no plain, adequate,
20
remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only means of securin
21

adequate relief. The Class Representative and the class are now suffering, and will continue t
22

23 suffer, irreparable injury from Dell's on-going, unlawful policies, practices, and procedures

24 set forth herein unless those policies, practices, and procedures are enjoined by this Court.

25

Class Action Complaint - 28

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page29 of 65

1

99. Class Representative Chapman seeks to maintain claims on her own behalf and 0

2 behalf of former employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the D1 and C3

3 grade levels, who were laid off by the Company, as well as current and future employees ove
4
the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the D I and C3 grade levels, who are subject t
5
ongoing and future layoffs at Dell.
6
100. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of such employees III
7
proposed class.
8
101. The Class Representative seeks to represent all of the older employees describe
9
10 above. The systemic age discrimination described in this Complaint has been, and is, continuin

11 in nature.

12

B. Inapplicability ofWaivers

13

(J) Gender Class

14

102. Along with the mass layoffs in April 2008 and earlier, Dell provided to th

15 members of the gender class Separation Agreement and Release form contracts. In exchange fo

16
a class member signing the Agreement and thereby releasing all claims - including federal an
17
state employment discrimination claims - Dell agreed to provide standardized severanc
18
packages, including two weeks' pay, the employee's prorated incentive bonus payout for tim
19
already worked in Fiscal Year 2009, and a maximum of two months of outplacement services.
20
Dell provided only 14 days for an employee to return the signed agreement and did not advise 0
21
otherwise mention consultation with an attorney.
22

23

103. The terms of the Agreement expressly applied to future defamation by Del

24 against the employee and implicitly waived prospective rights under various labor an

25 employment statutes such as Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Finally, th

Class Action Complaint - 29

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page30 of 65

1 Agreement specified that the employee agreed not to "voluntarily participate in, or directly 0
2 indirectly aid or encourage any other party in connection with, any lawsuit, claim, demand, 0
3 proceeding of any kind," but on the contrary would "fully cooperate" with Dell with regard t
4
lawsuits brought by other parties.
5
104. Upon information and belief, this standard Agreement is designed to insulat
6
Dell's underlying discrimination as well as future discrimination by coercing the class member
7
into remaining silent or into following marching orders and parroting the company line. An
8
class members who signed the Agreement did not do so knowingly and voluntarily.
9
10 Furthermore, various provisions - including but not limited to the waiver of prospective rights
11 waiver of the right to file EEOC charges and initiate or participate in an EEOC investigation, an
12 potential witness tampering or subornation of peIjury - are contrary to public policy an

13 therefore void.

14

(2) Age Class

15

105. Along with the mass layoffs in April 2008 and earlier, Dell provided to th

16
members of the age class Separation Agreement and Release form contracts. In exchange fo

17
members of the age class signing the Agreement and thereby releasing all claims - includin
18
federal and state employment discrimination claims - Dell agreed to provide standardize
19
severance packages, including two weeks of severance pay, employees' prorated incentive bonu
20
payout for time already worked in Fiscal Year 2009, and a maximum of two months 0
21

22 outplacement services. Dell provided 45 days for an employee to return the signed agreement

23 well as 7 days to revoke the Agreement after signing. Dell further advised age class members t

24 consult with an attorney and specified that they did not waive any ADEA claims that might aris

25 in the future.

Class Action Complaint - 30

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page31 of 65

1

106. In addition, Dell provided the age class members with an attaclnnent including th

2 ages and job titles of some (but not all) employees both terminated and retained in the mas

3 layoffs/reduction in force. While Dell stated that all U.S. employees in its Human Resource
4
Organization were "eligible for the [termination] program," it did not mention employees i
5
other Departments in the Company. It also did not specify the eligibility factors for selection
6
merely stating in tautological fashion that the employees "whose positions are being affected
7
part of the reduction in force are selected for the program." Nor did Dell provide writte
8
information concerning the program's time limits. For these reasons as well as others, an
9
10 releases signed by class members are invalid and unenforceable under the strict requirements 0

11 29 U.S.C. § 626(f).

12

107. Furthermore, the terms of the Agreement expressly applied to future defamatio

13 by Dell against the employee and implicitly waived prospective rights under various labor an

14 employment statutes such as Title VII and the FLSA. Finally, the Agreement stipulated that th
15 employee agreed not to "voluntarily participate in, or directly or indirectly aid or encourage an
16
other party in connection with, any lawsuit, claim, demand, or proceeding of any kind," but 0
17
the contrary would "fully cooperate" with Dell with regard to lawsuits brought by other parties.
18
108. Upon information and belief, this standard Agreement is designed to insulat
19
Dell's underlying discrimination as well as future discrimination by coercing the class member
20
into remaining silent or into following marching orders and parroting the company line. An
21
22 class members who signed the Agreement did not do so knowingly and voluntarily.
23 Furthermore, various provisions - including but not limited to the waiver of prospective rights
24 waiver of the right to file EEOC charges and initiate or participate in an EEOC investigation, an

25 potential witness tampering or subornation of peIj ury - are contrary to public policy and void.

Class Action Complaint - 31

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page32 of 65

1

C. Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Common Claims

2

109. Certification of classes of female employees, including female employees at th

3 D1 and C3 grade levels, and employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at th

4
Dl and C3 grade levels, is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions 0
5
law and fact which are common to the claims of the Class Representatives and the propose
6
classes. The individual claims of the Class Representatives require resolution of the commo
7
questions of whether Dell has engaged in a systemic pattern and/or practice of gende
8
discrimination against female employees, including female employees at the D1 and C3 grad
9
10 levels, and whether Dell has engaged in a systemic pattern .and/or practice of age discrirninatio

11 against employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the Dl and C3 grad

12 levels.

13

110. Class Representatives Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches seek

14 remedies to eliminate the adverse effects of such discrimination in their own lives, careers an
15 working conditions and in the lives, careers and working conditions of the proposed clas
16
members, and to prevent continued discrimination in the future. Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins
17
Mahaffey and Riches have standing to seek such relief because of the adverse effect that suc
18
discrimination has had on them individually and on class members generally. In order to gai
19
such relief for themselves, as well as for the class members, Class Representatives Chapman
20
Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches will first establish the existence of systemic discrimination as th
21
22 premise for the relief they seek. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues woul
23 be subject to re-litigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk 0
24 inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations. Certification of the proposed classes i

25

Class Action Complaint - 32

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page33 of 65

1 the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments necessary t

2 resolve such questions for the Class Representatives, the proposed classes, and Defendant Dell.

3

III. The Class Representatives' individual and class claims are premised upon th

4
traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for disparate impact and systemic disparat

5
treatment claims of the type at issue in this case. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial i
6
the most efficient method of resolving such common issues.
7
D. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder
8
112. The members of the classes which the Class Representatives seek to represent ar
9

10 too numerous to make joinder practicable. The proposed classes each consist of thousands 0

11 current, former and future employees during the liability period. Dell's pattern and/or practice 0

12 discrimination also makes joinder impracticable by discouraging employees from applying for 0

13 pursuing equal pay, promotional, training, or transfer opportunities, thereby making i

14 impractical and inefficient to identifY many members of the classes prior to determination of th

15 merits of Dell's class-wide liability.

16
E. Common Questions of Law and Fact

17
I !3. The prosecution of the claims of the Class Representatives will reqUIre
18
adjudication of numerous questions of law and fact common to both their individual claims an
19
those of the classes they seek to represent.
20
114. The common questions of law include, inter alia:
21

22

(a) whether Dell has engaged in unlawful, systemic gender discrimination in it

compensation, selection, placement, promotion, advancement, transfer, training
23

24

discipline, and termination/retention policies, practices, and procedures, and in th

25

general terms and conditions of work and employment;

Class Action Complaint - 33

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page34 of 65

1

(b) whether Dell is liable for a continuing systemic violation of Title Vll, and/or othe

2

statutes;

3

4

(c) a determination of the proper standards for proving a pattern or practice 0

5

discrimination by Dell against its female employees, including female employees at th

6

D I and C3 grade levels;

7

8

(d) whether Dell has engaged in unlawful, systemic age discrimination in it

9

termination/retention policies, practices, and procedures and in the general terms an

10

conditions of work and employment; and

11

12

(e) a determination of the proper standards for proving a pattern and practice 0

13

discrimination by Dell against its employees over the age of 40, including employee

14

over 40 at the D I and C3 grade levels.

15

16

115. The common questions of fact include, inter alia:

17

(a) whether Dell has, through its policies, practices, and procedures, compensated femal

18

employees, including female employees at the D 1 and C3 grade levels, less th

19

similarly-situated males thr~ugh the use of salary, incentive compensation and/or othe

20

perks;

21

22

(b) whether Dell has, through its policies, practices, and procedures, precluded or del aye

23

the selection, placement and promotion of female employees, including femal

24

employees at the DI and C3 grade levels, into higher level jobs, including but not limite

25

to Director-level positions, traditionally held by male employees;

Class Action Complaint - 34

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page35 of 65

1

2

(c) whether Dell has, through its policies, practices, and procedures, disproportionatel

3

terminated female employees, including female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels,

4

during the company-wide layoffs in April 2008 and other recent layoffs; and

5

6

(d) whether Dell has, through its policies, practices, and procedures, disproportionatel

7

terminated employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the D 1 and C3

8

grade levels, during the company-wide layoffs in April 2008 and other recent layoffs.

9

These common questions of fact are naturally amenable to class-based proof.

10

116. The employment policies, practices, and procedures to which

11 Representatives and the class members are sUbjected are set at Dell's corporate level at its Roun

12 Rock, TX headquarters and apply universally to all class members. These employment policies
13
practices and procedures are not unique or limited to any department; rather, they apply to al
14
departments and, thus, affect the Class Representatives and class members in the same ways n
15
matter the facility, department, or position in which they work.
16
117. Throughout the liability period, a disproportionately large percentage of th
17
executives, senior executives and officers at Dell have been male.
18

19

118. Discrimination in selection, placement, promotion; and advancement occurs as

20 pattern and practice throughout all departments of Dell. Selection, placement, promotion, an

21 advancement opportunities are driven by personal familiarity, sUbjective decision-making, pre

22 selection, and interaction between male executives and subordinates rather than by merit 0 23 equality of opportunity. As a result, male employees have advanced and continue to advanc 24 more rapidly to better and higher-paying jobs than do female employees. Dell's policies
25
practices, and procedures have had an adverse impact on female employees, including femal

. Class Action Complaint - 35

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page36 of 65

1 employees at the D I and C3 grade levels, seeking selection for, or advancement to, better an

2 higher-paying positions. In general, the higher the level of the job classification, the lower th
3 percentage of female employees holding it.
4
119. Furthermore, discrimination within Dell's April 2008 mass layoffs and othe
5
recent layoffs occurred as a pattern and practice throughout the manager level of all department
6
of Dell. Selection of employees to be terminated was driven by personal familiarity, subjectiv
7
decision-making, pre-selection and interaction between executives and subordinates rather th
8
by merit or equality of opportunity. In addition, the layoffs were used to target femal
9
10 employees and older employees, including these employees at the DI and C3 grade levels, wh
11 were disproportionately terminated while equivalent male employees and younger employee

12 were retained.

13

F. Typicality of Claims And Relief Sought

14

(1) Gender Class

15

120. The claims of Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches are typical 0

16
the claims of the gender class. The relief sought by the Class Representatives for discriminatio

17
complained of herein is also typical of the relief which is sought on behalf of the class.
18
121. Like the members of the gender class, the Class Representatives are female Dl
19
and C3 level employees who have worked at Dell during the liability period.
20
122. Discrimination in selection, placement, promotion, advancement, training, an
21

termination/retention affects the compensation of the Class Representatives and all the employe
22

23 class members in the same or similar ways.

24

123. Dell has failed to create adequate incentives for its executives and managers t

25 comply with its own policies and equal employment opportunity laws regarding each of th

Class Action Complaint - 36

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page37 of 65

1 policies, practices, and procedures referenced in this Complaint, and has failed to disciplin

2 adequately its executives, managers, and other employees when they violate Company policy 0

3 discrimination laws. These failures have affected· the Class Representatives and the clas

4
members in the same or similar ways.
5
124. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the Class Representatives is exactl
6
the same as that necessary to remedy the claims of the class members in this case. The Clas
7
Representatives seek the following relieffor their individual claims and for those of the member
8
ofthe proposed class:
9

10

(a) a declaratory judgment that Dell has engaged in systemic gender discriminatio

11

against female managers and senior professionals by (1) paying female employees,

12

including female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels, less than their mal

13

counterparts, (2) segregating female employees, including female employees at the D 1

14

and C3 grade levels, into lower-paying grade levels than their male counterparts, (3

15

denying female employees, including female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels,

16
promotions into better and higher-paying positions, and (4) disproportionatel
17
terminating them during layoffs while retaining comparable male employees or otherwis
18
giving similarly situated males preferential treatment;
19
(b) a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory conduct;
20
(c) injunctive relief which effects a restructuring of Dell's placement, promotion, transfer
21
training, performance evaluation, compensation, discipline, and terminationlretentio
22

23

policies, practices, and procedures - so that female managers and professionals will b

24

able to compete fairly in the future for promotions, transfers, and assigrunents to bette

25

Class Action Complaint - 37

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page38 of 65

1

and higher-paying classifications with tenus and conditions of employment traditionall

2

enjoyed by male employees, as well as for retention during layoffs;

3

(d) backpay, front pay, and other equitable remedies necessary to make the femal

4
employees, including female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels, whole from th

5
Defendant's past discrinlination;
6
(f) punitive and nominal damages to prevent and deter Dell from engaging in simil
7
discriminatory practices in the future;
8

(g) compensatory damages; and
9

10

(h) attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

11

(2) Age Class

12

125. The claim of Plaintiff Chapman is typical ofthe claims of the age class. The relie

13 sought by the Class Representative for age discrimination complained of herein is also typical 0

14 the relief which is sought on behalf of the class.

15

126. Like the members of the age class, Class Representative Chapman is an employe

16
over the age of 40 who worked at Dell during the liability period and was tenuinated in Dell'

17
ongoing series oflayoffs.
18.
127. Discrimination in tenuinationlretention affects the compensation
19
afforded to the Class Representative and all the employee class members in the same or simil
20
ways.
21

128. Dell has failed to create adequate incentives for its executives and managers t
22

23 comply with its own policies and equal employment opportunity laws regarding the policies

24 practices, and procedures referenced in this Complaint, and has failed to discipline adequately it

25 executives, managers and other employees when they violate Company policy or discriminatio

Class Action Complaint - 38

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page39 of 65

1 laws. These failures have affected the Class Representative and the class members in the sam

2 or similar ways.

3

129. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the Class Representative is exact!

4
the same as that necessary to remedy the claims of the class members in this case. The Clas
5
Representative seeks the following relief for her individual claims and for those of the member
6
of the proposed class:
7
(a) a declaratory judgment that Dell has engaged in systemic age discrimination agains
8
managers and senior professionals over age 40 by disproportionately terminating them i
9

10

the April 2008 layoffs and other recent layoffs;

11

(b) a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory conduct;

12

(c) injunctive relief which effects a restructuring of Dell's termination policies, practices

13

and procedures - so that older managers and professionals will be able to compete fair!

14

in the future for retaining their positions during layoffs;

15

(d) backpay, front pay, and other equitable remedies necessary to make the clas

16
members whole from the Defendant's past discrimination;

17
(f) punitive and nominal damages to prevent and deter Dell from engaging in simil
18
discriminatory practices in the future;
19
(g) compensatory damages; and
20
(h) attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
21

22

G. Adequacy of Representation

23

130. The Class Representatives' interests are co-extensive with those of the member

24 of the proposed classes which they seek to represent in this case. The Class Representatives see

25 to remedy Dell's discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures so that clas

Class Action Complaint - 39

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page40 of 65

1 members will no longer be prevented from advancing into higher paying and more desirabl
2 positions and subject to disparate and disproportional termination. Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins
3 Mahaffey and Riches are willing and able to represent the proposed classes fairly and vigorousl
4
as they pursue their individual claims.
5
131. The Class Representatives have retained counsel who are qualified, experienced
6
and able to conduct this litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate
7
employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The combined interests
8
experience, and resources of Class Representatives' counsel to litigate competently th
9
10 individual and class claims at issue in this case clearly satisfy the adequacy of representatio
11 requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

12

H. Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)

13

132. Dell has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class Representatives an

14 the classes by adopting and following systemic policies, practices, and procedures which ar

15 discriminatory. Gender and age discrimination is Dell's standard operating procedure rather th

16
a sporadic occurrence. Dell has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the classes by,
17
inter alia:
18
(a) failing to pay, compensate, place, promote, and retain female employees, includin
19
female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels, on par with similarly-situated mal
20
employees;
21

22

(b) refusing to adopt and apply selection, placement, promotion, training, perfonnanc

23

evaluation, compensation, discipline, and tenninationlretention policies, practices, an

24

procedures which do not have a disparate impact on, or otherwise systemicall

25

Class Action Complaint - 40

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page41 of 65

1

discriminate against female employees, including female employees at the D I and C3

2

grade levels;

3

(c) refusing to provide equal terms and conditions of employment for female employees,

4
including female employees at the D 1 and C3 grade levels;
5
(d) failing to retain employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the D1
6
and C3 grade levels, on par with similarly-situated younger employees;
7
(e) refusing to adopt and apply selection and termination/retention policies, practices, an
8
procedures that do not have a disparate impact on, or otherwise systemically discriminat
9

10

against employees over the age of 40, including employees over 40 at the Dl and C3

11

grade levels,; and

12

(f) refusing to provide equal terms and conditions of employment for employees over th

13

age of 40, including employees age 40 at the D I and C3 grade levels. Dell's systemi

14

discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are not discriminatory have mad

15

appropriate the requested final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the classe

16
as a whole.
17
133. Injunctive and declaratory relief are the predominant modes of relief sought i
1.8
this case because they are the culmination of the proof of Dell's individual and class-wid
19
liability at the end of Stage I of a bifurcated trial and the essential predicate for the Clas
20
Representatives' and class members' entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies a
21

Stage II of such triaL Declaratory and injunctive relief flow directly and automatically fro
22

23 proof of the common questions of law and fact regarding the existence of systemic gende

24 discrimination against female employees and systemic age discrimination against employee

25 over 40 at Dell. Such relief is the factual and legal predicate for the Class Representatives' an

Class Action Complaint - 41

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page42 of 65

1 class members' entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies for individual losses cause

2 by such systematic discrimination.

3

I. Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

4
134. The common issues of fact and law affecting the claims of the Clas

5
Representatives and proposed class members, including, but not limited to, the common issue
6
previously identified herein, predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims.
7
These issues include whether Dell has engaged in gender discrimination against femal
8

employees, including female employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels, by denying them equa
9

10 pay, placement, promotion, advancement, and retention opportunities and whether Dell h

11 tolerated a culture of gender discrimination directed against such employees. These issue

12 further include whether Dell has engaged in age discrimination against employees over the ag

13 of 40, including older employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels, by denying them equa

14 opportunities to retain their positions during layoffs, and whether Dell has tolerated a culture 0

15 age discrimination against such employees.
16
135. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficien
17
adjudication ofthe claims ofthe Class Representatives and members of the proposed classes.
18
136. The cost of proving Dell's pattern and practice of discrimination makes 1
19
impracticable for the Class Representatives and members of the proposed classes to prosecut
20
their claims individually.
21
22 VII. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS (EOUAL PAY ACT)

23

137. Named Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, MalIaffey and Riches incorporate b

24 reference the allegations from the previous paragraphs of this Complaint alleging class-base

25 discrimination against female employees.

Class Action Complaint - 42

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page43 of 65

1

A. Collective Action Standards

2

138. Named Plaintiffs bring collective violations of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") as

3 collective action pursuant to Section l6(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
4
§ 2l6(b) on behalf of all members of the gender class - e.g. current, former, and future femal
5
employees, including female employees at the D1 and C3 grade levels, during the liabilit
6
period. The EPA action includes female employees who (a) were not compensated equally t
7
males who had substantially similar job classifications, functions, families, titles and/or duties
8
(b) were not compensated equally to males who performed substantially similar work, and (c
9
10 who were denied equal compensation with similarly situated males by being hired into position

11 at lesser grades than male employees who performed substantially similar work.

12

139. Questions of law and fact common to the EPA Collective Action Plaintiffs as

13 whole include but are not limited to the following:

14

(a) Whether Defendant unlawfully failed and continues to fail to compensate femal

15

professionals and managers at a level commensurate with similarly situated mal

16

employees;

17
(b) Whether Defendant unlawfully failed and continues to fail to hire femal
18
professionals and managers into positions graded at an equal pay and compensatio
19
scale to similarly qualified males;
20

21

(c) Whether Defendant unlawfully failed and continues to fail to promote and advanc

22

female professionals and managers in a fashion commensurate with similarl

23

qualified males;

24
(d) Whether Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate femal
25
employees, including female employees at the D 1 and C3 grade levels, on a p

Class Action Complaint - 43

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page44 of 65

1

with comparable male employees as a result of (a), (b), and (c) violates applicabl

2

provisions ofthe EPA; and

3
(e) Whether Defendant's failure to compensate female employees, including femal
4
employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels, on a par with comparable male employee
5
as a result of (a), (b), and (c) was willful within the meaning of the EPA;
6

7

140. Counts for violation of the EPA may be brought and maintained as an "opt-in'

8 collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for all clainls asserted by the EPA Collectiv

9 Action Plaintiffs because the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are similar to the claims of the EP

10
Collective Action Plaintiffs.

11

141.

Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches and the EP

12
Collective Action Plaintiffs (a) are similarly situated; (b) have substantially similar jo
13
classifications, functions, families, titles and/or duties; and
14

common policy and practice of gender discrimination in (i) failing to compensate femal
15

professionals and managers on par with men who perform substantially equal work and/or hoI
16

17 equivalent levels and positions; (ii) failing to provide female professionals and managers wi

18 job classifications, grades and titles commensurate with male employees who perfo

19 substantially equal work and/or have similar duties and responsibilities; (iii) hiring females int

20 lower-level positions than males who perform substantially equal work and/or have similar 0
21 lesser experience and qualifications; and (iv) failing to provide female professionals an 22 managers equal pay by denying opportunities for promotion and advancement
23
comparable to those afforded to males who perform substantially equal work.
24

25

. Class Action Complaint - 44

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page45 of 65

1 VIII. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS (AGE DISCRIMINATION)

2

A. General Allegations and Invalidity of Waivers

3

142. Named Plaintiff Chapman incorporates by reference the previous allegations 0

4 this Complaint alleging discrimination against employees over the age of 40, includin
5
employees over 40 at the D 1 and C3 grade levels.
6
B. Collective Action Standards
7
143. Named Plaintiff brings collective violations of the Age Discrimination i
8
employment Act ("ADEA") as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 2
9
U.S.C. § 216(b), incorporated by reference, on behalf of all members of the age class. Th
10
11 ADEA action includes current, former and future employees over the age of 40, includin

12 employees over 40 at the D1 and C3 grade levels, during the liability period who were either (a

13 terminated in Dell's recent series of layoffs or (b) are subject to termination in Dell's ongoin

14 layoffs.

15

144. Questions oflaw and fact common to the ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs as

16 whole include but are not limited to the following:

17
(a) Whether Defendant unlawfully discriminated and continues to unlawfull

18
discriminate against older professionals and managers over the age of 40 durin
19
layoffs;
20

21

(b) Whether Defendant's policy and practice of selectively, disparately, and/o

22

disproportionately terminating older professionals and managers over the age 0

23

40 violates applicable provisions of the ADEA; and

24
c) Whether Defendant's selective, disparate, and/or disproportional termination 0

25

employees over the age of 40 was willful within the meaning of the ADEA.

Class Action Complaint - 45

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page46 of 65

1

145. Counts for violation of the ADEA may be brought and maintained as an "opt-in'

2 collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for all claims asserted by the ADEA Collectiv

3 Action Plaintiffs because the claims of the Named Plaintiff are similar to the claims of th

4
ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs.
5
146. Plaintiff Chapman and the ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs (a) are similarl
6
situated; (b) have substantially similar grades and titles; and (c) are subject to Defendant'
7
common policy and practice of age discrimination in targeting or disproportionately terminatin
8
older employees over the age of 40 during company-wide layoffs.
9

10

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COUNTS

11

COUNT I

12

(INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION CLAIMS)

13

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,

14

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.,

15
147. Class Representatives Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches·
16
17 incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragrap

18 as if fully set forth herein, including the allegations that any waivers signed by members of th

19 proposed class are ineffective.

20

148. This Count is brought on behalf of the Class Representatives and all members 0

the gender class.

22

149. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and all members 0

23
the Class in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., a
24
amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), by subjecting them to different treatmen
25

Class Action Complaint - 46

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page47 of 65

1 on the basis of their gender. The members of the Class have suffered both disparate impact an

2 disparate treatment as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct.

3

150. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and all members 0

4
the Class by treating them differently from and less preferably than similarly-situated mal
5
employees and by subjecting them to discriminatory compensation, discriminatory placement
6
discriminatory denials of promotions, discriminatory denials of pay raises, discriminatory an
7
selective termination and other forms of discrimination, in violation of Title VII.
8
151. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles
9

10 and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of the Class Representatives and the members 0

11 the proposed Class, entitling the Class Representatives and the members of the Class to punitiv

12 damages.

13

152. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, whic

14 persisted throughout the employment of the Class Representatives and the members of the Class

15 the Class Representative and the members of the Class are entitled to application of th

16
continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein.

17
153. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged III this complaint, the Clas
18
Representatives and the members of the Class have suffered and continue to suffer harm
19
including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well a
20

humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish.
21

22

154. Defendant's policies, practices and/or procedures have produced a disparat

23 impact on the Class Representatives and the class members with respect to their terms an

24 conditions of employment.

25

Class Action Complaint - 47

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page48 of 65

1

155. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, the Class Representatives and member

2 of the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII,

3 including an award of punitive damages.

4
156. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

5
COUNT II

6
(INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS)

7
DENIAL OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK BASED ON SEX

8

IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938,

AS AMENDED BY THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 - 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, et seq.

9

157. Named Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches re-allege an
10

incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of thi
11

12 Complaint as though fully set forth herein, including the allegations that any waivers signed b

13 collective plaintiffs are ineffective.

14

158. Defendant, an employer of the Named Plaintiffs and the EPA Collective Actio

15 Plaintiffs within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act, has discriminated against the Name

16 Plaintiffs and EPA Collective Action Plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 0
17 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, et seq., as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), b
18
subjecting them to unequal pay on the basis of sex.
19
159. Defendant has discriminated against the Named Plaintiffs and EPA Collectiv
20
Action Plaintiffs by treating them differently from and less preferably than similarly-situate
21
male employees who performed jobs which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, an
22
which were performed under similar working conditions. Defendant so discriminated b
23
24 sUbjecting them to discriminatory pay, discriminatory denials of bonuses and other compensatio
25 incentives, lower paying job classifications, and other forms of discrimination in violation of th
Equal Pay Act.

Class Action Complaint - 48

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page49 of 65

1

160. Defendant caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuatio

2 of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex in violation' of the Equal Pay Act. Moreover,

3 Defendant knew of or showed reckless disregard for the fact that its conduct was in violation 0
4
the Equal Pay Act.
5
161. Dell's discriminatory acts were accomplished in large part through its Vic
6
President of Global HR Operations, Dominick DiCosimo, a male Officer and agent of Dell who

upon information and belief, was not only directly aware of the substantial inequity .
8
compensation and benefits between similarly situated male and female professionals an
9
10 managers but is knowledgeable about the laws regarding equal pay.
11 DiCosimo reported to Dell's senior management, including CEO Michael
12 Company's Senior VP in charge of Human Resources, Andrew Esparza.

13

162. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint and/or Defendant'

14 willful, knowing and intentional discrimination, the Named Plaintiffs and EPA Collective Actio

15 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to los

16
earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotiona

17
and physical distress, and mental anguish.
18
163. The Named Plaintiffs and EPA Collective Action Plaintiffs are therefore entitle
19
to all legal and equitable remedies, including doubled compensatory awards for all willfu
20

violations.
21

22

164. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, et seq.

23

24

25

Class Action Complaint - 49

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page50 of 65

1

COUNT III

2

(INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS)

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN TERMINATIONS

3

IN VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

(" ADEA"),

4

29 U.S.c. §§ 621, et seq.

5
165. Named Plaintiff Chapman re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and eve

6
allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein
7
including the allegations that any waivers signed by collective plaintiffs are ineffective.
8
166. This Count is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Chapman and the ADE
9
Collective Action Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Chapman and all ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs wer
10

11 40 years of age or over at the time of the events giving rise to their claims.

12

167. Defendant has discriminated against Named Plaintiff Chapman and the ADE

13 Collective Action Plaintiffs in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 2

14 u.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), by subjecting them to different treatment on the basis of the·

15 age. The ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs have suffered both disparate impact and disparat
16 treatment as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct.
17
168. Defendant has discriminated against Named Plaintiff Chapman and the ADE
18
Collective Action Plaintiffs by treating them differently from and. less preferably than similarly
19
situated younger employees and by subj ecting them to discriminatory and selective terminatio
20
and other forms of discrimination, in violation of the ADEA.
21
169. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles
22
23 and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Named Plaintiff Chapman and the ADE
24 Collective Action Plaintiffs, entitling Named Plaintiff Chapman and the ADEA Collectiv
25 Action Plaintiffs to punitive damages.

Class Action Complaint - 50

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page51 of 65

1

170. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this complaint, Named Plaintiff an

2 the ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including bu

3 not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as humiliation

4
embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and mental anguish.

5
171. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Named Plaintiff Chapm
6
and the ADEA Collective Action Plaintiffs are entitled to all legal and equitable remedie
7
available for violations of the ADEA, including liquidated damages.
8
172. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b)
9

10

INDIVIDUAL COUNTS-PLAINTIFF CHAPMAN

11

COUNT IV

12

RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

13

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

14

173. Plaintiff Chapman re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every

15 allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

16

174. Plaintiff Chapman regularly complained to the Company regarding gender

17
discrimination at Dell as it related to Dell's failure to promote her on an equal basis wit
18
similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant maliciously manipulated her performanc
19
review for 2007, thereby denying her a Long Term Incentive Award of approximately $179,00
20
and ensuring that she would be a target for the upcoming layoff. Furthermore, Defendan
21

terminated Ms. Chapman's employment during the April 2008 mass layoffs while retaining les

23 qualified men. Upon information and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complaine 24 about unlawful gender discrimination were similarly retaliated against by the Company.

25

Class Action Complaint - 51

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page52 of 65

1

175. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

2 and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Chapman, entitling her to punitiv

3 damages.
4
176. Because of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Chapman h
5
suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
6
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress
7
and mental anguish.
8
177. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Chapman is
9
10 entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including

11 award of punitive damages.

12

178. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).

13

COUNT V

14

RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT,

15

29 U.S.C. § 21S(a)(3)

16
179. Plaintiff Chapman re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and

17
every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
18
180. Plaintiff Chapman regularly complained to the Company regarding
19
gender discrimination at Dell as it related to Dell's failure to promote her on an equal basis wi
20
similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant maliciously manipulated her performanc
21

review for 2007, thereby denying her a Long Term Incentive Award and ensuring that she woul
22

23 be a target for the upcoming layoff. Furthermore, Defendant temrinated Ms. Chapman'

24 employment during the April 2008 mass layoffs while retaining less qualified men. Upo

25

Class Action Complaint - 52

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page53 of 65

1 information and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complained about unlawful gende

2 discrimination were similarly retaliated against.

3

181. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

4
reckless and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Chapman, entitling her t
5
punitive damages.
6
182. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Chapm
7
has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress
9

10 and mental anguish. Because of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Chapman i

11 entitled to all legal and equitable remedies including doubled compensatory awards for all willfu

12 violations.

13

183. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. § 216, et seq.

14

COUNT VI

15

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENTIBREACH OF CONTRACT/

16

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

17
184. Plaintiff Chapman re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and eve

18
allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
19
185. Defendant induced Plaintiff Chapman to accept a position at Dell and to relocat
20
from Houston to Austin by falsely or fraudulently promising or misrepresenting iliat her positio
21
would be secure, iliat she would be protected from any layoffs, and iliat she would be promote
22

to the Director level within 12 to 18 monilis.
23

24

186. In reliance, Plaintiff Chapman sold her home in Houston and purchased a home i

25 Austin and incurred substantial moving expenses. Furthermore, she and her husband forfeite

Class Action Complaint - 53

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page54 of 65

1 other employment opportunities. As a result, Plaintiff Chapman and her husband have sustaine

2 significant financial losses.

3

187. Defendant breached said promises and representations by failing to promote Ms

4
Chapman to Director and by terminating her in the April 2008 layoffs (while retaining similarl
5
situated males and younger employees).
6
188. Plaintiff Chapman is therefore entitled to aU legal and equitable remedies, as wei
7
as punitive damages.
8
INDIVIDUAL COUNTS-PLAINTIFF HOPKINS
9

10

COUNT VII

11

RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

12

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

13
189. Plaintiff Hopkins re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
14
allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
15
190. Plaintiff Hopkins regularly complained to the Company regarding gend
16
discrimination at Dell and the failure to pay and promote women, including herself, on an equa
17
basis with similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant maliciously manipulated he
18
performance review for 2007, thereby reducing her bonus and denying her a Long Te
19
20 Incentive Award and ensuring that she would be a target for the upcoming layoff. Furthermore
21 Defendant terminated her employment during the April 2008 mass layoffs while retaining les
22 qualified men. Upon information and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complaine

23 about unlawful gender discrimination were similarly retaliated against by the Company.

24

25

Class Action Complaint - 54

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page55 of 65

1

191. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

2 and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Hopkins, entitling her to punitiv

3 damages.
4
192. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Hopkin
5
has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
6
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress,
7
and mental anguish.
B
193. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Hopkins is entitle
9
10 to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including an award 0

11 punitive damages.

12

194. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).

13

COUNT VIII

14

RETALIATION

15

IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT,

29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)
16

17

195. Plaintiff Hopkins re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and eve

18
allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
19
196. Plaintiff Hopkins regularly complained to the Company regarding gende
20
discrimination at Dell and the failure to pay and promote women, including herself, on an equa
21
basis with similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant maliciously manipulated he
22
performance review for 2007, thereby reducing her bonus and denying her a Long Te
23

24 Incentive Award and ensuring that she would be a target for the upcoming layoff. Furthermore

25 Defendant terminated her employment during the April 2008 mass layoffs while retaining les

Class Actio~ Complaint - 55

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page56 of 65

1 qualified men. Upon information and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complaine

2 about unlawful gender discrimination were similarly retaliated against.

3

197. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

4
and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Hopkins, entitling her to punitiv
5
damages.
6
198. Because of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Hopkins h
7
suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress,
9
10 and mental anguish.

11

199. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Hopkins is entitle

12 to all legal and equitable remedies including doubled compensatory awards for all willfu

13 violations.

14

200. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, et seq.

15

INDIVIDUAL COUNTS-PLAINTIFF MAHAFFEY

16

COUNT IX

17

RETALIATION

18

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a)

19

20

201. Plaintiff Mahaffey re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and eve

21 allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

22

202. Plaintiff Mahaffey regularly complained to the Company regarding gende

23 discrimination at Dell and the failure to pay and promote women, including herself, on an equa 24 basis with similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant took adverse employment action
25
against Ms. Mahaffey, including failing to provide her equal payor promote her. Upo

Class Action Complaint - 56

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page57 of 65

1 information and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complained about unlawful gende

2 discrimination were similarly retaliated against by the Company.

3

203. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

4
and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Riches, entitling her to punitiv
5
damages.
6
204. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Mahaffe
7
has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress,
9

10 and mental anguish.

11

205. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Mahaffey is entitle

12 to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including an award 0

13 punitive damages.

14

206. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).

15

COUNT X

16
RETALIATION

17

IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT,

29 U.S.c. § 21S(a)(3)

18
196. Plaintiff Mahaffey re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and eve

19

allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
20

197. Plaintiff Mahaffey regularly complained to the Company regarding gende
21

discrimination at Dell and the failure to pay women, including herself, on an equal basis wi
22

23 similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Ms.

24 Mahaffey, including failing to provide her equal payor promote her. Upon information an

25

Class Action Complaint - 57

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page58 of 65

1 belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complained about unlawful gender discriminatio

2 were retaliated against by the Company.

3

198. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

4
and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Mallaffey, entitling her to punitiv

5
damages.
6
199. Because of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Mallaffey ha
7
suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8

and oilier financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress,
9

10 and mental anguish.

11

200. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Mallaffey is entitle

12 to all legal and equitable remedies including doubled compensatory awards for all willfu

13 violations.

14

201. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, et seq.

15

INDIVIDUAL COUNTS-PLAINTIFF RICHES

16

COUNT XI

17

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII,

18

42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) - RETALIATION

19

202. Plaintiff Riches re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every

20 allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

21

203. Plaintiff Riches regularly complained to ilie Company regarding gender

22 discrimination at Dell and ilie failure to pay and promote women, including herself, on an equa

23 basis wiili similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant took adverse employment action 24 against Ms. Riches, including failing to provide her equal payor promote her. Upon inforrnatio
25

Class Action Complaint - 58

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page59 of 65

1 and belief, other women at Dell who opposed or complained about unlawful gende

2 discrimination were similarly retaliated against by tbe Company.

3

204.Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

4
reckless and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Riches, entitling her t

5
punitive damages.
6
211. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Riches h
7
suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8
and otber financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress
9

10 and mental anguish.

11

212. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Riches is entitled t

12 all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII, including an award 0

13 punitive damages.

14

213. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k).

15

16

COUNT XII

17

VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT.

29 U.S.C. § 21S(a)(3)-RETALIATION

18
214. Plaintiff Riches re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
19
allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
20

215. Plaintiff Riches regularly complained to tbe Company regarding gende
21

discrimination at Dell and tbe failure to pay women, including herself, on an equal basis wit
22

23 similarly situated men. In retaliation, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Ms.

24 Riches, including failing to provide her equal payor promote her. Upon information and belief,

25

Class Action Complaint - 59

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page60 of 65

1 other women at Dell who opposed or complained about unlawful gender discrimination wer

2 similarly retaliated against by the Company.

3

216. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, reckles

4
and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Riches, entitling her to punitiv
5
damages.
6
217. Because of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff Riches ha
7
suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits
8
and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress
9

10 and mental anguish.

11

218. By reason of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff Riches is entitled t

12 all legal and equitable remedies including doubled compensatory awards for all willfu

13 violations.

14

219. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, et seq.

15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, on their own behalf

17
and on behalf of the class members and collective action plaintiffs, pray that this Court:
18
A. Certify the case as a class action maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2
19
and/or (b)(3), on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff classes (the gender class under Title VII and th
20
age class under Texas law), and designate Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches a
21

22 the representatives of the gender class and Ms. Chapman as representative of the age class an

23 their counsel of record as class counsel;

24

B. Designate this action as a collective action on behalf of the proposed EPA

25 Collective Plaintiffs (asserting EPA claims) and

Class Action Complaint - 60

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page61 of 65

1

(i) promptly issuing notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2l6(b) to all similarl

2

situated members of the EPA Opt-In Class, which (a) apprises them of th

3

pendency of this action, and (b) permits them to assert timely EPA claims i

4
this action by filing individual Consent to Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
5
§2l6(b); and
6
(ii) tolling the statute of limitations on the claims of all members of th
7
FLSA Opt-In Class from the date the original complaint was filed until th
8
Class members are provided with reasonable notice of the pendency of thi
9

10

action and a fair opportunity to exercise their right to opt-in as Plaintiffs;

11

C. Designate Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches as representative

12 ofthe EPA Collective Action;

13

D. Designate this action as a collective action on behalf of the proposed ADE

14 Collective Plaintiffs (asserting ADEA claims) and

15

(i) promptly issuing notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2l6(b) to all similarl

16
situated members of the ADEA Opt-In Class, which (a) apprises them of th

17
pendency of this action, and (b) permits them to assert timely ADEA claims i
18
this action by filing individual Consent to Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C
19
§2l6(b); and
20
(ii) tolling the statute of limitations on the claims of all members of th
21

ADEA Opt-In Class from the date the original complaint was filed until th
22

23

Class members are provided with reasonable notice of the pendency of thi

24

action and a fair opportunity to exercise their right to opt-in as Plaintiffs;

25

E. Designate Plaintiff Chapman as representative of the ADEA Collective Action;

Class Action Complaint - 61

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page62 of 65

1

F. Declare and adjudge that Defendant Dell's employment policies, practices and/o

2 procedures challenged herein are illegal and in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs Chapman

3 Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, class members, and collective action plaintiffs under Title VII
4
the EPA, and the ADEA,
5
G. Issue a permanent injunction against Dell and its partners, officers, trustees
6
owners, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, representatives and any and al
7
persons acting in concert with them from engaging in any conduct violating the rights 0
8
Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, class members, and collective actio
9
10 plaintiffs and those similarly situated as secured by Title VII, the EPA, and the ADEA and orde

11 such injunctive relief as will prevent Dell from continuing its discriminatory practices an

12 protect others similarly situated;

13

H. Issue a permanent injunction against Dell and its partners, officers, trustees

14 owners, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, aSSIgns, representatives and any and al
15 persons acting in concert with them from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies,
16
customs, usages, gender discrimination, age discrimination, or retaliation by Dell as set fort
17
herein;
18
I. Order Dell to initiate and implement programs that will: (i) provide equa
19
employment opportunities for the class members and collective action plaintiffs; (ii) remedy th
20
effects of its past and present unlawful employment policies, practices and/or procedures; an
21
(iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory and retaliatory practices describe
22
23 above;

24

25

Class Action Complaint - 62

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page63 of 65

1

J. Order Dell to initiate and implement systems of assigning, training, transferring

2 compensating, promoting, and terminating and retaining female employees, including femal

3 employees at the Dl and C3 grade levels in a non-discriminatory manner;
4
K. Order Dell to establish a task force on equality and fairness to determine th
5
effectiveness of the programs described in G through J above, which would provide for: (i
6
monitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment opportunity; (ii
7
the assurance that injunctive relief is properly implemented; and (iii) a quarterly report settin
8
forth information relevant to the determination ofthe effectiveness ofthe programs described in
9
10 through J above;

11

L. Order Dell to place or restore Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches

12 the class members, and the collective action plaintiffs into those jobs they would now b

13 occupying but for its discriminatory policies, practices andlor procedures;

14

M. Order Dell to adjust the wage rates and benefits for Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins

15 Mahaffey and Riches, the members of the gender class, and the EPA Collective Action Plaintiff:

16
to the level that they would be enjoying but for its discriminatory policies, practices andlo

17
procedures;
18
N. Order that this Court retain jurisdiction of this action until such time as the Co
19
is satisfied that Dell has remedied the practices complained of herein and are determined to be i
20
full compliance with the law;
21

22

O. Award nominal, compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages to Plaintiff:

23 Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, the class members, and the collective action plaintiff:

24 in excess of$500,000,000 (five hundred million dollars);

25

Class Action Complaint - 63

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page64 of 65

1

P. Award litigation costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonabl

2 attorneys' fees, to Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, the class members, an

3 the collective action plaintiffs;
4
Q. Award back pay, front pay, lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs and othe
5
damages for lost compensation and job benefits with pre-judgment and post-judgment interes
6
suffered by Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches, the class members, and th
7
collective action plaintiffs to be determined at trial;
8
R. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey an
9
10 Riches, the class members, and the collective action plaintiffs by providing them wi

11 appropriate lost earnings and benefits, and other affirmative relief;

12

s. Award any other appropriate equitable relief to Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins

13 Mahaffey and Riches, the class members, and the collective action plaintiffs; and

14

T. Award any additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

15

16

!II

17

III

18

!II

19

III

20

III

21

III

22
III
23
III
24
III
25
III

Class Action Complaint - 64

Case3:08-cv-04945-MHP Document1 Filed10/29/08 Page65 of 65

1

JURY DEMAND

2

Plaintiffs Chapman, Hopkins, Mahaffey and Riches demand a trial by jury on all issue

3
triable of right by jury.
4
Dated: October 29, 2008
5

Respectfully submitted,

6

7

By: TT~ho~m~as~M~M~c~L~i~tt~~~~~~---

8

(CA BM No. 119985)

120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600

9

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 421-4770

10

Facsimile: (415) 421-4784

11
Steven L. Wittels (NY BMNo. SLW-81l0)

12

Jeremy Heisler (NY BM No. JH-0145)

Janette Wipper (D.C. BM No. 467313)

13

SANFORDWITTELS, & HEISLER, LLP

950 Third Ave., 10th Floor

14

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (646) 723-2947

15

Facsimile: (646) 723-2948

swittels@nydclaw.com

16

(pending Pro Hac Vice Admission)

17

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class

18

David W. Sanford (D.C. BM No. 457933)

Stefanie F. Roemer (D.C. BM No. 464450)

19

Katherine Kimpel (WI BM No.1 064593)

SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP

20

1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 310

Washington, D.C. 20009

21

Telephone: (202) 742-7777

Facsimile: (202) 742-7776

22

dsanford@nydclaw.com

(pending Pro Hac Vice Admission)
23

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class
24

25

Class Action Complaint - 65

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 1 of 10
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00311−JRN

CLOSED

Chapman et al v. Dell, Inc. Assigned to: Judge James R. Nowlin Case in other court: Northern District of California − San
Francisco, 3:08cv04945−MHP Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/22/2009 Date Terminated: 07/13/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mildred J. Chapman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones Gillespie, Rozen, Watsky &Jones, PC 3402 Oak Grove Avenue − Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75204 214/720−2009 Fax: 214/720−2291 Email: jaj@grwlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Email: swittels@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad Deats, Durst, Owen, &Levy, P.L.L.C. 1204 San Antonio St., Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 (512)474−6200 Fax: (512)474−7896 Email: cbn@ddollaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Angela Hopkins on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 2 of 10

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bethany Riches on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Julia M. Mahaffey on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad (See above for address)

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 3 of 10

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christy Doshi

represented by Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tanya Putnam

represented by Christa J. Boyd−Nafstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cassandra Sims

represented by James Alton Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Dell, Inc. formerly known as Dell Computer Corporation

represented by Anne E. Martinez Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103−2921 (215) 963−5718 Fax: (215) 963−5001 Email: aemartinez@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittan L. Buchanan Van Osselaer &Buchanan, LLP 9600 Great Hills Trail Suite 300 West

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 4 of 10

Austin, TX 78759 (512) 225−2822 Fax: (512) 225−2801 Email: bbuchanan@vbllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Scott Boulette Boulette &Golden L.L.P. 2801 Via Fortuna Suite 530 Austin, TX 78746 (512) 732−8901 Fax: (512) 732−8905 Email: jason@boulettegolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Burkhardt Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103−2921 (215) 963−5130 Fax: (215) 963−5001 Email: mburkhardt@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca Dianne Eisen Morgan Lewis &Bockius, LLP One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Jill Hubley

represented by Geoffrey D. Weisbart Weisbart Springer Hayes, LLP 212 Lavaca Street Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 (512)652−5780 Fax: (512)682−2074 Email: gweisbart@wshllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Lane Scarborough Hance Scarborough LLP 111 Congress Avenue Suite 500 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 487−4006 Fax: (512) 482−6891 Email: tscarborough@hslawmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tonia Lea Lucio Richards Rodriguez &Skeith 816 Congress Avenue Suite 1200 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 476−0005

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 5 of 10

Fax: 512−476−1513 Email: tlucio@rrsfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Laura Guenther

represented by Geoffrey D. Weisbart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Lane Scarborough (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tonia Lea Lucio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/07/2009
01/13/2009 01/13/2009 01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/27/2009
01/29/2009 01/29/2009
02/12/2009

# Docket Text
49 Case transferred in from District of Northern District of California; Case Number 3:08−cv−4945−MHP. Original file with documents numbered 1−48, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received., filed by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 attachment #1, # 2 attachment #2, # 3 attachment #3, # 4 attachment #4, # 5 attachment #5, # 6 attachment #6, # 7 attachment #7, # 8 attachment #8, # 9 attachment #9, # 10 attachment #10)(ar, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
50 STANDING ORDER ON PROVISION OF CHAMBER'S COPY. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (ar, ) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
Remark − Called Attorneys: David W. Sanford, Steven L. Wittels, Thomas Marc Litton, Michael Burkhardt &Rebecca Dianne Eisen to inquire about the filing of Motion Pro Hac Vice. (ar, ) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
51 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jason Scott Boulette by on behalf of Dell, Inc.. (Boulette, Jason) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
52 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jason Scott Boulette by on behalf of Dell, Inc.. (Boulette, Jason) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
53 ORDER GRANTING 51 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order.; GRANTING 52 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (dl1, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
54 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Brittan L. Buchanan on behalf of Dell, Inc. (Buchanan, Brittan) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
55 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas by Dell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Richard Bye, # 3 Declaration of Craig Briscoe, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E)(Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
56 Agreed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 55 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 6 of 10

02/17/2009 02/23/2009 02/23/2009
02/24/2009
02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 03/03/2009 03/04/2009
03/04/2009
03/06/2009 03/09/2009

Order)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
Text Order GRANTING 56 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. EXTENDED to February 23, 2009. Entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appx to Pltfs Cross Motion to Stay Hubley Case, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Affidavit Cert of Service)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
58 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 55 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas filed by Defendant Dell, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appx to Ptfs Opp to Dell Mot to Transfer, # 2 Affidavit Cert of Service)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
59 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 55 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas filed by Defendant Dell, Inc. Corrected Memo of Law (Attachments: # 1 Errata Cover Letter re Corrections to Brief, # 2 Appendix Appx to Pltfs Opp to Dell Mot to Transfer, # 3 Affidavit Cert of Service)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
60 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Steven L. Wittels by on behalf of Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(dl1, ) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
61 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David W. Sanford by on behalf of Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(dl1, ) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid by Steven L. Wittels; Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 300001361. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid by David W. Sanford; Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 300001362. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
62 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Dell, Inc., re 55 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas filed by Defendant Dell, Inc. (Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
Text Order GRANTING 60 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
Text Order GRANTING 61 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
63 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Dell, Inc., re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
64 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jill Hubley, Laura Guenther, re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J.

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 7 of 10

03/11/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009 03/19/2009
03/19/2009
03/19/2009
03/19/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009

Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
65 Summons Issued as to Dell, Inc.. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
66 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) Modified on 3/17/2009 to correct filer information pursuant to message received from attorney (kc, ). (Entered: 03/16/2009)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches 66 Summons Returned Executed (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) Modified on 3/17/2009 to correct filer information pursuant to message received from attorney(kc, ). (Entered: 03/16/2009)
68 NOTICE of Filing Nineteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms by Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
Notice of Correction: re 67 Certificate of Service, 66 Summons Returned Executed. Law firm notified us that the filers selected during the submission was incorrect: Filers Hubley and Guenther have been removed from these entries. (kc, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
69 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative and Other Defenses by Dell, Inc..(Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches Plaintiffs' Reply to Hubley Plaintiffs' Amicus Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
72 AFFIDAVIT in Support of 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Reply to Defendant Dell and Hubley Plaintifs' Opposition to Cross−Motion by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−J)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches of 71 Reply to Response to Motion, 72 Affidavit in Support, 70 Reply to Response to Motion, (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
74 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Versions of Docket Nos. 70, 71, and 72 by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
75 ***DEFICIENT***REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 74 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Versions of Docket Nos. 70, 71, and 72 filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Tanya Putnam, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Christy Doshi, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches, 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches Plaintiffs' Corrected Memorandum in Reply to Defendant Dell's Opposition to Cross−Motion to Stay Hubley (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) Modified on 3/23/2009 (dl1, ). (Entered: 03/20/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 8 of 10

03/20/2009
03/20/2009
03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009
03/24/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/26/2009 03/30/2009 03/30/2009

76 ***DEFICIENT***REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 74 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Versions of Docket Nos. 70, 71, and 72 filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Tanya Putnam, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Christy Doshi, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches, 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches Plaintiffs' Corrected Memorandum in Reply to Hubley plaintiffs' Amicus Brief in Opposition to Cross Motion to Stay (Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) Modified on 3/23/2009 (dl1, ). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
77 ***DEFICIENT***AFFIDAVIT in Support of 74 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Versions of Docket Nos. 70, 71, and 72, 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case Corrected Reply Declaration of Steven L. Wittels and Rule 7(h) Certification by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A−J, # 2 Exhibit K)(Boyd−Nafstad, Christa) Modified on 3/23/2009 (dl1, ). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
78 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 75 Reply to Response to Motion, (should be filed as attachment to motion), (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
79 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 76 Reply to Response to Motion, (should be filed as attachment to motion), (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
80 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 77 Affidavit in Support,(should be attached to motion to file) (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
81 Amended MOTION to Substitute Corrected Versions of Documents 70, 71, and 72 by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Reply Memo to Dell's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Hubley, # 2 Brief Reply Memo to Hubley plaintiffs' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Hubley, # 3 Affidavit of Steven L. Wittels in Reply to Dell's and Hubley plaintiffs' Opposition, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
82 NOTICE of Filing Twentieth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
Text Order GRANTING 81 Motion to Substitute entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
84 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
85 RESPONSE to Hubley Plaintiffs' Amicus Brief in Opposition to Cross−Motion to Stay by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
86 NOTICE of Filing Declaration of Counsel by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
83 STIPULATION Re Pre−Trial Deadlines by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
87 NOTICE of Filing Twenty−First Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
88 MOTION for Hearing by Dell, Inc.. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 9 of 10

03/30/2009 03/31/2009 04/01/2009 04/02/2009
04/03/2009 04/06/2009
04/06/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/17/2009 04/22/2009 04/27/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009

89 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 88 MOTION for Hearing filed by Defendant Dell, Inc. (dl1, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
91 SUPPLEMENT to 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case by Jill Hubley, Laura Guenther. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Weisbart, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
92 Remark: letter sent to James Jones concerning his status (pro hac vice to be filed) (dl1, ) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
93 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches, re 57 Cross MOTION to Stay Second−Filed Hubley Case filed by Plaintiff Mildred J. Chapman, Plaintiff Angela Hopkins, Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey, Plaintiff Bethany Riches Opposition to Permitting Hubley Plaintiffs' Amicus Filings (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches for Plaintiffs' Opposition to Permitting the Hubley plaintiffs' Amicus Briefs 93 Reply to Response to Motion, (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
Text Order DENYING 88 Motion for Hearing. Construing the March 23, 2009, letter on behalf of Defendant Dell, Inc. as a Motion for Oral Hearing, the Court finds that an oral hearing is not necessary at this time. Entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
95 ORDER Denying re 83 Stipulation filed by Mildred J. Chapman, Tanya Putnam, Angela Hopkins, Christy Doshi, Julia M. Mahaffey, Bethany Riches and orders parties to submit joint report no later than 4/15/09. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (dl1, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
96 NOTICE of Filing Twenty−Second Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
Text Order MOOTING 57 Motion to Stay. Case was ORDERED transferred on May 15, 2009. Entered by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (KC) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
Notice of Correction: re Order on Motion to Stay. CASE WAS ORDERED TRANSFERRED ON APRIL 15, 2009, NOT MAY 15, 2009. (rc, ) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
97 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 55 Motion to Transfer Case Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (me, ) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
98 TRANSMITTAL LETTER re Transfer of Jurisdiction to Austin Division. (me, ) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
99 STIPULATION Re: Local Rule CV−23 and [Proposed] Order by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
100 Letters to attorneys re: case transfer. (klw, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
103 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by James Alton Jones ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 100002186)on behalf of Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (mc2, ) Modified on 5/5/2009 to correct receipt number (mc2, ). (Entered: 05/05/2009)
101 NOTICE of Filing Twenty−Third Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form of Dolores Quezda−Mearsby Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 5/5/2009 to add joiner's name (mc2, ). (Entered: 05/05/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-00311-JRN As of: 02/25/2013 07:56 PM CST 10 of 10

05/05/2009
05/05/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/06/2009 05/13/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009
05/15/2009 05/29/2009 06/02/2009 06/02/2009 07/10/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009

Notice of Correction: re 101 Notice of Filing. The electronic submission does not indicate the name of the person agreeing to be a party to this action. We will make the necessary modification to the docket entry for this pleading. No further action is required. Please note this information for future filings. (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
102 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 101 Notice of Filing, (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches for Dolores Quezada−Mears' Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form 101 Notice of Filing, 102 Deficiency Notice (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
105 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 104 Certificate of Service, 101 Notice of Filing, 102 Deficiency Notice (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
106 ORDER GRANTING 103 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to James Jones. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge James R. Nowlin. (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
107 NOTICE of Filing of Dolores Quezada−Mears' Corrected Consent to Join Form by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches (Wittels, Steven) Modified on 5/7/2009 to add text (mc2, ). (Entered: 05/06/2009)
108 NOTICE of Filing Vacation letter by Dell, Inc. (Buchanan, Brittan) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
109 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Dell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
Notice of Correction: re 109 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation. In the Austin Division, the motion for leave to exceed page limit and the document exceeding the page limit are filed as two separate electronic filings. Please immediately refile just the Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class and Collective Action Allegations. (mc2, ) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
110 Opposed MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Class and Collective Action Allegations by Dell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
111 STIPULATION Regarding Settlement with [Proposed] Order filed jointly by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Dell, Inc., Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Burkhardt, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
Text Order GRANTING 109 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages as UNOPPOSED per Local Rule CV−7(d) entered by Judge James R. Nowlin. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rcb) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
Text Order MOOTING 110 Motion to Strike in light of Clerk's Docket #111 entered by Judge James R. Nowlin. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rcb) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
112 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to Agreement by Christy Doshi, Tanya Putnam, Julia M. Mahaffey, Cassandra Sims, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Bethany Riches. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
113 ORDER granting 112 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Mildred J. Chapman, Tanya Putnam, Cassandra Sims, Angela Hopkins, Christy Doshi, Julia M. Mahaffey, Bethany Riches. Signed by Judge James R. Nowlin. (mc2, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
114 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge James R. Nowlin. (mc2, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

 
 Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 1 of 6
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,TRANSF
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08−cv−04945−MHP

Chapman et al v. Dell Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/29/2008 Date Terminated: 12/17/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mildred J. Chapman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 742−7780 Fax: (202) 742−7776 Email: dsanford@swhlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Lance Wittels Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (646) 723−2947 Fax: (646) 723−2948 Email: swittels@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton Sanford Wittels &Heisler, LLP 120 Montgomery Street Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−421−4770 Fax: 415−421−4784 Email: tmlitton@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Angela Hopkins on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Lance Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 2 of 6

Plaintiff Julia M. Mahaffey on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Bethany Riches on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lance Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lance Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Marc Litton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Dell Inc. formerly known as Dell Computer Corporation

represented by Michael S. Burkhardt Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−963−5130 Fax: 215−963−5001 Email: mburkhardt@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Dianne Eisen Morgan Lewis &Bockius, LLP One Market Plaza , Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 415/442−1328 Fax: 415−442−1001 Email: reisen@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 3 of 6

10/29/2008
10/29/2008
10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/06/2008 11/10/2008
11/11/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008
11/14/2008

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; Jury Trial Requested against Dell Inc. (Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt number 34611024915). Filed by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2008)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 2/2/2009. Case Management Conference set for 2/9/2009 04:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 MHP Standing Order, # 2 New Standing Order)(gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
3 Summons Issued as to Dell Inc.. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
4 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey First Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
5 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Second Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
6 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Third Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
7 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Fourth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/3/2008) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
8 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey SIXTH Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/3/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
9 EXHIBITS re 4 Notice (Other) Exhibit A filed byBethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/6/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
10 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey FIFTH Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/10/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2008)
11 NOTICE by Mildred J. Chapman SEVENTH NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN FORM (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/11/2008) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
12 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Eighth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
13 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Ninth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/13/2008) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
14 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dell Inc. [Certification of Interested Parties] (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
15 NOTICE by Dell Inc. Notice of Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding Pursuant to L.R. 3−13 (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed by Dell Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
17 Brief re 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed byDell Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit

Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 4 of 6

11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/21/2008

H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 16 ) (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
18 Declaration of Richard Bye in Support of 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed byDell Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
19 Declaration of Craig Briscoe in Support of 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed byDell Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
20 Proposed Order re 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] by Dell Inc.. (Eisen, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
21 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Michael S. Burkhardt Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025563) filed by Dell Inc.. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
22 Received Order re 21 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025563) by Dell Inc.. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2008)
23 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Tenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/17/2008) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
24 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Eleventh Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/18/2008) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
25 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Twelvth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
26 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel granting 21 Motion for Pro Hac Vice by Michael S. Burkhardt. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
29 MOTION for Admission of Steven L. Wittels Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025675) filed by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
30 Received Order re 29 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025675) by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2008)
31 MOTION for Admission of David Sanford Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025676) filed by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
32 Received Order re 31 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00, receipt number 34611025676) by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2008)
27 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Thirteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/20/2008) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
28 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Fourteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 11/21/2008) (Entered: 11/21/2008)

Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 5 of 6

12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008
12/01/2008
12/01/2008
12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/04/2008 12/05/2008 12/08/2008 12/08/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008

33 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Fifteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed by Mildred J. Chapman. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2008 10:00 AM. (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
35 Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Support of 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] filed byMildred J. Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Related document(s) 34 ) (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
36 Proposed Order re 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] by Mildred J. Chapman. (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
37 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Transfer Case [Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue] Certificate of Service by Thomas Marc Litton on behalf of Mildred J. Chapman (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
38 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 29 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney Steven L Wittels to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
39 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 31 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney David Sanford to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
40 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel DENYING/MODIFYING 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 16 MOTION to Transfer Case; Responses due by 12/15/2008; Replies due by 12/22/2008; Motion to be heard 1/5/2009 at 2:00 pm (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
41 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Sixteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/5/2008) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
42 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Seventeenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
43 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Eighteenth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
44 NOTICE by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey Revocation of Consent to Join Collective Action and Become Party Plaintiff (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
45 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 46 . *** STIPULATION Stipulation Consenting to Transfer Venue by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/18/2008 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2008)

Case: 3:08-cv-4945 As of: 09/25/2012 06:24 AM PDT 6 of 6

12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/31/2008 01/05/2009 01/12/2009

46 STIPULATION Stipulation Consenting to Transfer Venue by Bethany Riches, Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey. (Litton, Thomas) (Filed on 12/17/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
47 STIPULATION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Western District of Texas; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/16/2008. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
ERRONEOUS ENTRY Transferring case to the Western District of Texas electronically. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2008) Modified on 1/5/2009 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2008)
48 Certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet along with the original case file sent to Western District of Texas. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
49 Acknowledgement Receipt from Western District of Texas of transferred case. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)